Beerball Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Yeah, that's exactly what I said. I expect better from you Sorry, but when you say this:That's not what accountability means. It means taking responsibility for your work, and takin(g) ownership of the results. I don't know what else to say. Did Marrone take ownership of the results or did he immediately point his finger at the players? Could/should he have said that everyone, players & coaches are going to be evaluated? Yeah, he could. Instead he tossed his players under the bus. IF they weren't the "core" special teamers he was looking for then why were they trotted out there? Typically those are the young/cheap guys. If they were so bad why weren't they replaced and replaced and replaced until they got it right? Obviously I'm frustrated because I see the staff, after only one year perched on the cliff again. I really don't want to start this crap again so I hope I'm wrong.
thebandit27 Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Really ? . . . . I'm at a loss. . . . I don't get people who are constantly trying to take Brandon "off the proverbial hook" . . . . the guy sets policy and budget (at a minimum) which determines quality of HC you get as well as how much you can spend on personnel --- if he doesn't do that, what does he do ? --- not financially motivated ?? --- EVERYTHING about Brandon and this FO is financially motivated -- open your eyes --- 1) I'm not speculating, so feel free to believe me or not, I don't care 2) Brandon gave Nix & Whaley carte blanche when it came to hiring the coach; Marrone was their call. Take it or leave it.
Rob's House Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 2) Brandon gave Nix & Whaley carte blanche when it came to hiring the coach; Marrone was their call. Take it or leave it. Do we know what their hiring budget was?
thebandit27 Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Sorry, but when you say this: [/background][/size][/font][/color] I don't know what else to say. Did Marrone take ownership of the results or did he immediately point his finger at the players? Could/should he have said that everyone, players & coaches are going to be evaluated? Yeah, he could. Instead he tossed his players under the bus. IF they weren't the "core" special teamers he was looking for then why were they trotted out there? Typically those are the young/cheap guys. If they were so bad why weren't they replaced and replaced and replaced until they got it right? Obviously I'm frustrated because I see the staff, after only one year perched on the cliff again. I really don't want to start this crap again so I hope I'm wrong. If you see that as Marrone throwing his players under the bus then so be it...I guess I didn't have a problem with what he said. As for replacing players, the team had a fair amount if in-season roster turnover, so I'm not sure why you believe they didn't keep trying. I recall seeing Robert Woods and Manny Lawson out there playing on ST at different points of the season.
GA BILLS FAN Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 1) I'm not speculating, so feel free to believe me or not, I don't care 2) Brandon gave Nix & Whaley carte blanche when it came to hiring the coach; Marrone was their call. Take it or leave it. If you have source, please share, because your opinion isn't supported by the actions this FO has taken in the past and, in fact is inconsistent with your statement --- if they have carte blanche --- why under spend the cap ? . . . . why the Toronto series ? . . . why have they hired inexpensive coaches the past 15 years ? . . . this FO thinks and acts SMALL and in the NFL they are getting outspent and outmanaged and as I've said many times on this board are trying to win with one hand tied behind their backs
thebandit27 Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Do we know what their hiring budget was? Do I know the numbers? No. I only know what I've been told, which is that no limit was placed on Nix & Whaley with regard to who they could hire--big name candidates included. By "hire", I believe we can safely assume that "sign to a contract" is implied as well. If you have source, please share, because your opinion isn't supported by the actions this FO has taken in the past and, in fact is inconsistent with your statement --- if they have carte blanche --- why under spend the cap ? . . . . why the Toronto series ? . . . why have they hired inexpensive coaches the past 15 years ? . . . this FO thinks and acts SMALL and in the NFL they are getting outspent and outmanaged and as I've said many times on this board are trying to win with one hand tied behind their backs I'm not going to say who I do or don't speak to...just know that I'm far from the only person on this board that has access to certain information. And for whatever it may be worth, those on this board that know more about the inner-workings than I do have implied the same as what I've told you. As for their approach, it's neither lack of effort or lack of expenditures--it's been poor decision-making that's killed them.
GA BILLS FAN Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Do I know the numbers? No. I only know what I've been told, which is that no limit was placed on Nix & Whaley with regard to who they could hire--big name candidates included. By "hire", I believe we can safely assume that "sign to a contract" is implied as well. I'm not going to say who I do or don't speak to...just know that I'm far from the only person on this board that has access to certain information. And for whatever it may be worth, those on this board that know more about the inner-workings than I do have implied the same as what I've told you. As for their approach, it's neither lack of effort or lack of expenditures--it's been poor decision-making that's killed them. OK, I'll take you at your word. So, explain why the Bills would under spend the cap every year ? . . . . if that isn't financially motivated then what is the reason ?
thebandit27 Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 OK, I'll take you at your word. So, explain why the Bills would under spend the cap every year ? . . . . if that isn't financially motivated then what is the reason ? To answer that would be making an assumption I'm not in position to make. I can only surmise, based on what I do know, that they simply don't believe that spending more $$ is the path to victory.
GA BILLS FAN Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 To answer that would be making an assumption I'm not in position to make. I can only surmise, based on what I do know, that they simply don't believe that spending more $$ is the path to victory. And that's why I feel there is so much inconsistency in your statement about hiring Marrone --- most successful organizations put winning first -- I don't think Bills have done that in their 50+ years of existence --- I'll answer my own question --- the Bills don't spend to the cap because they want to show a profit short term --- they send a home game to Toronto because they make more money short term when they do --- they don't sign the $5M coach because they make more profit short term ---- there is not one logical football reason to not spend to the cap on a consistent basis --- granted there might be a year or two when you under spend, but not over the long term --- as for profits -- these knuckleheads don't realize that all these short term actions will lead to long term ruin ---- Brandon was right when he said the Bills brand is tarnished -- what he failed to say, was that he was responsible for it being that way and worse yet was put in charge to fix it and he has no idea how to do it --- well, I do, as do a lot of the posters on this board --- WIN !!! --- the best way to do that is to start with that as your #1 priority --- this FO makes me sick
DefenseWinzChampionshipz Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Does keeping Crossman hurt the Bills? I believe it does. Am I shocked? No sir.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Is there an update on this? Has anybody verified that Crossman is being retained? I haven't read anything except right here. that we are about 10 days into the offseason, it seems like a pretty strong possibility even without a formal announcement that they are going to keep everything the same. On the other hand, Dolphiins GM Jeff Ireland was fired today so the length of time since the end of the season may affect the likelihood of an outcome but there's still a possibility of Crossman being dismissed. Jeremy White reported this on air? Is he even credible? This is the one time a guy like Sully could redeem himself. C'mon Sully, push this thing.
Mr. WEO Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) So you're speculating on Hilliard? Of course I'm speculating. I made that clear several times. But you're laying it on thick that you have straight inside info, so why don't you just tell us exactly why he fired Hilliard? Also, your answer to NoSaint is non-responsive. Or your answer makes no sense, I can't decide. As he points out, it strains reason for a team that needs to improve in all 3 phases should not be concerned with the one you feel is least important. You are arguing that addressing any one of them mutually excludes addressing another. Seems to many on this thread that the ST may be the easiest one to fix, yet you say it's not necessary because there are more pressing problems. Your argument lacks some degree of logic. Edited January 8, 2014 by Mr. WEO
NewEra Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Thanks for asking instead of just assuming. No, not defending Crossman at all. Just saying that I'm not outraged by his retention as ST coach, an that I don't think this means anything about Marrone. So the HC who's unwilling to make a change is the one that fired his WR coach? Ok, thanks for the reply. I don't think keeping Crossman means Marrone will fail as a coach......but I do think its a terrible mistake. He'll be fired next year, after our STs sucks again. I think the biggest mistake Marrone has made, if it was his choice, was letting go of Joe D'allesandris. He's kicking butt in SD
thebandit27 Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Of course I'm speculating. I made that clear several times. But you're laying it on thick that you have straight inside info, so why don't you just tell us exactly why he fired Hilliard? Also, your answer to NoSaint is non-responsive. Or your answer makes no sense, I can't decide. As he points out, it strains reason for a team that needs to improve in all 3 phases should not be concerned with the one you feel is least important. You are arguing that addressing any one of them mutually excludes addressing another. Seems to many on this thread that the ST may be the easiest one to fix, yet you say it's not necessary because there are more pressing problems. Your argument lacks some degree of logic. Why do I need to tell you anything when Marrone said it himself? My answer to NoSaint is very clear: I'm not nearly as concerned about ST as I am a few other areas. A team like the Bills should be trying to improve in all areas, yes. The vast majority of the resources should go toward offense and defense. Is that more clear? As for info, just because I know certain things, like who made what decision, doesn't mean I know every detail of what goes on behind closed doors. Edited January 8, 2014 by thebandit27
GA BILLS FAN Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Of course I'm speculating. I made that clear several times. But you're laying it on thick that you have straight inside info, so why don't you just tell us exactly why he fired Hilliard? Also, your answer to NoSaint is non-responsive. Or your answer makes no sense, I can't decide. As he points out, it strains reason for a team that needs to improve in all 3 phases should not be concerned with the one you feel is least important. You are arguing that addressing any one of them mutually excludes addressing another. Seems to many on this thread that the ST may be the easiest one to fix, yet you say it's not necessary because there are more pressing problems. Your argument lacks some degree of logic. +1 --- the Bills need to address all 3 phases of the team -- OFFENSE, DEFENSE and SPECIAL TEAMS --- the fix for special teams should be firing the coach --- the fix for Defense is another LB and depth in secondary --- the fix for offense is LG, Big WR/TE and better QB play --- this isn't rocket science --- or maybe it is for the dim wits that are running this team
juno999 Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 +1 --- the Bills need to address all 3 phases of the team -- OFFENSE, DEFENSE and SPECIAL TEAMS --- the fix for special teams should be firing the coach --- the fix for Defense is another LB and depth in secondary --- the fix for offense is LG, Big WR/TE and better QB play --- this isn't rocket science --- or maybe it is for the dim wits that are running this team Awesome
Beerball Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 My answer to NoSaint is very clear: I'm not nearly as concerned about ST as I am a few other areas. A team like the Bills should be trying to improve in all areas, yes. The vast majority of the resources should go toward offense and defense. What resources are you talking about? Marrone's time to consider why a 250lb guy who runs a 4.6 40 ran roughshod over his kick coverage unit? (I think I'm being generous with both his weight and 40 time) If ST is your 3rd option are you considering changing offensive coaches? Defensive coaches? (if not, what are the 'resources' being used for?)
Magox Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 From my perspective, the fact that Marrone retained Crossman is an extremely disappointing decision. Crossman has a career of sucktitude and he proved that this past year and considering that they are buds with one another makes it even less bearable to withstand. For me, that's strike one.
Gugny Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 From my perspective, the fact that Marrone retained Crossman is an extremely disappointing decision. Crossman has a career of sucktitude and he proved that this past year and considering that they are buds with one another makes it even less bearable to withstand. For me, that's strike one. To that point ... as someone said earlier (and I can't disagree) ... strike one was actually hiring the pile of crap. Strike two is retaining him after seeing what he brought to the table over 16 games. The more I stew over this, it doesn't piss me off as much as it worries me.
Recommended Posts