Adam Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 Something I haven't seen mentioned, is that he's one of 'those" players. By that, I mean he changes things- we won't be just stockpiling random talent and making them fit into spots- his presence will decide what direction our offense is going in and where everyone fits in it. The key word is direction, because we've lacked it for a long time.
Orton's Arm Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 And that is the bottom. If the Bills make the playoffs and Watkins is on IR all season. (Knock on wood) the trade still works out Trade Value wise. One Bills Drive is all in for 2014. I don't know the last time I have ever seen that. I mean seriously, I can't remember when I knew without a shadow of a doubt that the front office was trying to win now and not "Build for the future". Now its up to Morrone to get the players prepared for 2014. It could blow up in their face but atleast they're trying to do something different to win now. Everyone knows that EJ is the Grenade Pin. Most, me included, don't think he can do it but that doesn't mean I'm going to **** on him for trying. If EJ is not the man then Whaley will be shown the door by new ownership (which clearly is a mistake imo) The good news though is with Watkins, Williams, Woods, CJ, and Bryce Brown and a line of Cordy Glenn, Kouandjio, Wood most Free Agent QBs would love to join the team in 2015. If Bradford gets tossed aside, or Kirk Cousins gets free they may see that the Bills are built to win now. They just need a QB. That to me is the worst case scenario in 2015. Winston is going #1 overall no matter how many crab cakes he steals and Marriato isn't guaranteed to be any better than EJ. This team couldn't get the 1st overall pick if it tried. So I don't really believe the 2015 1st would have put the Bills in a position to draft a QB anyway. Just win baby. > I mean seriously, I can't remember when I knew without a shadow of a doubt that the front office was trying to win now and not "Build for the future". I'd argue the exact opposite. - TD traded away his first round pick for an aging QB. Not exactly a "build for the future" type move. - TD also broke off negotiations with Antoine Winfield--one of his best defensive players--so that he could "win now" by signing Troy Vincent and Lawyer Milloy. Winfield continued to be productive long after Vincent and Milloy hung up their cleats. - Upon becoming GM, Marv announced that if you're building for the future, you're building for someone else's future. - Working together with Jauron, he decided the fastest way to win now was to solidify the Bills' defense. The two players deemed most immediately critical to that plan were a DT and an SS. He therefore decided that his first two picks of the 2006 draft had to be a DT and an SS, in no particular order. - In 2007, Marv used his first two picks on a RB and a LB--both of which are known for being "quick impact" type positions. - During his tenure as GM, Buddy Nix signed Fitz to a rich extension based on a few good games. The plan seemed to be to "win now" with a veteran, instead of building for the future with a rookie. - Only after the Fitz experiment failed did Nix or Whaley decide to use an early pick on a QB. The guy they chose fit the standard-issue profile of a first round bust: great physical traits, but without having proven himself a good pocket passer in college. Ever since the departure of Polian, the Bills have been rich with short-sighted, "win-now" type thinking. Little attention has been paid to building a solid future for the team; which is probably why the playoff drought has lasted this long. To his credit, Whaley has thus far eschewed "burn the future" type moves. He hasn't traded away first round picks for aging veterans. He hasn't adopted a TD-like, very casual attitude about allowing his best young players to go first-contract-and-out. He hasn't squandered first round picks on "quick impact, short career" positions like RBs. It's perhaps too soon to tell if he's a shortsighted GM--like all previous post-Polian Bills GMs--or if he has a disciplined long-term plan to build a real team.
1B4IDie Posted May 16, 2014 Posted May 16, 2014 > I mean seriously, I can't remember when I knew without a shadow of a doubt that the front office was trying to win now and not "Build for the future". I'd argue the exact opposite. - TD traded away his first round pick for an aging QB. Not exactly a "build for the future" type move. - TD also broke off negotiations with Antoine Winfield--one of his best defensive players--so that he could "win now" by signing Troy Vincent and Lawyer Milloy. Winfield continued to be productive long after Vincent and Milloy hung up their cleats. - Upon becoming GM, Marv announced that if you're building for the future, you're building for someone else's future. - Working together with Jauron, he decided the fastest way to win now was to solidify the Bills' defense. The two players deemed most immediately critical to that plan were a DT and an SS. He therefore decided that his first two picks of the 2006 draft had to be a DT and an SS, in no particular order. - In 2007, Marv used his first two picks on a RB and a LB--both of which are known for being "quick impact" type positions. - During his tenure as GM, Buddy Nix signed Fitz to a rich extension based on a few good games. The plan seemed to be to "win now" with a veteran, instead of building for the future with a rookie. - Only after the Fitz experiment failed did Nix or Whaley decide to use an early pick on a QB. The guy they chose fit the standard-issue profile of a first round bust: great physical traits, but without having proven himself a good pocket passer in college. Ever since the departure of Polian, the Bills have been rich with short-sighted, "win-now" type thinking. Little attention has been paid to building a solid future for the team; which is probably why the playoff drought has lasted this long. To his credit, Whaley has thus far eschewed "burn the future" type moves. He hasn't traded away first round picks for aging veterans. He hasn't adopted a TD-like, very casual attitude about allowing his best young players to go first-contract-and-out. He hasn't squandered first round picks on "quick impact, short career" positions like RBs. It's perhaps too soon to tell if he's a shortsighted GM--like all previous post-Polian Bills GMs--or if he has a disciplined long-term plan to build a real team. I'll give you TD but that's a decade ago. Just because you write "win-now" next to a move it doesn't mean it was a "win now" move and more importantly none of the post TD moves looked like they would actually help them "win-now" To me this looks like "win-now" moves that can have a W effect on the field.
Orton's Arm Posted May 16, 2014 Posted May 16, 2014 I'll give you TD but that's a decade ago. Just because you write "win-now" next to a move it doesn't mean it was a "win now" move and more importantly none of the post TD moves looked like they would actually help them "win-now" To me this looks like "win-now" moves that can have a W effect on the field. > Just because you write "win-now" next to a move it doesn't mean it was a "win now" move and more > importantly none of the post TD moves looked like they would actually help them "win-now" I remember Marv talking about how the Bills had decided to go after a DT and an SS with their first two picks. He said that those who objected to the Whitner pick should consider the fact that Whitner + McCargo gave the Bills a better combination of DT and SS than they could have had; had they taken a DT at 8th overall and a safety later in the first. I feel the reason they honed in on those two positions--while passing up better players at other positions--was because they wanted to make a quick impact on their defense. The opposite of that approach is to do what Arizona did when they took Larry Fitzgerald 3rd overall. Most mock drafts I'd seen hadn't anticipated that. Most football experts I'd heard were shocked by that move. The Cardinals had a number of needs, but WR wasn't among them. But as time passed, the Fitzgerald pick kept looking better and better. Had the Cardinals engaged in Marv/Jauron type thinking, they would have ignored Fitzgerald, while focusing with laser-like intensity on some other position of greater need. Presumably a position associated with a quick impact in the NFL: RB, SS, LB, etc.
JohnC Posted May 16, 2014 Posted May 16, 2014 > Just because you write "win-now" next to a move it doesn't mean it was a "win now" move and more > importantly none of the post TD moves looked like they would actually help them "win-now" I remember Marv talking about how the Bills had decided to go after a DT and an SS with their first two picks. He said that those who objected to the Whitner pick should consider the fact that Whitner + McCargo gave the Bills a better combination of DT and SS than they could have had; had they taken a DT at 8th overall and a safety later in the first. I feel the reason they honed in on those two positions--while passing up better players at other positions--was because they wanted to make a quick impact on their defense. The opposite of that approach is to do what Arizona did when they took Larry Fitzgerald 3rd overall. Most mock drafts I'd seen hadn't anticipated that. Most football experts I'd heard were shocked by that move. The Cardinals had a number of needs, but WR wasn't among them. But as time passed, the Fitzgerald pick kept looking better and better. Had the Cardinals engaged in Marv/Jauron type thinking, they would have ignored Fitzgerald, while focusing with laser-like intensity on some other position of greater need. Presumably a position associated with a quick impact in the NFL: RB, SS, LB, etc. You may be over analyzing the Marv and Jauron era. Marv was simply ill-suited for his position as a GM and Dick Jauron's vision, along with Marv's, notion on how to build a roster was flawed to begin with. The light and quick defensive approach was never going to work against teams constructed with bigger and stronger units. The scouting department during the Donahoe and Marv era was headed by Tom Modrak. His work product during his decade long tenure was noted for its mediocrity. My central point is that the core problem plaguing this scelorotic organization was more due to inept staffing rather than any football philosophy. Bringing in an ill-equipped Marv for a position he really didn't want to salvage a failing organization is a testament to how out of touch and weird this organization had become. I'll never forget the comments one former GM made when describing the Bills. He stated:" I'm sure they have a plan but I haven't firgued what it is. I'm much more optimistic with the direction this franchise is taking because I believe that under Whaley the staffing within the organization is upgraded and modernized. For me Nix was part of the "outdated" old school approach. But I do give him a lot of credit for bringing in the more vibrant and forward thinking Whaley.
Orton's Arm Posted May 16, 2014 Posted May 16, 2014 You may be over analyzing the Marv and Jauron era. Marv was simply ill-suited for his position as a GM and Dick Jauron's vision, along with Marv's, notion on how to build a roster was flawed to begin with. The light and quick defensive approach was never going to work against teams constructed with bigger and stronger units. The scouting department during the Donahoe and Marv era was headed by Tom Modrak. His work product during his decade long tenure was noted for its mediocrity. My central point is that the core problem plaguing this scelorotic organization was more due to inept staffing rather than any football philosophy. Bringing in an ill-equipped Marv for a position he really didn't want to salvage a failing organization is a testament to how out of touch and weird this organization had become. I'll never forget the comments one former GM made when describing the Bills. He stated:" I'm sure they have a plan but I haven't firgued what it is. I'm much more optimistic with the direction this franchise is taking because I believe that under Whaley the staffing within the organization is upgraded and modernized. For me Nix was part of the "outdated" old school approach. But I do give him a lot of credit for bringing in the more vibrant and forward thinking Whaley. > Marv was simply ill-suited for his position as a GM "Ill-suited" is an accurate, if very vague, description of Marv's flaws as GM. The point of my earlier post was to examine why he was ill-suited. TD went 5-11 in his last year as GM. Not only that, many of the Bills' starters were aging, especially on defense. The Bills went 7-9 during Marv's first year as GM. Not only that, but by the start of the 2006 season, Marv had already eliminated many or most of the aging starters he'd inherited from TD. The conclusion was that the Bills were getting younger and better. Even I partially fell prey to this kind of thinking; and I'm less prone to misplaced optimism than some. How did Marv create a happy illusion that fooled most of us--including me? Part of it was that he emphasized using his early picks on quick impact type players. Not necessarily the best football players over the long haul. The guys who'd contribute the most in the short-term. Marv was successful in doing the thing he emphasized--making a quick improvement to the team--and unsuccessful at doing something he hadn't emphasized--building a long-term foundation.
stony Posted May 16, 2014 Posted May 16, 2014 > Just because you write "win-now" next to a move it doesn't mean it was a "win now" move and more > importantly none of the post TD moves looked like they would actually help them "win-now" I remember Marv talking about how the Bills had decided to go after a DT and an SS with their first two picks. He said that those who objected to the Whitner pick should consider the fact that Whitner + McCargo gave the Bills a better combination of DT and SS than they could have had; had they taken a DT at 8th overall and a safety later in the first. I feel the reason they honed in on those two positions--while passing up better players at other positions--was because they wanted to make a quick impact on their defense. The opposite of that approach is to do what Arizona did when they took Larry Fitzgerald 3rd overall. Most mock drafts I'd seen hadn't anticipated that. Most football experts I'd heard were shocked by that move. The Cardinals had a number of needs, but WR wasn't among them. But as time passed, the Fitzgerald pick kept looking better and better. Had the Cardinals engaged in Marv/Jauron type thinking, they would have ignored Fitzgerald, while focusing with laser-like intensity on some other position of greater need. Presumably a position associated with a quick impact in the NFL: RB, SS, LB, etc. In essence, drafting for need on a team bereft of talent.
NickelCity Posted May 16, 2014 Posted May 16, 2014 By mid season everyone bashing giving away that 1st rounder will be talking about what a absolute genious Doug Whaley is.... and the funny thing is they will soley focus on it when he did so many other smart moves in free agency and draft - What 6th rounder will give us the production of Mike Williams? - The trade to get bryce brown - MOVING BACK in the 2nd round....picking up a pick....and still netting Cujo who will be a fixture at RT for us - Taking the low risk chance on Sentrel - Picking up Cyrus in the 5th - Spikes Cyrus in the 5th still blows my mind
Recommended Posts