Bills vow Doug Marrone will make them winners

[eball]

 

Maybe it's my lone ranger quest to right a wrong. If I see someone's reputation unfairly trashed, I feel a need to respond to correct the fallacy. Why do you think jw jumps into the fray. Even Graham left here largely not because he was getting trashed, but because a colleague was getting trashed. Same with Lori.

 

As for a consumer's rights to criticize a product, what do you think the critics of the Buffalo Bills have been doing for 12 years? What do you think is the main reason people are increasingly annoyed that this has been the driest spell between winning seasons and playoff appearances in the franchise history. There absolutely is an expectation to criticize an inferior product. But the criticism has to be proper and not misdirected in a scattershot approach.

 

I've been more vocal about it this year, because frankly I got tired of seeing the same pollyannas trash other fans for not having a positive outlook, without providing a tangible reason other than, "Well, this time it's different." You know, the same people who were calling out posters who didn't think that elevating Wannstedt to defensive coordinator was an improvement. The same people who suddenly saw the light and called Wannstedt a disaster a few months later.

 

Who knows, maybe this year is different. But this franchise has done very little over the decade to inspire confidence, and Brandon pulling PR machinations to rouse up the fan base will do nothing to the product on the field.

 

I think I might vomit. GG "righting the wrongs" done to all the respected local journalists. Hilarious.

 

Noticed you brought out "pollyanna" to go along with "sunshiner" -- further exposing your disgust for optimistic fans on a fan forum.

[BillsVet]

BillsVet tends to make himself scarce when the Bills are winning. When we started hot in 2011, he was nowhere to be found on these forums. Until we started losing.

 

The old "throw it against the wall and see if it sticks" method. Why don't you try proving that I wasn't around early in the 2011 season before alleging it?

 

Then again, this isn't the first time you've conducted yourself this way. I recall you saying I said the Bills 2010 UFA signings were bad, which I hadn't. I then asked you for evidence and you couldn't/didn't respond.

 

It's the skeptical people who've been justified more often than not on this board. Of course, that skepticism angle is magically changed by some here to seem as though we take pleasure in saying that.

 

I've been here for going on 7 years, but I'll be sure to bow to your omniscience and unsubstantiated allegations.

[Ramius]

The old "throw it against the wall and see if it sticks" method. Why don't you try proving that I wasn't around early in the 2011 season before alleging it?

 

Then again, this isn't the first time you've conducted yourself this way. I recall you saying I said the Bills 2010 UFA signings were bad, which I hadn't. I then asked you for evidence and you couldn't/didn't respond.

 

It's the skeptical people who've been justified more often than not on this board. Of course, that skepticism angle is magically changed by some here to seem as though we take pleasure in saying that.

 

I've been here for going on 7 years, but I'll be sure to bow to your omniscience and unsubstantiated allegations.

 

Predicting negativity is the easiest thing in the world to do. Given the extremely low odds of player/team success in the NFL (or any professional sport), if you always predict the negative result, you'll be right much more often than not. There are numerous posters on this site that wallow in their own filth when the Bills suck for yet another year, because they are proven "right" about their predictions.

 

Negativity (and positivity) is much easier to take from posters who occasionally show opinions that come from the other side as well.

 

Let's focus a little bit on the distinctions and what my comments were about. I don't think the Bills will be the worst team in the league this year. The silver linings on defense are enough to eek out a few more wins. But there are still many questions surrounding this team and no one really knows how the rookie coach will handle the big leagues. History isn't kind to first time coaches.

 

I also get a kick out of the sunshiners' annual lovefest with the team's new direction. I get it, it's a fan site and there's always a reason to be optimistic about your team, especially when this time it looks to be different. But there's nothing in the past performance of this team that should indicate that suddenly the front office has seen the light.

 

What really got me is that the sunshiners love to bash the local press who are paid to be objective in covering the team. Then they bring in opinions of the national press guys under the pretense that the national press doesn't have an axe to grind with OBD and will be more objective. If you look at the history though, the local press has been more right than not when looking into a rear view mirror.

 

I also don't fault Brandon & Co for putting out the positive spin on the eve of the season. It's his job. But I also think the team has gone into overdrive in using the media to push their rebuilding. Please don't try to sell the Yahoo piece as a piece of journalism. It was an extension of the Bills' PR department and people should see the article for what it was. Again, would people give it the same consideration if it was written by Chris Brown or Scott Berchtold?

 

So the positive article is a "PR puff piece" while all the negative articles from the locals is "objectivity."

 

You've highlighted and done exactly what most of us "sunshiners" have been arguing about this entire thread.

[bills44]

"Realists", "skeptics"

 

Why don't we just call a spade a spade?

[GG]

 

So the positive article is a "PR puff piece" while all the negative articles from the locals is "objectivity."

 

You've highlighted and done exactly what most of us "sunshiners" have been arguing about this entire thread.

 

Did you wonder why I called out the positive Yahoo article and not the other positive pieces from other national writers? Put your thinking cap on.

[BillsVet]

Predicting negativity is the easiest thing in the world to do. Given the extremely low odds of player/team success in the NFL (or any professional sport), if you always predict the negative result, you'll be right much more often than not. There are numerous posters on this site that wallow in their own filth when the Bills suck for yet another year, because they are proven "right" about their predictions.

 

Negativity (and positivity) is much easier to take from posters who occasionally show opinions that come from the other side as well.

 

Let's not conflate the argument. The team has won no less than 4 games and no more than 7 since 2006. Both times the team showed any level of success in the past 8 seasons it quickly petered out after week 8.

 

It's skepticism at this point to express some concern about this franchise given the track record, not the widely used negativity explanation. Is it negativity to think the team will struggle with: a rookie HC, a rookie OC, a likely rookie QB, 1-2 rookie WR's, the loss of their best OLineman, a new defense being implemented, a rookie ILB, and at least one new starter in the secondary? Does that lend itself to success? And is it reasonable to predict they're will be growing pains given these facts?

 

And you forgot to walk back your unsubstantiated allegations about my presence on this board.

Edited August 7, 2013 by BillsVet

[GG]

Let's not conflate the argument. The team has won no less than 4 games and no more than 7 since 2006. Both times the team showed any level of success in the past 8 seasons it quickly petered out after week 8.

 

It's skepticism at this point to express some concern about this franchise given the track record, not the widely used negativity explanation. Is it negativity to think the team will struggle with: a rookie HC, a rookie OC, a likely rookie QB, 1-2 rookie WR's, the loss of their best OLineman, a new defense being implemented, a rookie ILB, and at least one new starter in the secondary? Does that lend itself to success? And is it reasonable to predict they're will be growing pains given these facts?

 

And you forgot to walk back your unsubstantiated allegations about my presence on this board.

 

Never mind the proclamations that Buddy left the team in better shape than the one he inherited ...

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I also thought that Carpenter was a respected NFL writer. Perhaps he still is. But after doing a little checking, he has dual roles at Yahoo! Sports. In one, he's an NFL columnist, in the other, he's an "expert" on football for Yahoo's unit that helps PR departments push their stories.

 

Here's the web description:

More from Yahoo: "If you're a PR professional and would like to send us a pitch idea, please contact ..."

 

The reason I decided to research his credentials is that I hadn't seen him do a lot of Bills pieces before, but he had a lot of detail surrounding the Marrone & Pettine hires. A lot of that detail could only be provided by the team. After finding out his dual roles at Yahoo, I connected the dots. You may choose to believe that he wrote the article on his own, without a lot of help from Scott Berchtold, but that's not how I'm seeing the piece.

 

It is highly ironic that the same people who are slamming local Buffalo press are falling head over heels over a PR puff piece. This is not new in the news business, and most people don't realize why a nice human interest story about a local car dealership would show up in the paper. But usually that would show up in the lifestyle section of the paper. I think that Yahoo is really stretching the standards of newsgathering when they combine the jobs of their columnists and experts and tag it as a sports story. But hey, people got an independent confirmation that the Bills President is optimistic about his new coach. He has a vision and a starategy now.

 

Would you kindly link for us the Yahoo statement that Les Carpenter is part of a "Yahoo unit that helps PR departments push their stories?"

 

I'm curious to know how you found out that Carpenter has "dual roles."

 

Is this the same for all of Yahoo's sports writers?

 

Or is Carpenter among a small group of Yahoo sportswriters with a "dual role?"

[thewildrabbit]

Man the kool-aid drinkers are out in force in this thread. Sleep easy guys knowing that Ralph Wilson loves you all.

 

 

I don't have great expectations for this year. Anything better then what Gailey did in his first season would show an improvement.

[eball]

Never mind the proclamations that Buddy left the team in better shape than the one he inherited ...

 

He didn't? This gets better and better.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Never mind the proclamations that Buddy left the team in better shape than the one he inherited ...

 

I was still mulling over the implication that winning the Super Bowl was the only way any team can show organizational competence.

[HankBulloughMellencamp]

Never mind the proclamations that Buddy left the team in better shape than the one he inherited ...

 

How convenient that GG not only breaks the case open on the alleged Scott Bertchtold puppeteering of one Les Carpenter, but staunchly defends all of the petulant News writers whose reputations are "on the line"/regularly being damaged here at TBD. As if the criticism is totally unwarranted and people's opinions expressed in a fan forum are the equivalent of TBN job performance reviews ... (some of us could only wish there exists such a connection!)

 

And finally, GG can not resist pissing on all of the "pollyannas" who have expressed optimism and support for the latest changes made to the organization/roster by slamming Buddy Nix one last time about the quality of the roster today versus what he walked into back in 2010. Laughable.

 

At this point, one can only surmise that GG is likely:

(a) a hard-wired conspiracy theorist

(b) a quite miserable curmudgeon who only feels better by venting their frustrations and/or getting a rise out of people who are not nearly as miserable

© affliliated with or beholden to those at the News whose reputations are "on the line"

(d) living in the past, and having a lot of trouble seeing the forest through all those trees

(e) all of the above, and then some

 

My vote is obviously for (e).

[JohnC]

He didn't? This gets better and better.

 

The GM for the Seahawks started at the same time that Nix started with the Bills. In the third year the GM for the Seahawks, John Schneider, turned that team around and made them a legitimate SB contending team. He also drafted an exciting qb prospect who Nix passed on. When the roster he assembled played the roster Nix assembled last year in Toronto his team won by a score of 50-17.

 

The GM for the Redskins started at the same time that Nix did for the Bills. Mike Shanahan took over a cap straitjacketed team, including the weight of Haynesworth's contract, and in short order cleansed the roster and got his team into the playoffs last year. He gave up a boatload of draft picks to draft a terrific qb, RGIII, In addition, Shanahan had to contend with a $36 M penalty cap hit ($18M last year and $18 M this year). Now his team is considered a serious playoff and SB contending team.

 

Buddy Nix's record during his three year stint was 16-32. Nix's HCing selection, Gailey, was your standard retread and uninspiring hiring. Any fair-minded person who evaluates what the two prior mentioned GMs achieved compared to Nix's three year record will conclude that Nix was a failure.

 

Arguing that everything he did wasn't wrong is a back handed way of saying that the overall job he did wasn't very adequate. Making an argument that he left the team better than when he found it is a foolish way to rate his performance. First off he took over a team that wasn't very good. In a typical three year rebuilding cycle he made it (possibly) slightly better. In other words he didn't come close to accomplishing what a good GM could have accomplished in that same time period. It is more of an issue of what you could have done than what you actually did with your opportunities.

 

The Bills are in a rebuilding mode again following the Nix stint. If this new regime repeated the performance of the Nix tenure they would unequivocally be declared a failure. So by using that same measure why is it unfair and unreasonable to say that Nix is a failure? If it is not about the record then what is it about? Manufacturing non-existent metrics in order to prove a fallacy is a weak position to take a stand on.

[papazoid]

 

 

The GM for the Seahawks started at the same time that Nix started with the Bills. In the third year the GM for the Seahawks, John Schneider, turned that team around and made them a legitimate SB contending team. He also drafted an exciting qb prospect who Nix passed on. When the roster he assembled played the roster Nix assembled last year in Toronto his team won by a score of 50-17.

 

The GM for the Redskins started at the same time that Nix did for the Bills. Mike Shanahan took over a cap straitjacketed team, including the weight of Haynesworth's contract, and in short order cleansed the roster and got his team into the playoffs last year. He gave up a boatload of draft picks to draft a terrific qb, RGIII, In addition, Shanahan had to contend with a $36 M penalty cap hit ($18M last year and $18 M this year). Now his team is considered a serious playoff and SB contending team.

 

Buddy Nix's record during his three year stint was 16-32. Nix's HCing selection, Gailey, was your standard retread and uninspiring hiring. Any fair-minded person who evaluates what the two prior mentioned GMs achieved compared to Nix's three year record will conclude that Nix was a failure.

 

Arguing that everything he did wasn't wrong is a back handed way of saying that the overall job he did wasn't very adequate. Making an argument that he left the team better than when he found it is a foolish way to rate his performance. First off he took over a team that wasn't very good. In a typical three year rebuilding cycle he made it (possibly) slightly better. In other words he didn't come close to accomplishing what a good GM could have accomplished in that same time period. It is more of an issue of what you could have done than what you actually did with your opportunities.

 

The Bills are in a rebuilding mode again following the Nix stint. If this new regime repeated the performance of the Nix tenure they would unequivocally be declared a failure. So by using that same measure why is it unfair and unreasonable to say that Nix is a failure? If it is not about the record then what is it about? Manufacturing non-existent metrics in order to prove a fallacy is a weak position to take a stand on.

 

WIN/LOSS RECORD BY YEAR

 

2006 - 7/9

2007 - 7/9

2008 - 7/9

2009 - 6/10 (buddy scout)

2010 - 4/12 (buddy GM)

2011 - 6/10 (buddy GM)

2012 - 6/10 (buddy GM)

[GG]

Would you kindly link for us the Yahoo statement that Les Carpenter is part of a "Yahoo unit that helps PR departments push their stories?"

 

I'm curious to know how you found out that Carpenter has "dual roles."

 

Is this the same for all of Yahoo's sports writers?

 

Or is Carpenter among a small group of Yahoo sportswriters with a "dual role?"

 

Here you go, and here. Not all Yahoo! sports writers are "experts"

 

He didn't? This gets better and better.

 

By most reasonable measures - W/L records, roster composition, he did not. See above.

 

Carry on.

 

How convenient that GG not only breaks the case open on the alleged Scott Bertchtold puppeteering of one Les Carpenter, but staunchly defends all of the petulant News writers whose reputations are "on the line"/regularly being damaged here at TBD. As if the criticism is totally unwarranted and people's opinions expressed in a fan forum are the equivalent of TBN job performance reviews ... (some of us could only wish there exists such a connection!)

 

And finally, GG can not resist pissing on all of the "pollyannas" who have expressed optimism and support for the latest changes made to the organization/roster by slamming Buddy Nix one last time about the quality of the roster today versus what he walked into back in 2010. Laughable.

 

At this point, one can only surmise that GG is likely:

(a) a hard-wired conspiracy theorist

(b) a quite miserable curmudgeon who only feels better by venting their frustrations and/or getting a rise out of people who are not nearly as miserable

© affliliated with or beholden to those at the News whose reputations are "on the line"

(d) living in the past, and having a lot of trouble seeing the forest through all those trees

(e) all of the above, and then some

 

My vote is obviously for (e).

 

Just out of curiosity, what is the conspiracy that I've unearthed?

[JohnC]

WIN/LOSS RECORD BY YEAR

 

2006 - 7/9

2007 - 7/9

2008 - 7/9

2009 - 6/10 (buddy scout)

2010 - 4/12 (buddy GM)

2011 - 6/10 (buddy GM)

2012 - 6/10 (buddy GM)

 

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. The record under Nix was worse but that doesn't mean that he didn't marginally improve the roster by making it bigger and stronger. My central point is that anyone who makes the claim that Nix did a good job during his three year stint has little basis to make that claim. When you compare his performance to GMs who started at the same time as he did and took over just as bad rosters then his performance is rated as very poor.

 

A three year rebuilding cycle is enough time to turn around a franchise. He took over a franchise that was stuck in the mud and he left a franchise that was stuck in the mud and out of gas. Yet there are people who are singing his praise. That I don't understand.

[thebandit27]

The old "throw it against the wall and see if it sticks" method. Why don't you try proving that I wasn't around early in the 2011 season before alleging it?

 

Then again, this isn't the first time you've conducted yourself this way. I recall you saying I said the Bills 2010 UFA signings were bad, which I hadn't. I then asked you for evidence and you couldn't/didn't respond.

 

It's the skeptical people who've been justified more often than not on this board. Of course, that skepticism angle is magically changed by some here to seem as though we take pleasure in saying that.

 

I've been here for going on 7 years, but I'll be sure to bow to your omniscience and unsubstantiated allegations.

 

The problem here is that a healthy dose of skepticism, vis a vis "let's wait and see" is perfectly fine. That's not what the vast majority of self-proclaimed "realists" or "skeptics" on this board do; they broadcast the doom and gloom with amazing consistency and show no hesitancy to throw water on any positive sentiment.

 

That's why threads like this one always end up the same way: with a tit-for-tat between the "realists" and the "kool-aid drinkers".

 

In reality, my observation is that what exists on this board is a dichotomy between two types of fans: those that are excited about watching the team play, and those that aren't, and that manifests itself in nearly every thread.

 

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. The record under Nix was worse but that doesn't mean that he didn't marginally improve the roster by making it bigger and stronger. My central point is that anyone who makes the claim that Nix did a good job during his three year stint has little basis to make that claim. When you compare his performance to GMs who started at the same time as he did and took over just as bad rosters then his performance is rated as very poor.

 

A three year rebuilding cycle is enough time to turn around a franchise. He took over a franchise that was stuck in the mud and he left a franchise that was stuck in the mud and out of gas. Yet there are people who are singing his praise. That I don't understand.

 

I think you've come pretty close to nailing the Nix tenure. The only thing I'll add is that Buddy's relative failure is, in my opinion, largely characterized by the inability to add a franchise QB. The only obvious examples are passing on Kaepernick and Dalton in 2011 and Wilson in 2012, but that's been the issue.

 

If EJ turns out to be the guy, then I think the Nix era will end up a decidedly different animal, assuming Nix gets some of the credit for that pick.

[eball]

The problem here is that a healthy dose of skepticism, vis a vis "let's wait and see" is perfectly fine. That's not what the vast majority of self-proclaimed "realists" or "skeptics" on this board do; they broadcast the doom and gloom with amazing consistency and show no hesitancy to throw water on any positive sentiment.

 

That's why threads like this one always end up the same way: with a tit-for-tat between the "realists" and the "kool-aid drinkers".

 

In reality, my observation is that what exists on this board is a dichotomy between two types of fans: those that are excited about watching the team play, and those that aren't, and that manifests itself in nearly every thread.

 

Hence my sarcastic-but-not-all-that-unreasonable request for two pinned threads at the top of the board -- one for the optimists and one for the realists. Everyone can get his or her fix.

 

I think you've come pretty close to nailing the Nix tenure. The only thing I'll add is that Buddy's relative failure is, in my opinion, largely characterized by the inability to add a franchise QB. The only obvious examples are passing on Kaepernick and Dalton in 2011 and Wilson in 2012, but that's been the issue.

 

If EJ turns out to be the guy, then I think the Nix era will end up a decidedly different animal, assuming Nix gets some of the credit for that pick.

 

I reject the notion that W-L record is all we look at to determine whether the team is in better or worse shape than when Buddy became GM. I have eyes; I can see the difference in talent and philosophy. The "just see if we can hang on" Bills under Jauron were an absolute bore to watch, and we all knew they had no real chance.

 

There is no reason to suggest Buddy did not play a large role in the current roster, including the recent draft.

[CodeMonkey]

So your theory is that Brandon knows that Marrone will stink up the joint and is just shuckin' and jivin' to sell tickets? That he has no faith, no hope in Marrone whatsoever and is just tossing the bull to the ignorant fan base?

 

I don't know, but I think Brandon probably believes Marrone is, in fact, going to be a winning coach and return the Bills to the plus side of the ledger. If he doesn't, if he thinks the guy is no good, then he's either terribly cynical or insane. Your opinion only makes sense if he doesn't believe in Marrone.

I guess it isn't simple, or you are just being obtuse. But I will try once more. I do not know what Brandon thinks. Either do you I assume. But your assumption that Brandon thinks Marrone will be a good coach is logical and is probably true. But no matter what he thinks, he is only going to make statements that help ticket sales, not hurt them. That's what he gets paid to do, make Mr. Wilson money. So when you hear a marketing person talk like that, it really doesn't mean much. That is my only point. I am saying nothing about what Brandon really thinks because I have no idea.

[JohnC]

 

In reality, my observation is that what exists on this board is a dichotomy between two types of fans: those that are excited about watching the team play, and those that aren't, and that manifests itself in nearly every thread.

 

I was not excited when I watched the Bills get beat by the Seahawks in Toronto by a score of 50-17. It might have been fun for you but for me it wasn't very entertaining. I grant you that being entertained isn't always about wins and losses. It has more to do with watching quality performances and competitive games regardless of the outcome. Most people will probably acknowldege that by the time the team enters the second half of the season the enthusiasm does start to wan and talk about the next draft spikes up.