New GM, New Philosophy

[BADOLBILZ]

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.

 

The "complexities" I believe are what the press release is for. That is where they hype how Brandon was instrumental in marketing the team and Whaley was instrumental in scouting Marcel Dareus and so on. That is considered the justification for hire. The problem is that these same guys were also instrumental in what has been an overall failure in the football department. That part is not in the press release.....but when a failing organization hires from within those are valid concerns.

[Dibs]

The "complexities" I believe are what the press release is for. That is where they hype how Brandon was instrumental in marketing the team and Whaley was instrumental in scouting Marcel Dareus and so on. That is considered the justification for hire. The problem is that these same guys were also instrumental in what has been an overall failure in the football department. That part is not in the press release.....but when a failing organization hires from within those are valid concerns.

 

Do I persist? Why not, I've nothing better to do.....

 

Are you in fact saying that you have determined that the current FO is going to be bad? If not.....why do you keep pointing out negative viewpoints about it to me?

 

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.

 

Very nicely summarized btw.

[BADOLBILZ]

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.

 

I pretty much agree with your take but bear in mind that I never said Brandon "will almost certainly" be a bad team president because he was a dreadful GM. I bring this up...because if you don't think that is what you just said......then you don't realize that that is exactly how people who enter this thread late will read it. It's not a great platform for nuanced argument.

 

For example: I can answer a thread that is requesting Stevie Johnson be traded by saying not to trade him because he is a good player even with his flaws. The next poster will be outraged at the mention of his flaws and the poster after that says BADOL hates Stevie. That's the way this works.

[chris heff]

 

 

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.

 

"Manuel led the Seminoles to a 12-win season for just the third time in program history and the first time since their dominant stretch in the 1990s. During his senior season, he threw for the second most yards in team history with 3,392, trailing only Chris Weinke's Heisman Trophy winning season, in which Weinke threw for 4,167 yards. Manuel went 25-6 as a starter, won the first BCS bowl for Florida State since 2000, won five out of six games against intrastate rivals Miami and Florida, and he also led the offense to its most prolific season in team history, cleanly surpassing the 1999 National Championship squad with 6,591 yards."

 

How exactly did you objectively arrive at the conclusion that this is "far from dominant"?

 

[BADOLBILZ]

Are you in fact saying that you have determined that the current FO is going to be bad? If not.....why do you keep pointing out negative viewpoints about it to me?

 

Because your contention seems to be that the positive side is not seeing the light of day and that is absolutely false. That is ALL the team gives us. Entirely. You want to discuss complexities? Really? Do we really want to go into why Russ was chosen over all other candidates? Is that going to help us be more objective or patient or whatever it is you seek? If you don't have any complexities to discuss then don't bring it up like a phantom excuse. If your end point is why even consider the merits of a Bills hiring then why are you even involved in discussing it? Buy a fishing pole and get a different hobby.

[GunnerBill]

I pretty much agree with your take but bear in mind that I never said Brandon "will almost certainly" be a bad team president because he was a dreadful GM. I bring this up...because if you don't think that is what you just said......then you don't realize that that is exactly how people who enter this thread late will read it. It's not a great platform for nuanced argument.

 

That's a fair clarification - I wasn't necessarily saying you were but there are pessimists out there on this and other forums who did have that take on his hire / promotion, whatever you want to call it.

[BADOLBILZ]

"Manuel led the Seminoles to a 12-win season for just the third time in program history and the first time since their dominant stretch in the 1990s. During his senior season, he threw for the second most yards in team history with 3,392, trailing only Chris Weinke's Heisman Trophy winning season, in which Weinke threw for 4,167 yards. Manuel went 25-6 as a starter, won the first BCS bowl for Florida State since 2000, won five out of six games against intrastate rivals Miami and Florida, and he also led the offense to its most prolific season in team history, cleanly surpassing the 1999 National Championship squad with 6,591 yards."

 

How exactly did you objectively arrive at the conclusion that this is "far from dominant"?

 

I can read a bio too. But I also watch college football. I saw the problems with his game. He was a good caretaker for that talented team but not a dominant player because he struggles to get into a rhythm, he was too cautious with the ball despite a wealth of talent around him and his mechanics were a mess(which is part of why he struggled early in games). In all fairness, a significant portion of his game was running the football at FSU as well and that is no longer part of the equation as an NFL QB. He wasn't a dominant player or an elite prospect as a QB. The best option in THIS draft? Perhaps. I didn't disagree with his selection and I am of the belief that the jury is still out on him going forward but that his leash should not be so long that it precludes pursuing other QB's next season.

 

But perhaps the simple answer regarding why EJ was far from dominant at FSU is to simply see how Florida State is performing this season WITHOUT Manuel. THAT is dominant. Manuel as a senior was a far cry from Winston as a redshirt freshman.

Edited November 27, 2013 by BADOLBEELZ

[timtebow15]

You guys are obviously passionate Bills fans so i hate to see you argue. I know I am always asking people to be objective meaning to be uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. That's really hard to do. Really, most everything we do is subjective, or a personal opinion. I try so hard to be an optimist regarding the Bills but I am a terrible fair weather fan because I've followed the Bills for thirty-five years and its become impossible to be objective. Hope is eternal though and I hope Brandon has learned a few things over the years and now has more freedom to put that knowledge to use, I am hoping Whaley was mostly responsible for the best decisions the past few years and is learning and Nix was responsible for most of the poor decisions and that Marrone will learn on the job as well (NO MORE PUNTS FROM THE OPPONANTS 36 YARD LINE). The truth is only time will tell. I will say I think they are headed in the right direction and the early returns are favorable. But I have hoped that many times before and I am like most of the other posters - if Manual has a bad game I'll be concerned he can't perform on the road and will always be inconsistent and if he looks good I'll think we may have found and answer at the position. I do know a couple things...I LOVE watching the Jets and Dolphins lose (Pats too but that rarely happens) and Gino Smith suck! I also hate to see Bills fans argue.

[BADOLBILZ]

That's a fair clarification - I wasn't necessarily saying you were but there are pessimists out there on this and other forums who did have that take on his hire / promotion, whatever you want to call it.

 

I think there is a tendency from quite a few very active posters here to shout down clearly pessimistic takes........but in defense of pessimists.......they are 14-0 this century.

 

Like it or not, that is scoreboard and as a sports fan you should respect the scoreboard. You are what your record says you are in the NFL.

 

For that reason, I usually just avoid engaging in argument in the "failure is certain" threads. Until proven otherwise, 14-0 is pretty strong case.

 

But for some reason there is a brood of people who think that they have to stand up for the organization and they end up spilling over into every thread and jumping to conclusions about the nature of discussion and starting arguments that they really have very little basis to stand on. They are the apologists.

 

The key thing they miss is that regardless of your feelings about the direction of the organization it has no bearing on wins and losses. The Bills are owned by a 95 year old man from Detroit. Bills fans are all that Bills fans actually have, so there really is no justification for the fan hate on this board. It's ugly and pointless.

[GunnerBill]

And sometimes that will have been the pessimists being right because they didn't like what they were seeing and sometimes they'll have just been right by default because they're pessimists and the team ended up being bad. I was a pessimist in those heady early weeks of 2011 because I could see there were still major issues with that team and it was winning on a mixture of confidence and fortune rather than anything else.

 

But you're absolutely right - you are what your record says you are and if this is another losing season for the Buffalo Bills then it's another disappointing season. The one positive difference that I see (and this is entirely subjective) is that I get the sense far less from Marrone and Whaley that they're allowing themselves a pass in year 1 than I have in the past. Buddy Nix and Chan Gailey spent their first year basically saying "we are starting afresh and there is going to be pain." Dick Jauron consistently confused effort and competitiveness for actual results in the win column. Marrone doesn't I think. He has said "I have to win now" and "I'm planning on being here for a long time and the only way to do that is to win." I think if we finish the season 6-10, 7-9 or even 8-8 and miss the play-offs he won't be going "shucks but weren't we close? We'll be better next year"... he strikes me as more of a " how do we make sure we are not back in this place again next year" kind of guy.

 

And I categorically did not agree with the Marrone hire initially by the way. He has definitely grown on me as he has gone along.

Edited November 27, 2013 by GunnerBill

[chris heff]

 

 

I can read a bio too. But I also watch college football. I saw the problems with his game. He was a good caretaker for that talented team but not a dominant player because he struggles to get into a rhythm, he was too cautious with the ball despite a wealth of talent around him and his mechanics were a mess(which is part of why he struggled early in games). In all fairness, a significant portion of his game was running the football at FSU as well and that is no longer part of the equation as an NFL QB. He wasn't a dominant player or an elite prospect as a QB. The best option in THIS draft? Perhaps. I didn't disagree with his selection and I am of the belief that the jury is still out on him going forward but that his leash should not be so long that it precludes pursuing other QB's next season.

 

But perhaps the simple answer regarding why EJ was far from dominant at FSU is to simply see how Florida State is performing this season WITHOUT Manuel. THAT is dominant. Manuel as a senior was a far cry from Winston as a redshirt freshman.

Your response is based on your observations not fact. Which by definition makes it subjective. The statistic in the "bio"as you put it are the facts. This many games were won, this many bowl games, this many yards, and so on, those are the facts. You watched games , made observations and reached conclusions. My conclusions differ. Which would also make them subjective. I live in Florida and I also watched his games. I know a number of FSU fans and alumni and the majority would disagree with your conclusion. Manuel's time at FSU was spent in a rebuilding program. After Bowden's "retirement" the program had to be rebuilt. The talent around Manuel was not anywhere close to what is there today. The Oline was bad the receivers were not good and the RB were not remotely as good as the current group.

 

Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. Whether human beings can be objective is a philosophical and sociological debate that has gone on for thousands of years. I could bore everyone with examples of what was perceived as objectivity but was not. Human objectivity is an oxymoron.

 

If you were just given the statistical facts of Manuel's career, not knowing who or what team, would you conclude that it was a successful career? You watched the games, I watched the games and we reached different conclusions. I am assuming that you as I reached your conclusion on Manuel before the draft. Does that make you objective and me subjective?

 

[dave mcbride]

Your response is based on your observations not fact. Which by definition makes it subjective. The statistic in the "bio"as you put it are the facts. This many games were won, this many bowl games, this many yards, and so on, those are the facts. You watched games , made observations and reached conclusions. My conclusions differ. Which would also make them subjective. I live in Florida and I also watched his games. I know a number of FSU fans and alumni and the majority would disagree with your conclusion. Manuel's time at FSU was spent in a rebuilding program. After Bowden's "retirement" the program had to be rebuilt. The talent around Manuel was not anywhere close to what is there today. The Oline was bad the receivers were not good and the RB were not remotely as good as the current group.

 

Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. Whether human beings can be objective is a philosophical and sociological debate that has gone on for thousands of years. I could bore everyone with examples of what was perceived as objectivity but was not. Human objectivity is an oxymoron.

 

If you were just given the statistical facts of Manuel's career, not knowing who or what team, would you conclude that it was a successful career? You watched the games, I watched the games and we reached different conclusions. I am assuming that you as I reached your conclusion on Manuel before the draft. Does that make you objective and me subjective?

 

One of the facts from last year is that Florida State had more players drafted than any other school, including Alabama. 5 of the first 42 picks were FSU players. Let me repeat: 5 of the first 42. That team was loaded. In fact, they were even more loaded than the draft record showed given how dominant the team is this year. And it wasn't like they were running sophisticated offenses and defenses. They generally roll superior athletes out on the field and, in simple fashion, unleash merciless beat downs on teams with average-to-decent talent. I gotta agree with Badol here - Manuel looked pretty raw last season and the FSU team this year looks virtually unstoppable. I don't know how many FSU games you watched last year, but you could see the rawness. And he performed poorly in the biggest game of the year (against Florida). He threw 3 picks, lost a fumble, and averaged 5.5 ypa. Having said this, I was very much on board with the pick and remain highly supportive of it. He has a lot of talent.

Edited November 27, 2013 by dave mcbride

[Dibs]

....

But you're absolutely right - you are what your record says you are....

 

Though I know that you are not a proponent of this, the statement above is to me one of the most annoying and useless fallback statements that is often bandied around. It is meaningless to any discussion about the relative strengths or improvements(or lack there of) of the current team.

 

For instance. At 3-7 we are a bad team because our record states it to be so. If we go 5-1 over the last 6 games.....does that sudden make us a good team....or does the overall 8-8 record make us a mediocre team. Is a 9-7 team that has had no injuries better than a 6-10 team that loses several key players including its star QB for the season?

 

Anybody who uses the W/L record as a be all and end all in a debate on the relative strength of a team is basically saying "I don't want to discuss it. I will consider us good when we win.....bad when we don't." Which beggars the question of why they are in the discussion in the first place.

[chris heff]

 

 

One of the facts from last year is that Florida State had more players drafted than any other school, including Alabama. 5 of the first 42 picks were FSU players. Let me repeat: 5 of the first 42. That team was loaded. In fact, they were even more loaded than the draft record showed given how dominant the team is this year. And it wasn't like they were running sophisticated offenses and defenses. They generally roll superior athletes out on the field and, in simple fashion, unleash merciless beat downs on teams with average-to-decent talent. I gotta agree with Badol here - Manuel looked pretty raw last season and the FSU team this year looks virtually unstoppable. I don't know how many FSU games you watched last year, but you could see the rawness. And he performed poorly in the biggest game of the year (against Florida). He threw 3 picks, lost a fumble, and averaged 5.5 ypa. Having said this, I was very much on board with the pick and remain highly supportive of it. He has a lot of talent.

Subjective opinion, one pick was tipped, one was on Manuel, one the receiver gave up on the route. One fumble on Manuel, one in the NFL is a penalty and a fine.

 

You have missed the point Badol believes he is objective. My point is exclusive of just facts objectivity is impossible. You and I both watch the same game and draw different conclusions. Are you right? Am I? Only physics is objective.

[oman128]

all the dumpster diving at the bills have done of practice squad hasn't given us the winning season in 13 years soul so there's a reason the bills are four and seven

[chris heff]

And get your fact straight it was 11 players drafted, 7 were defense. On offense it was, Manuel, Thomson a 5'7" 192 pound running back, a project O lineman Watkins and Hopkins a kicker.

 

One of those five of the first forty two, one was on offense.

Edited November 27, 2013 by chris heff

[dave mcbride]

And get your fact straight it was 11 players drafted, 7 were defense. On offense it was, Manuel, Thomson a 5'7" 192 pound running back, a project O lineman Watkins and Hopkins a kicker.

 

One of those five of the first forty two, one was on offense.

Defense has a say in both the outcome of the game (ie, win-loss record, which you cite above) and in the offense's performance (ability to play it somewhat safe in second halves). And it wasn't like they weren't loaded with underclassmen on offense anyway. Cam Erving is probably gonna go between 5 and 15 in April.

 

As for objectivity -- I mean no offense, but I could care less. It's a message board, and of course it's subjective. It's not worth arguing about in my opinion, though.

Edited November 27, 2013 by dave mcbride

[BillsVet]

Though I know that you are not a proponent of this, the statement above is to me one of the most annoying and useless fallback statements that is often bandied around. It is meaningless to any discussion about the relative strengths or improvements(or lack there of) of the current team.

 

For instance. At 3-7 we are a bad team because our record states it to be so. If we go 5-1 over the last 6 games.....does that sudden make us a good team....or does the overall 8-8 record make us a mediocre team. Is a 9-7 team that has had no injuries better than a 6-10 team that loses several key players including its star QB for the season?

 

Anybody who uses the W/L record as a be all and end all in a debate on the relative strength of a team is basically saying "I don't want to discuss it. I will consider us good when we win.....bad when we don't." Which beggars the question of why they are in the discussion in the first place.

 

The W-L record will always be the most illustrative metric to determine a team's success, but of course it's more nuanced than simply those numbers. The 2006 Bills were rebuilding and proceeded to go 7-9 under DJ. But the 2008 Bills, which got off to a 5-1 start and were in their 3rd season of rebuilding finished 7-9. Same record, but expectations were far different.

 

While 7-9 might be acceptable in 2013 (the first year of another rebuild) it won't be in 2014. And, if a team is showing something during a season, then expectations can rise with their performance.

 

The reason W-L record is being used here is, as others have said, frankly because the franchise hasn't accomplished a winning season for so long. They are the exception to almost the rest of the league and, as one would expect, people don't trust them. And that includes many fans who aren't buying what they sell like they might have in say 2002-04.

[chris heff]

 

Defense has a say in both the outcome of the game (ie, win-loss record, which you cite above) and in the offense's performance (ability to play it somewhat safe in second halves). And it wasn't like they weren't loaded with underclassmen on offense anyway. Cam Erving is probably gonna go between 5 and 15 in April.

 

As for objectivity -- I mean no offense, but I could care less. It's a message board, and of course it's subjective. It's not worth arguing about in my opinion, though.

I agree that defense has a say, but go back and watch the FSU, Florida game, the defense stunk. Cam Erving only played with Manuel for one year. Last year was his first as an offensive lineman.

 

I was only using the example of Manuel's college record because Badobeelz supposition is that he is right because of objectivity, anyone that disagrees is wrong because of subjectivity.

 

 

[QCity]

Anybody who uses the W/L record as a be all and end all in a debate on the relative strength of a team is basically saying "I don't want to discuss it. I will consider us good when we win.....bad when we don't." Which beggars the question of why they are in the discussion in the first place.

 

It's a Hail Mary from someone about to lose an argument.