New GM, New Philosophy

[BADOLBILZ]

You mean the "shooting fish in a barrel" crowd?

 

BillsVet is no more accurate a prognosticator than any of the solid posters on this board.

 

Yes I said he's a solid poster.

 

And I can name about 50 solid posters on either side of "the aisle."

 

Don't pretend that being a Bills pessimist or optimist has any correlation with having accurate football takes.

 

Objectivity is the difference. I think he is objective, there just hasn't been much to be excited about for 14 years.

 

I was here in the mid-1990's when it was Hyperbills. I was mostly right then and have been mostly right ever since. It's not that hard to be objective.

 

There will always be pessimists. Those people who were pessimists when the Bills were winning............they aren't here anymore. Because the team is IRRELEVANT in the NFL landscape. Not worth their time.

 

Most of the "pessimists" here are just realists who want to see things turned around. The "optimists" have their reasons as well......but being objective is obviously not one of them. I feel kinda' sad for some of the people who have to deny the facts to deal with this team.

 

It's a pasttime. If you can't be objective you have an unhealthy relationship with the game.

 

I am wondering if spiller will even be on the roster next year. I would think that he would make an excellent kick return guy on the special teams. That might afford him the time to really watch what the defenses of other teams present at different times. A lot of the times there are holes there for him, but he just isn't seeing the gaps this year. Might be the result of too much pressure to perform, or follow last years numbers.

 

You do realize that the guy you are responding to was predicting this summer that Spiller was going to become a HOF'er?

 

Spiller is not a great player.....I would hope that is clear by now.......but he will get back to making some great plays when the OL is improved and the QB can be trusted enough to spread out the defense a bit more.

Edited November 25, 2013 by BADOLBEELZ

[Rico]

While I am not sure I believe that the league is looking for smaller lineman......it is important to note one thing about BillsVet:

 

He is usually right.

 

Contrast that with many of the people who get upset with the things he posts:

 

They are usually wrong.

 

Given those facts.........I do not understand the outrage at his posts.

 

The Bills organization are the one's with something to prove, not their detractors. Their detractors have been right for 14 straight years.

 

y'all are the definition of "haters gonna' hate".

 

Sad to say, but posters who are almost always wrong don't have much credibility at all.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

 

Sad to say, but posters who are almost always wrong don't have much credibility at all.

 

Why is that sad?

 

People who are wrong shouldn't have credibility. That's something that you should be happy about.

 

I reject Badol's notion that the pessimists are "more objective" than the optimists. There's no logical argument to back it up and it's certainly not what I've witnessed on this board.

 

That's like saying there are more good people who are Christian than there are that are Atheists. It's like saying there are more good people who are liberals than conservatives. There is no basis in fact for these beliefs.

 

From what I've seen it's pretty equal and you're better off taking things on a case by case basis as opposed to sweeping generalizations with no basis in fact.

 

I'm done hijacking this thread.

 

Believe what you want.

[BADOLBILZ]

Why is that sad?

 

People who are wrong shouldn't have credibility. That's something that you should be happy about.

 

I reject Badol's notion that the pessimists are "more objective" than the optimists. There's no logical argument to back it up and it's certainly not what I've witnessed on this board.

 

That's like saying there are more good people who are Christian than there are that are Atheists. It's like saying there are more good people who are liberals than conservatives. There is no basis in fact for these beliefs.

 

From what I've seen it's pretty equal and you're better off taking things on a case by case basis as opposed to sweeping generalizations with no basis in fact.

 

I'm done hijacking this thread.

 

Believe what you want.

 

Nonsense, you just mischaracterize a lot of objective posters as pessimists.

 

Too many optimists demand the organization be given respect and faith be put in the organization. When it's not given that becomes an outlet for the pessimists to displace their anger with the losing.

 

That's just not how objectivity works. it's a product. Respect has to be earned.

 

Despite your 20 million posts I do not recall you being on here when the Bills were a good team so perhaps you should just take it from me.

[Dibs]

Nonsense, you just mischaracterize a lot of objective posters as pessimists.

 

Too many optimists demand the organization be given respect and faith be put in the organization. When it's not given that becomes an outlet for the pessimists to displace their anger with the losing.

 

That's just not how objectivity works. it's a product. Respect has to be earned.

 

Despite your 20 million posts I do not recall you being on here when the Bills were a good team so perhaps you should just take it from me.

 

That isn't what he was saying at all. He was saying that both pessimists and optimists can be guilty of lacking objectivity......and it is illogical to assume one over the other(in this case pessimists) has more inherent objectivity.

 

Being objective means that you can see something clearly without letting emotions cloud your conclusions.

 

An example would be the Bills this off-season. New President, new GM, new HC, new coaches, new QB.

Objectively one would have to say "Let's wait and see how this is going to go before making judgements."

 

The Optimist would say "This is great, we are finally heading in the right direction."

The Pessimist would say "These new guys are nothing until they have proven themselves." ...or worse "This is the same schit, different boat."

[San Jose Bills Fan]

That isn't what he was saying at all. He was saying that both pessimists and optimists can be guilty of lacking objectivity......and it is illogical to assume one over the other(in this case pessimists) has more inherent objectivity.

 

Being objective means that you can see something clearly without letting emotions cloud your conclusions.

 

An example would be the Bills this off-season. New President, new GM, new HC, new coaches, new QB.

Objectively one would have to say "Let's wait and see how this is going to go before making judgements."

 

The Optimist would say "This is great, we are finally heading in the right direction."

The Pessimist would say "These new guys are nothing until they have proven themselves." ...or worse "This is the same schit, different boat."

 

That's what I believe and what I was trying to express.

 

Thanks Dibs.

[BADOLBILZ]

That isn't what he was saying at all. He was saying that both pessimists and optimists can be guilty of lacking objectivity......and it is illogical to assume one over the other(in this case pessimists) has more inherent objectivity.

 

Being objective means that you can see something clearly without letting emotions cloud your conclusions.

 

An example would be the Bills this off-season. New President, new GM, new HC, new coaches, new QB.

Objectively one would have to say "Let's wait and see how this is going to go before making judgements."

 

The Optimist would say "This is great, we are finally heading in the right direction."

The Pessimist would say "These new guys are nothing until they have proven themselves." ...or worse "This is the same schit, different boat."

 

Well, I guess I am the most objective fan you will find then because I am not emotionally effected by the team. I am jovial before the game....and regardless of the outcome I am the same way after it. It's just a game to me.

 

And that being said......the objective viewpoint is that the president and the gm weren't really all that new. Not that "new" is even what they needed, but they certainly weren't entirely unaccountable for the past failings of the organization which is what *new* suggests.

 

Whaley has been the #2 personnel man here for the three previous seasons......basically he has been responsible for setting the draft board for this team for years.....inarguably the most important job in the personnel department.....and Brandon has served as GM prior to being president. While Whaley may not have to answer to Nix now, I am not really sure that was exactly their relationship to start with and we really don't know what more Brandon does than he was doing last November.

 

The head coach arrived after compiling a .500 record in a middle-of-road conference in Div. 1 college football. The QB has had success in college but was far from dominant on that level. These are objective viewpoints.

 

What YOU are asking for is at it's root, unobjective.

[Dibs]

.....

And that being said......the objective viewpoint is that the president and the gm weren't really all that new. Not that "new" is even what they needed, but they certainly weren't entirely unaccountable for the past failings of the organization which is what *new* suggests.

 

Whaley has been the #2 personnel man here for the three previous seasons......basically he has been responsible for setting the draft board for this team for years.....inarguably the most important job in the personnel department.....and Brandon has served as GM prior to being president. While Whaley may not have to answer to Nix now, I am not really sure that was exactly their relationship to start with and we really don't know what more Brandon does than he was doing last November.

So you obviously agree that their abilities in their *new* roles cannot be assessed properly until they have had the chance to fully show just how good/mediocre/bad they are at them.

 

....

The head coach arrived after compiling a .500 record in a middle-of-road conference in Div. 1 college football. The QB has had success in college but was far from dominant on that level. These are objective viewpoints.

....

Yes, but they are objective viewpoints which don't and can't form objective conclusions.

 

Another objective viewpoint that doesn't and can't form an objective conclusion is that Marrone brought a failing, flailing and abysmal college football program into that of relative strength, stability and success despite the limited player resources he had to work with.

 

....

What YOU are asking for is at it's root, unobjective.

I think you'll find that it's not.

[BADOLBILZ]

So you obviously agree that their abilities in their *new* roles cannot be assessed properly until they have had the chance to fully show just how good/mediocre/bad they are at them.

 

 

Yes, but they are objective viewpoints which don't and can't form objective conclusions.

 

Another objective viewpoint that doesn't and can't form an objective conclusion is that Marrone brought a failing, flailing and abysmal college football program into that of relative strength, stability and success despite the limited player resources he had to work with.

 

 

I think you'll find that it's not.

 

You want people to see things from one side. I am willing to look at them from both. The hype on Brandon, Whaley and Marrone is what we were sold. That is the job of the PR machine. They are a business. The other side of the coin is that they are three guys with track records to draw from........none particularly indicative of future success in their new roles. At best they are unproven. Now if they had hired a coach who has won on the NFL level.....something they have only done once in their history......then there is reason to suggest that this is more than a shot in the dark. Same goes for GM and President. Track records count. Especially in the NFL......where you are what your record says you are. What you want is blind faith. The NFL and their product endorsers appreciate that greatly but it really isn't any part of objectivity.

[BillsBytheBay]

 

 

A little different meaning now. When nix took over from Jauron we has 53 DBs.

lol, really, I choked a bit..

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Objectively one would have to say "Let's wait and see how this is going to go before making judgements."

 

The Optimist would say "This is great, we are finally heading in the right direction."

The Pessimist would say "These new guys are nothing until they have proven themselves." ...or worse "This is the same schit, different boat."

 

Well, I guess I am the most objective fan you will find then because I am not emotionally effected by the team. I am jovial before the game....and regardless of the outcome I am the same way after it. It's just a game to me.

 

And that being said......the objective viewpoint is that the president and the gm weren't really all that new. Not that "new" is even what they needed, but they certainly weren't entirely unaccountable for the past failings of the organization which is what *new* suggests.

 

Whaley has been the #2 personnel man here for the three previous seasons......basically he has been responsible for setting the draft board for this team for years.....inarguably the most important job in the personnel department.....and Brandon has served as GM prior to being president. While Whaley may not have to answer to Nix now, I am not really sure that was exactly their relationship to start with and we really don't know what more Brandon does than he was doing last November.

 

The head coach arrived after compiling a .500 record in a middle-of-road conference in Div. 1 college football. The QB has had success in college but was far from dominant on that level. These are objective viewpoints.

 

What YOU are asking for is at it's root, unobjective.

 

Dibs said the objectivist would say "let's wait and see."

 

You're criticizing his view of an optimist, not an objectivist.

[BADOLBILZ]

Dibs said the objectivist would say "let's wait and see."

 

You're criticizing his view of an optimist, not an objectivist.

 

I think when you are being objective, the track record of the Pres/GM/Coaches are part of the equation. Past performance.....or lack of it......are pertinent.

 

Nothing wrong with hoping for the best but hope is not an arguing position.

 

Many of the "optimists" on this board are actually apologists. Willing to make excuses for the organization to create a position from which to argue.

 

The result is A LOT of negativity toward fellow fans.

[Dibs]

I think when you are being objective, the track record of the Pres/GM/Coaches are part of the equation. Past performance.....or lack of it......are pertinent.

....

Agreed. Past performance are pertinent....but pertinent to what?

As nobody has any real idea of how much influence they had in the previous regime, nor how much differently they will do things now that their potentially theoretical shackles have been(or not been) removed......one cannot objectively judge them until they have had some legitimate past performance, which will likely take at least a few years.

 

....

Nothing wrong with hoping for the best but hope is not an arguing position.

 

Many of the "optimists" on this board are actually apologists. Willing to make excuses for the organization to create a position from which to argue.

 

The result is A LOT of negativity toward fellow fans.

Agreed again.....but it is not just the purview of the optimist to come to irrational conclusions and then strongly voice them. From what I have seen it is usually the irrationally critical pessimistic posts that draw out the optimists' apologist reaction.

 

I believe that the type of poster who causes the most trouble is the one who draws a fixed conclusion on a topic where a fixed conclusion is impossible(most topics fit this)....and then dogmatically argues the case.

Topics such as:

Will EJ be a bust/star?

Is the new GM/HC/OC any good?

Is SJ a good WR?

etc, etc, etc.

 

None of those questions can be objectively definitively answered at this point, and any dogmatic arguments one way or the other on the subjects is bound to draw opposition from either the optimists or pessimists......as well as the objective thinker.

 

 

I feel I should add one more point on viewing things objectively.

You said earlier that you are relatively emotionless in regards to following football. You must acknowledge though that most others are not the same way....or at least have regular difficulty, due to those emotions, to think objectively. It makes sense that "what" and "how" an objective poster reacts to non-objectivity can help nullify or exacerbate argument.

 

When I see an irrationally optimistic post I tend to think "I hope you are right, and I will feel pity for you if you are wrong and your irrational dreams are crushed."....and I leave them with their good, fuzzy, and mostly harmless thoughts.

 

When I see an irrationally pessimistic post I tend to think "Ugg....why are you irrationally schitting on peoples hopes and dreams." ....and I will then often try to succinctly show them where they are being irrational.

Edited November 26, 2013 by Dibs

[BADOLBILZ]

Agreed. Past performance are pertinent....but pertinent to what?

As nobody has any real idea of how much influence they had in the previous regime, nor how much differently they will do things now that their potentially theoretical shackles have been(or not been) removed......one cannot objectively judge them until they have had some legitimate past performance, which will likely take at least a few years.

 

 

Agreed again.....but it is not just the purview of the optimist to come to irrational conclusions and then strongly voice them. From what I have seen it is usually the irrationally critical pessimistic posts that draw out the optimists' apologist reaction.

 

I believe that the type of poster who causes the most trouble is the one who draws a fixed conclusion on a topic where a fixed conclusion is impossible(most topics fit this)....and then dogmatically argues the case.

Topics such as:

Will EJ be a bust/star?

Is the new GM/HC/OC any good?

Is SJ a good WR?

etc, etc, etc.

 

None of those questions can be objectively definitively answered at this point, and any dogmatic arguments one way or the other on the subjects is bound to draw opposition from either the optimists or pessimists......as well as the objective thinker.

 

 

I feel I should add one more point on viewing things objectively.

You said earlier that you are relatively emotionless in regards to following football. You must acknowledge though that most others are not the same way....or at least have regular difficulty, due to those emotions, to think objectively. It makes sense that "what" and "how" an objective poster reacts to non-objectivity can help nullify or exacerbate argument.

 

When I see an irrationally optimistic post I tend to think "I hope you are right, and I will feel pity for you if you are wrong and your irrational dreams are crushed."....and I leave them with their good, fuzzy, and mostly harmless thoughts.

 

When I see an irrationally pessimistic post I tend to think "Ugg....why are you irrationally schitting on peoples hopes and dreams." ....and I will then often try to succinctly show them where they are being irrational.

 

For instance......Russ Brandon had a terrible term as GM. Maybin was selected in his tenure and the Jason Peters debacle happened on his watch and the team expended other high picks on positions they don't value in free agency.....leading to the departure of Levitre and perhaps to their unwillingness to pay Byrd. By the start of next season.....that original top 3 picks from that draft could all be gone(Wood was drafted with the pick acquired for the All Pro LT).

 

Were Brandon's mistakes learning experiences or do they reflect a lack of football decision-making? For instance, Ralph Wilson made the same mistakes for 50 years......why would we just assume that Brandon be better as the ultimate decision maker than he was as second in command? He and Ralph hired Buddy as Russ's replacement......admittedly......because they really did not know who else to hire. So when he becomes president.....he hires Doug Marrone.......who he knew from his relationship with Syracuse University. There is more than a little reason to question the promotion of Russ Brandon. I am not saying he is going to make a bad president.........but he was a bad GM.

b

Whaley.....he was stacking the draft board that passed on Kaep for Aaron Williams and Russell Wilson in favor of TJ Graham. This with Ryan Fitzpatrick as the QB. We don't know how influential he was in the final say.....Buddy took the shank for it....but Whaley WAS stacking the draft board and those picks were mistakes. It's not like he came in from another organization........he was influential decisions that resulted in losing games here. I always thought that Buddy/Whaley had both many good moves and many bad moves......Buddy was no means universally bad as some(including many relentless apologists) have made him out to be......but nonetheless it's not like you can say Whaley killed it in the draft for 3 years before Buddy retired.

 

That's where past performace is pertinent. To ignore it is foolish.

[Dibs]

For instance......Russ Brandon had a terrible term as GM. Maybin was selected in his tenure and the Jason Peters debacle happened on his watch and the team expended other high picks on positions they don't value in free agency.....leading to the departure of Levitre and perhaps to their unwillingness to pay Byrd. By the start of next season.....that original top 3 picks from that draft could all be gone(Wood was drafted with the pick acquired for the All Pro LT).

 

Were Brandon's mistakes learning experiences or do they reflect a lack of football decision-making? For instance, Ralph Wilson made the same mistakes for 50 years......why would we just assume that Brandon be better as the ultimate decision maker than he was as second in command? He and Ralph hired Buddy as Russ's replacement......admittedly......because they really did not know who else to hire. So when he becomes president.....he hires Doug Marrone.......who he knew from his relationship with Syracuse University. There is more than a little reason to question the promotion of Russ Brandon. I am not saying he is going to make a bad president.........but he was a bad GM.

b

Whaley.....he was stacking the draft board that passed on Kaep for Aaron Williams and Russell Wilson in favor of TJ Graham. This with Ryan Fitzpatrick as the QB. We don't know how influential he was in the final say.....Buddy took the shank for it....but Whaley WAS stacking the draft board and those picks were mistakes. It's not like he came in from another organization........he was influential decisions that resulted in losing games here. I always thought that Buddy/Whaley had both many good moves and many bad moves......Buddy was no means universally bad as some(including many relentless apologists) have made him out to be......but nonetheless it's not like you can say Whaley killed it in the draft for 3 years before Buddy retired.

 

That's where past performace is pertinent. To ignore it is foolish.

 

But again I say pertinent to what?

You aren't saying that the new FO is going to be terrible......you are simply showing some points which indicate that it might be terrible.

 

The only use for this information at this point is to counteract an irrational optimist......of which I am not.

[Rico]

 

Agreed. Past performance are pertinent....but pertinent to what?

As nobody has any real idea of how much influence they had in the previous regime, nor how much differently they will do things now that their potentially theoretical shackles have been(or not been) removed......one cannot objectively judge them until they have had some legitimate past performance, which will likely take at least a few years.

 

 

Agreed again.....but it is not just the purview of the optimist to come to irrational conclusions and then strongly voice them. From what I have seen it is usually the irrationally critical pessimistic posts that draw out the optimists' apologist reaction.

 

I believe that the type of poster who causes the most trouble is the one who draws a fixed conclusion on a topic where a fixed conclusion is impossible(most topics fit this)....and then dogmatically argues the case.

Topics such as:

Will EJ be a bust/star?

Is the new GM/HC/OC any good?

Is SJ a good WR?

etc, etc, etc.

 

None of those questions can be objectively definitively answered at this point, and any dogmatic arguments one way or the other on the subjects is bound to draw opposition from either the optimists or pessimists......as well as the objective thinker.

 

 

I feel I should add one more point on viewing things objectively.

You said earlier that you are relatively emotionless in regards to following football. You must acknowledge though that most others are not the same way....or at least have regular difficulty, due to those emotions, to think objectively. It makes sense that "what" and "how" an objective poster reacts to non-objectivity can help nullify or exacerbate argument.

 

When I see an irrationally optimistic post I tend to think "I hope you are right, and I will feel pity for you if you are wrong and your irrational dreams are crushed."....and I leave them with their good, fuzzy, and mostly harmless thoughts.

 

When I see an irrationally pessimistic post I tend to think "Ugg....why are you irrationally schitting on peoples hopes and dreams." ....and I will then often try to succinctly show them where they are being irrational.

I believe the posters that cause the most trouble are the ones who don't respect other poster's opinions when they are different from their own and go into attack mode. This is almost exclusive to what you term the apologist optimists, but I call the Pollyanna dipsh#*s.

 

When I see an irrationally optimistic post, I think what a nitwit, wrong again... but they are entitled to their opinion.

 

When I see an irrationally negative post, I think what a nitwit, period... but they are entitled to their opinion.

[BADOLBILZ]

But again I say pertinent to what?

You aren't saying that the new FO is going to be terrible......you are simply showing some points which indicate that it might be terrible.

 

The only use for this information at this point is to counteract an irrational optimist......of which I am not.

 

Past results are the primary indicator of future results. That is why it is pertinent. Both Brandon and Whaley were very involved in the type of decisions they are now being asked to be the ultimate decision maker on........and the prior decisions did not work out that well. It's not simply to counter an irrational optimism......this is an objective criticism.

 

Now if the team had just hired Bill Belichick........the objective viewpoint is the fact that he has proven he can lead a winning program over the past 13 years. That he can transition from one group of players to a another and still win. That he can win 11 games with a backup QB one season. Does that mean he would repeat alll of those things as a Bills coach? No, but objectively that is what we have to base an opinion on.

 

And if that isn't pertinent then it doesn't matter who the team hires to be it's GM or president......pick the last man in the administrative department of your media guide......used to be Russ Zink, custodian, flannel shirt in the picture......but don't judge him until he has proven he can't be an effective team president or GM? Track record, qualifications......these things matter in an objective viewpoint.

Edited November 26, 2013 by BADOLBEELZ

[Dibs]

Past results are the primary indicator of future results. That is why it is pertinent. Both Brandon and Whaley were very involved in the type of decisions they are now being asked to be the ultimate decision maker on........and the prior decisions did not work out that well. It's not simply to counter an irrational optimism......this is an objective criticism.

 

Now if the team had just hired Bill Belichick........the objective viewpoint is the fact that he has proven he can lead a winning program over the past 13 years. That he can transition from one group of players to a another and still win. That he can win 11 games with a backup QB one season. Does that mean he would repeat alll of those things as a Bills coach? No, but objectively that is what we have to base an opinion on.

 

And if that isn't pertinent then it doesn't matter who the team hires to be it's GM or president......pick the last man in the administrative department of your media guide......used to be Russ Zink, custodian, flannel shirt in the picture......but don't judge him until he has proven he can't be an effective team president or GM? Track record, qualifications......these things matter in an objective viewpoint.

 

You seem to be missing my point each time. I repeatedly ask "objective viewpoint pertinent to what?"......and you keep presenting more objective viewpoints.

They aren't objective views that can definitively determine the future outcome. They are at best views that can lead weight to a higher probability of an outcome.

 

On this topic(and most other topics) there is a myriad of objective viewpoints, all of which are speculative unknown quantities, which would provide weight of a positive or negative nature. The ability to obtain a definitive prediction or even rough assessment of the situation is impossible and anybody who voices certain knowledge of how things will be is bound to draw opposition to their comments.

 

 

The reason why I have not addressed any of your individual viewpoints is that, as you have not stated that they draw the conclusion that the new appointments are definitively going to be bad, there is no need to put forward counter points nor add the many detracting complexities to their simplistic nature. You have simply listed some objective views.......the purpose of which I am unsure.

 

Perhaps you are trying to put forward some counterpoints to nullify an earlier posters irrational optimism. Perhaps you are enjoying the intellectual process of the discussion. I don't know. The fact however that you seem perfectly fine listing off negative views without adding in any complexities which may detract from those views has me doubtful that you are indeed being very objective on this subject.

[Dibs]

I believe the posters that cause the most trouble are the ones who don't respect other poster's opinions when they are different from their own and go into attack mode. This is almost exclusive to what you term the apologist optimists, but I call the Pollyanna dipsh#*s.

 

When I see an irrationally optimistic post, I think what a nitwit, wrong again... but they are entitled to their opinion.

 

When I see an irrationally negative post, I think what a nitwit, period... but they are entitled to their opinion.

 

I agree with the respecting of other posters points......but I think it a long bow to draw to claim it more prevalent from one side over the other. As I see things, a "SJ is a good WR" post will get just as much strong opposition as a "SJ is a bad WR" post......and IMO understandably so. There are solid views on both sides and for anybody to definitively state one way or the other is bound to see some correction.

[GunnerBill]

You seem to be missing my point each time. I repeatedly ask "objective viewpoint pertinent to what?"......and you keep presenting more objective viewpoints.

They aren't objective views that can definitively determine the future outcome. They are at best views that can lead weight to a higher probability of an outcome.

 

100% correct.

 

It is not objective to say "Russ Brandon was a dreadful General Manager and therefore will almost certainly be a bad President." That's not objectivity, that's pessimism. Someone saying "listen let's give Russ Brandon a chance to get his feet under the desk and see what he does" is not someone demonstrating blind optimism or "giving the organisation a pass" In fact it's quite the opposite it's someone saying - "this is the decision the team has made I will hold them accountable by the results". Someone saying "forget what he did as GM, that doesn't matter at all, he will be a great President, isn't this new era wonderful?" That's an optimist.

 

What you are wanting to do is say "I disagree with this decision for these objective reasons.... therefore my disagreement is objective and anyone taking an alternative view is giving the organisation a pass" - whereas actually your disagreement is still entirely subjective.

Edited November 26, 2013 by GunnerBill