Mike Williams is A Big Problem

[YoloinOhio]

I understand why you would think that. As I thought of that too while I was writing it. What I mean by it is we need a stabilizing force for this team. The move is a lot less about Williams the player as it is the message it sends to the rest of the league. Dumb moves like this are screaming for a calming presence. I should have clarified that is you remove Marrone, you absolutely must replace him with a highly respected long term answer that can stabilize the organization. Believe me, nothing would make me happier than Marrone having a Levy like career, but you just cannot do what he did yesterday.

I don't read anything into it knowing the game plan of utilising the TE matchup. It was such a big part of the game plan that they had to have Gragg, his backup, active in case Chandler got hurt. The WR depth is such that they also had to have Goodwin and Hogan active as they both play ST, and MW does not. Nor is he a starter. But I don't discount the fact, knowing MW's history (going back to his HS days) that there could be an issue with the player that - not surprisingly - the organization doesn't want out there.

[tonyd19]

Williams is the #3 behind Watkins and Woods. Just saying.

He was the #2 starting WR at the beginning of the year and is paid #2 (potentially # 1) money. He has a history of putting up big time stats and is in the prime of his career athletically. To agents and players he is the #2 receiver on this team.

[YoloinOhio]

I agree with setting examples with bad players (if in fact that is happening, which there is no evidence for) But you do not do it so publicly and you certainly do not send your GM out making snarky comments about the player the next day. Just really bad optics for the entire team.

 

 

 

I'm sorry how many playoff games have the Bills won in the last 15 years? Belicheat is the stabilizing force I was originally talking about. Yes, winning matters. If Marrone takes the team to 4 Super Bowls and wins a couple then he can do whatever he wants. Until then, your comparison is not valid.

What did they do "publically," and what were the snarky comments? There are valid reasons for him to be inactive. I was surprised. But I do see why it occurred, even absent of off field issues.

 

He was the #2 starting WR at the beginning of the year and is paid #2 (potentially # 1) money. He has a history of putting up big time stats and is in the prime of his career athletically. To agents and players he is the #2 receiver on this team.

He was never listed as the #2 WR, going back to the first depth chart in TC. The money is irrelevant, they are trying to win. Good coaches play the players who give them the best chance. His agent can think whatever he wants, that is his job. To what players is he the #2?

[BigBuff423]

I do not mean Mike Williams the player is a big problem. I mean taking a highly compensated, highly talented, well known player and making him a healthy scratch for the biggest game of the year (to date) is a big problem for this franchise. If you ever wonder why big name free agents do not want to play here, it is basically the below reasons.

 

1) We have constant coach and scheme turnover. Essentially, the franchise is in perpetual chaos.

 

2) Nobody wants to come to an organization like this and have their value diminished by a coaching staff who does not use them properly, changes their position, or puts them in situations where they cannot maximize their value and or skill level.

 

3) Every few years we have a high profile player, who wants out of here for some reason or another. Players talk and do not want to deal with constant front office and personnel problems.

 

Now back to Mike Williams. We have a very skilled well known, national player. He grew up in Buffalo, he said his dream is to play in Buffalo. Now, 6 weeks into the season after being exposed to the organization he wants out of Buffalo. We have a head coach and front office who lay out a b.s excuse as to why our #2 wide out is inactive for a huge division game. And then lay out another b.s excuse regarding how they are not shopping him, but would look at offers for him?

 

Does the coaching staff and front office have any clue how this type on nonsense looks to potential free agents, potential coaches, and potential front office personnel around the league? How about to player agents and future draft choices? This crap has to end now. We cannot take a highly talented player like Williams who by all accounts has been a model citizen here, has worked hard, and who is very talented and treat him like that. Regardless of what you like or dislike about him, it sends a terrible message about the Bills as a whole. That move yesterday was absolutely unacceptable. If I was Terry Pegula, it would be the catalyst to remove the entire coaching staff at the end of the year. I would make sure I sent MANY messages through back channels that this type of crap is over. I would pay big money to bring in a well known, high profile head coach to solidify the organizations standing and give him a very long term contract.

 

I have been a fan of Marrone to this point, but the move yesterday to deactivate Williams may have set this team back 10 years. It was that bad.

 

To your first three points: how's that working in Cleveland thus far?

[Pneumonic]

Hopefully morone knew that Revis would be on Watkins all day.

 

All he had to do was read Watkin's tweets to know that Revis was going to follow him around all game.

[What a Tuel]

Williams is a headcase and cancer who believes he's much better than he really is. No one should really be surprised that this is the result.

 

And it begins again. The demonizing of our talent because we don't want to admit that we as a team, aren't making them look good. Just look at our QB situation and our OC situation, and you tell me if you were a WR would you want to play for us?

[YoloinOhio]

I agree with setting examples with bad players (if in fact that is happening, which there is no evidence for) But you do not do it so publicly and you certainly do not send your GM out making snarky comments about the player the next day. Just really bad optics for the entire team.

 

 

 

I'm sorry how many playoff games have the Bills won in the last 15 years? Belicheat is the stabilizing force I was originally talking about. Yes, winning matters. If Marrone takes the team to 4 Super Bowls and wins a couple then he can do whatever he wants. Until then, your comparison is not valid.

Why does that matter here... you can give Bellichik the benefit of the doubt because of his tenure and success. But it is still the same move, possibly. The comparison is valid. He's been a HC for less than 2 years. He is trying to win. Shall he do the opposite of Belichick instead, because he hasn't "earned" the right to make a decision about his own player? BTW Whaley needs to approve inactives, unless they have a different structure than most teams.

[tonyd19]

I don't read anything into it knowing the game plan of utilising the TE matchup. It was such a big part of the game plan that they had to have Gragg, his backup, active in case Chandler got hurt. The WR depth is such that they also had to have Goodwin and Hogan active as they both play ST, and MW does not. Nor is he a starter. But I don't discount the fact, knowing MW's history (going back to his HS days) that there could be an issue with the player that - not surprisingly - the organization doesn't want out there.

 

If there is a problem with Williams ( which his history has shown) I agree that the HC should take action. But with A Williams being inactive, you could still activate Williams and just not play him often and keep the 3 TE sets. The problem once agian is not so much about Williams the player. It is about a HC whop deactivates a fairly well know highly paid player, A GM who comes out and makes a very backhanded statement about the player and how the organization does things.

 

But I have a question.

 

What if Mike WIlliams has been a model citizen behind the scenes, like the front office says he has? Then it is even worse. Now you have a reformed bad image player who the Bills have now made an issue not over his attitude, but his talent. If you are Mike Williams how do you not feel taken advantage of in that situation. A team that does this to you in your prime knowing people outside the organization will question your work ethic or attitude because of your history. As I said, there is no good that comes out of that decision. The only good that could have come from it would have been if the Bills won, and they came out the next day and praised Williams for his sacrifice for the team.

[YoloinOhio]

If there is a problem with Williams ( which his history has shown) I agree that the HC should take action. But with A Williams being inactive, you could still activate Williams and just not play him often and keep the 3 TE sets. The problem once agian is not so much about Williams the player. It is about a HC whop deactivates a fairly well know highly paid player, A GM who comes out and makes a very backhanded statement about the player and how the organization does things.

 

But I have a question.

 

What if Mike WIlliams has been a model citizen behind the scenes, like the front office says he has? Then it is even worse. Now you have a reformed bad image player who the Bills have now made an issue not over his attitude, but his talent. If you are Mike Williams how do you not feel taken advantage of in that situation. A team that does this to you in your prime knowing people outside the organization will question your work ethic or attitude because of your history. As I said, there is no good that comes out of that decision. The only good that could have come from it would have been if the Bills won, and they came out the next day and praised Williams for his sacrifice for the team.

With AW inactive, they had to activate a S (Ladler)

 

Marrone just said in his presser he has zero issues with MW. Just a roster decision on needing 3 TEs and the WRs who also play ST. So I think it comes down to 2 things - Marrone is trying to light a fire under MW to boost his game/commitment or there ARE issues but they don't want to hurt his trade value by saying that.

[Pneumonic]

And it begins again. The demonizing of our talent because we don't want to admit that we as a team, aren't making them look good. Just look at our QB situation and our OC situation, and you tell me if you were a WR would you want to play for us?

 

Williams' issues have never been related to his physical talent. It's what's between (or not between) his ears that's the issue.

[tonyd19]

What did they do "publically," and what were the snarky comments? There are valid reasons for him to be inactive. I was surprised. But I do see why it occurred, even absent of off field issues.

 

He was never listed as the #2 WR, going back to the first depth chart in TC. The money is irrelevant, they are trying to win. Good coaches play the players who give them the best chance. His agent can think whatever he wants, that is his job. To what players is he the #2?

 

Whaley came out after the trade request and said, and I am paraphrasing that Williams claims to be a #1 WR and if he can find someone to compensate them he will trade him. This is a comment full of sarcasm that just sends a bad message to players. Don't get on the bad side of the GM or he will make public comments about your talent level. The public question is obvious. They publicly deactivated him and then had to explain publicly why they did so.

[Charles Romes]

I think there is a humongous drop off in talent between #3 Williams and numbers 4 and 5. Goodwin is a frail one trick pony with no catch radius. Hogan cannot be counted on to catch the ball. It made no football sense to not have Williams out there. He was a huge part of opening up space for Watkins and more importantly the running game. I have no problem with Williams expressing his frustration.

[YoloinOhio]

Whaley came out after the trade request and said, and I am paraphrasing that Williams claims to be a #1 WR and if he can find someone to compensate them he will trade him. This is a comment full of sarcasm that just sends a bad message to players. Don't get on the bad side of the GM or he will make public comments about your talent level. The public question is obvious. They publicly deactivated him and then had to explain publicly why they did so.

Williams didn't claim that. His agent did. Whaley said " if he gets me compensation worthy of a No. 1 wide receiver which he (agent) claimed he is, then we would entertain it.” As I said in the other MW thread - agents call all the time requesting trades. It only gets out in the media if the agent wants it to. Whaley did not make it public. The agent did, and then he had to answer it. I don't think he wants to trade him and therefore is pissed he needs to deal with it now.

 

There isn't any such thing as "publically" deactivating a player. Every inactive is made public for every team, every week, within an hour of the game. It's a rule.

[tonyd19]

With AW inactive, they had to activate a S (Ladler)

 

Marrone just said in his presser he has zero issues with MW. Just a roster decision on needing 3 TEs and the WRs who also play ST. So I think it comes down to 2 things - Marrone is trying to light a fire under MW to boost his game/commitment or there ARE issues but they don't want to hurt his trade value by saying that.

 

If anyone here actually believes MW was not active because of a three TE set, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. Your argument is self refuting. Was he deactivated because of personnel or because the HC wanted to motivate him? If it is the former then you have to explain why a WR in his prime, who has 1,000 yard 10 TD production is not worthy of a roster spot in the biggest game of the year. If it is the latter, then you have a front office who is now not only questions the players motivaation, but also their talent level. Like I said, it is all bad.

[YoloinOhio]

I think there is a humongous drop off in talent between #3 Williams and numbers 4 and 5. Goodwin is a frail one trick pony with no catch radius. Hogan cannot be counted on to catch the ball. It made no football sense to not have Williams out there. He was a huge part of opening up space for Watkins and more importantly the running game. I have no problem with Williams expressing his frustration.

Did you watch the game? 5 catches, 72 yards, 1 TD.

[Mike in Horseheads]

I don't read anything into it knowing the game plan of utilising the TE matchup. It was such a big part of the game plan that they had to have Gragg, his backup, active in case Chandler got hurt. The WR depth is such that they also had to have Goodwin and Hogan active as they both play ST, and MW does not. Nor is he a starter. But I don't discount the fact, knowing MW's history (going back to his HS days) that there could be an issue with the player that - not surprisingly - the organization doesn't want out there.

With all respect what does Goodwin do on special teams? CJ is running back kicks and Leo punts. I would have sit the glass house and kept Mike active personally. But I also agree maybe there is more to it with Dougie. Edited October 13, 2014 by Mike in Horseheads

[YoloinOhio]

If anyone here actually believes MW was not active because of a three TE set, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. Your argument is self refuting. Was he deactivated because of personnel or because the HC wanted to motivate him? If it is the former then you have to explain why a WR in his prime, who has 1,000 yard 10 TD production is not worthy of a roster spot in the biggest game of the year. If it is the latter, then you have a front office who is now not only questions the players motivaation, but also their talent level. Like I said, it is all bad.

I am not arguing anything. I said it was likely one OR the other. I don't see the first one that hard to believe. Or the second.

 

No one said they were running 3 TE sets. The TE Chandler was a major part of the game plan, which was run with success. If he were to get hurt in the game, and Gragg was not active (as he has not been in several games this year), they need to scrap that whole set of plays which clearly worked. Lee Smith (who I think sucks but whatev) is a guy they use to block for the run, he isn't the type to be able to back up Chandler.

 

With all respect was does Goodwin do on special teams? CJ is running back kicks and Leo punts. I would have sit the glass house and kept Mike active personally. But I also agree maybe there is more to it with Dougie.

Gunner on coverage units Edited October 13, 2014 by YoloinOhio

[tonyd19]

Williams didn't claim that. His agent did. Whaley said " if he gets me compensation worthy of a No. 1 wide receiver which he (agent) claimed he is, then we would entertain it.” As I said in the other MW thread - agents call all the time requesting trades. It only gets out in the media if the agent wants it to. Whaley did not make it public. The agent did, and then he had to answer it. I don't think he wants to trade him and therefore is pissed he needs to deal with it now.

 

There isn't any such thing as "publically" deactivating a player. Every inactive is made public for every team, every week, within an hour of the game. It's a rule.

 

That is self refuting. If it is public then it is public.

 

Also, who made the trade request is irrelevant. It is how the GM responded. Being "pissed" reflects badly on the entire franchise. By doing so he devalued the players talents, made himself look bad, and made the team look unprofessional. All bad.

[What a Tuel]

Williams' issues have never been related to his physical talent. It's what's between (or not between) his ears that's the issue.

 

What was his issue this time? He is headed for half of the receptions and a third of the TD's as last year (EDIT: 2012). We aren't using him. Part of it is our QB problem. If this was some type of punishment from Marrone, then do it on a less important game, like a non conference, non division home game such as the Vikings next week. We needed Williams out there yesterday.

Edited October 13, 2014 by What a Tuel

[tonyd19]

I am not arguing anything. I said it was likely one OR the other. I don't see the first one that hard to believe. Or the second.

 

Gunner on coverage units

 

I understand and agree with you that it was one of these problems. What I am saying is that either way it is really bad for the team. Just a bad decision either way you slice it. Reflects badly on the team, on the front office and how this team makes decisions and responds to internal problems. Very unprofessional on all fronts.