Mike Williams is A Big Problem

[YoloinOhio]

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.

Huh? Ok....but you were criticizing them for making it public. Every team is required to make inactives public by the league.

[thebandit27]

Huh? Ok....but you were criticizing them for making it public. Every team is required to make inactives public by the league.

 

You've done your part Yolo...I no longer have any idea what the poster is upset about.

[tonyd19]

Huh? Ok....but you were criticizing them for making it public. Every team is required to make inactives public by the league.

 

What I said was by deactivating him they made it public. If they wanted to send a message to him regarding his professionalism, they should not have deactivated him. Thus allowing the entire organization to save face and look better. By deactivating a talented player and then to come out and say they have absolutely no issue with his professionalism calls into question his talent level. Also when they GM comes out and says "If he is #1 WR, as he claims to be." You can infer that the player claims to be a # 1 wideout but that is not how the franchise sees him. Once again it calls into question his talent level.

[thebandit27]

What I said was by deactivating him they made it public. If they wanted to send a message to him regarding his professionalism, they should not have deactivated him. Thus allowing the entire organization to save face and look better. By deactivating a talented player and then to come out and say they have absolutely no issue with his professionalism calls into question his talent level. Also when they GM comes out and says "If he is #1 WR, as he claims to be." You can infer that the player claims to be a # 1 wideout but that is not how the franchise sees him. Once again it calls into question his talent level.

 

Two things:

 

1) You could just choose to believe Marrone when he says he made the decision to deactivate him based on ST. Go ahead and disagree with that thought process if you'd like (I do); it doesn't have to be a secret motive.

 

2) The GM said that if someone offered him #1 WR compensation, which is what his agent says he is. He didn't take a shot at the player that I saw.

[dave mcbride]

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.

 

But ... Lee Smith, man!! He's gotta play!

[Mr. WEO]

Belichik benches Dobson for 2 games and cuts Thompkins, but he's a genius. Everyone always wants to blame the coach, unless it is the coach of another team then it must be the player.

 

 

Well.... that and he's beaten us 23 out of 25 times.

[tonyd19]

You've done your part Yolo...I no longer have any idea what the poster is upset about.

 

Not that difficult. Lets look at the options.

 

1) Mike Williams does not fit the scheme this week, therefore we will not play him.

2) Mike Williams has an attitude problem, therefore we will not play him.

 

1) If he does not fit the scheme, you have to show the player is not talented enough than the other players to contribute to a victory. Since the front office themselves are not claiming this and since the players previous performance indicates otherwise, you can logically deduce this is not true. He is more talented than the other players in front of him, therefore there is another reason he is not active.

 

2) If he has an attitude problem, then there are better ways to handle this problem, than to deactivate him, making a public issue out of a discipline issue and making your entire team look bad. We can also deduce that this should not be a problem because the team has come out and said, they have no problem with his attitude.

 

We can logically deduce that the team 1) Does believe he more talented than other players who were active and 2) Does not have an attitude problem based on their own comments. Therefore we can conclude the front office is lying about the reason he was inactive. Hence, the chaos and lack of professionalism at the franchise level I originally was talking about that makes the team look bad.

[Charles Romes]

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

 

Did you see his drop of an easy first down conversion? Only a 4th down conversion saved it from being a drive stopper. No different than a turnover. The fact no one is calling out the drop or drops in preseason is a real problem.

 

You do not win football games with drops like this.

[YoloinOhio]

 

 

 

Well.... that and he's beaten us 23 out of 25 times.

so should Marrone do the opposite of what Belichik would do ( if circumstances were the same, we don't know) considering how successful he has been?

 

 

 

Did you see his drop of an easy first down conversion? Only a 4th down conversion saved it from being a drive stopper. No different than a turnover. The fact no one is calling out the drop or drops in preseason is a real problem.

 

You do not win football games with drops like this.

i saw the drop. The drop, however, didn't cancel out the catches, for me, or make me decide he is not dependable. Edited October 13, 2014 by YoloinOhio

[dave mcbride]

Did you see his drop of an easy first down conversion? Only a 4th down conversion saved it from being a drive stopper. No different than a turnover. The fact no one is calling out the drop or drops in preseason is a real problem.

 

You do not win football games with drops like this.

 

A couple of things: Chandler dropped a pass on the play before that one. The constant in both cases: Chandler and Hogan were both staring directly into the sun. It was obvious from looking at the shadows. Every other pass after that (not many, but still) went to the other side of the field.

Edited October 13, 2014 by dave mcbride

[Mr. WEO]

so should Marrone do the opposite of what Belichik would do ( if circumstances were the same, we don't know) considering how successful he has been?

 

i saw the drop. The drop, however, didn't cancel out the catches, for me, or make me decide he is not dependable.

 

Comparing the tow HC's is a bit silly. Belichick has proven he can win without top WRs on the roster (Brady completed passes to 10 receivers yesterday--go check that list of superstars). Marrone has not, so he can't let talent walk out the door.

[....lybob]

You tell me Mike Williams has to sit because you need an extra TE for the running game then run for a grand total of 68 yards with a three yard ave- maybe you should fix your OG situation instead, cut Lee Smith and use Pears as an extra blocking TE.

[YoloinOhio]

 

 

Comparing the tow HC's is a bit silly. Belichick has proven he can win without top WRs on the roster (Brady completed passes to 10 receivers yesterday--go check that list of superstars). Marrone has not, so he can't let talent walk out the door.

i didn't compare the coaches. I compared the decisions. Unless anyone knows the whole story, I don't see how you can assume he made the wrong one because he has been a HC all of a year and a half. He has to make the tough decisions, easy to criticize when your job isn't on the line. I (and many who grew up in Bflo) know all about mike Williams. Forgive me if I don't jump to defend him. But again, I really don't know these exact circumstances so not jumping to conclusions either way.

 

Edit - BTW I finally let myself get excited about MW in TC. I really thought he had changed. Maybe he has, no evidence really yet to say he hadn't. But I have an uneasy feeling about that, can't really shake it.

You tell me Mike Williams has to sit because you need an extra TE for the running game then run for a grand total of 68 yards with a three yard ave- maybe you should fix your OG situation instead, cut Lee Smith and use Pears as an extra blocking TE.

i said that about Pears yesterday. Smith is useless! Edited October 13, 2014 by YoloinOhio

[thebandit27]

Not that difficult. Lets look at the options.

 

1) Mike Williams does not fit the scheme this week, therefore we will not play him.

2) Mike Williams has an attitude problem, therefore we will not play him.

 

1) If he does not fit the scheme, you have to show the player is not talented enough than the other players to contribute to a victory. Since the front office themselves are not claiming this and since the players previous performance indicates otherwise, you can logically deduce this is not true. He is more talented than the other players in front of him, therefore there is another reason he is not active.

 

2) If he has an attitude problem, then there are better ways to handle this problem, than to deactivate him, making a public issue out of a discipline issue and making your entire team look bad. We can also deduce that this should not be a problem because the team has come out and said, they have no problem with his attitude.

 

We can logically deduce that the team 1) Does believe he more talented than other players who were active and 2) Does not have an attitude problem based on their own comments. Therefore we can conclude the front office is lying about the reason he was inactive. Hence, the chaos and lack of professionalism at the franchise level I originally was talking about that makes the team look bad.

 

Or it could just be that you don't agree with their logic. Their logic doesn't have to be the same as yours in order for them not to be lying...that's the point here.

 

They didn't dress Williams because they felt that Gragg was essential to the game plan as Chandler's backup, and that Hogan/Goodwin were more important on ST. I don't agree with those decisions; that doesn't mean that they're lies.

[tonyd19]

i didn't compare the coaches. I compared the decisions. Unless anyone knows the whole story, I don't see how you can assume he made the wrong one because he has been a HC all of a year and a half. He has to make the tough decisions, easy to criticize when your job isn't on the line. I (and many who grew up in Bflo) know all about mike Williams. Forgive me if I don't jump to defend him. But again, I really don't know these exact circumstances so not jumping to conclusions either way.

 

i said that about Pears yesterday. Smith is useless!

 

Yolo:

 

I just want to make sure you understand this thread is not actually about Mike Williams, it is about how the organization handles big time players and the waves that can have on the future of the franchise. The player could be anyone. It is how this team responds to high profile high talent players. You just do not see other teams doing things like this. You would not see the Yankees deactivate a high profile player who is in their prime for a post season series when they were not injured because of some problem the coaching staff or whomever had with them. It is not how winners are built. This is the crux of my problem.

 

Now you can argue Mike Williams is not that big time of player. But to Buffalo he is a big time talent. When you look at it from the perspective of he is a big time talent who actually wanted to be here (was his dream to be here) then 6 weeks later wants out. Then you look at how the team bad mouthed players like Marshawn Lynch (deserved or not) how he was lazy, did not run hard, didn't put in full effort...and he goes to Seattle and does what he does. It makes the whole franchise look like absolute fools. And nobody wants to play for (or coach or work for) a team that 1) Always loses, 2) Will bad mouth or disrespect good players, 3) Will publicly attempt to humiliate them. They either won't come play here or you will have to massively overpay to get them here.

[Mr. WEO]

i didn't compare the coaches. I compared the decisions. Unless anyone knows the whole story, I don't see how you can assume he made the wrong one because he has been a HC all of a year and a half. He has to make the tough decisions, easy to criticize when your job isn't on the line. I (and many who grew up in Bflo) know all about mike Williams. Forgive me if I don't jump to defend him. But again, I really don't know these exact circumstances so not jumping to conclusions either way.

 

Edit - BTW I finally let myself get excited about MW in TC. I really thought he had changed. Maybe he has, no evidence really yet to say he hadn't. But I have an uneasy feeling about that, can't really shake it.

i said that about Pears yesterday. Smith is useless!

 

I thought you did, sorry. My point was that BB can manipulate his mediocre roster of WRs and he knows there will be no ill effect. Marrone can't afford to attempt the same (he has better WRs on his roster as it is). I say this specifically because Marrone has only been around for 1.5 years and hasn't proven he knows what he is doing. The circumstances are that he brought MW in (i liked this move) and after only 5 games he inactivates him (his explanation is kind of insulting to the intelligence of Bills fans).

 

So..he deserves little slack in this situation, I think.

[tonyd19]

Or it could just be that you don't agree with their logic. Their logic doesn't have to be the same as yours in order for them not to be lying...that's the point here.

 

They didn't dress Williams because they felt that Gragg was essential to the game plan as Chandler's backup, and that Hogan/Goodwin were more important on ST. I don't agree with those decisions; that doesn't mean that they're lies.

 

You are correct, that does not make it a lie.

 

However, it's not that I do not agree with it, it is in fact that it is not logical. At the end of the day, you do not bench players who are your starters for back ups. If this had been a playoff game, would this decision make any sense? Should we deactivate Orton or EJ because we are going to a heavy run set formations and just don't plan to throw much? Why deactivate your 2/3 receiver for your 4/5? They say special teams. So you deactivate a 40 to 50 play guy to have a 20 play guy on the field? You're going up against one of the best corners in the game without all your healthy weapons at receiver? If this is actually the reason, I would have to question if this man is fit to coach at all. Also, I do not think anyone (you included) actually believe that special teams was the reason. Mike Williams can't play special teams? I am sure he would have preferred that over being inactive.

 

No, there is certainly something else there and the message being sent from the front office confirms it. If anything the special teams issue was an excuse, if not an outright lie.

Edited October 13, 2014 by tonyd19

[thebandit27]

You are correct, that does not make it a lie.

 

However, it's not that I do not agree with it, it is in fact that it is not logical. At the end of the day, you do not bench players who are your starters for back ups. If this had been a playoff game, would this decision make any sense? Should we deactivate Orton or EJ because we are going to a heavy run set formations and just don't plan to throw much? Why deactivate your 2/3 receiver for your 4/5? They say special teams. So you deactivate a 40 to 50 play guy to have a 20 play guy on the field? You're going up against one of the best corners in the game without all your healthy weapons at receiver? If this is actually the reason, I would have to question if this man is fit to coach at all. Also, I do not think anyone (you included) actually believe that special teams was the reason. Mike Williams can't play special teams? I am sure he would have preferred that over being inactive.

 

No, there is certainly something else there and the message being sent from the front office confirms it. If anything the special teams issue was an excuse, if not an outright lie.

 

Actually, I do believe the explanation; I just don't agree with it.

 

In my mind, it's the same as the decision to keep Mario and Hughes on the bench for the first 7 snaps of NE's final TD drive. I sat in the stands, wondering aloud why the team's 2 best pass rushers aren't in the game. I figured the answer was that they were saving them for 3rd down; turns out (as Marrone said in his post-game press conference) that was indeed the reason. I hate that reasoning; it's stupid. That doesn't mean that I don't believe it.

 

I think it's quite obvious that what Marrone said about Mike Williams is genuinely his thought process; I just don't agree with it. Much the same as I understand that they dress Lee Smith as a blocking TE, when they could just as easily dress another WR or RB and use Urbik or Hairston as a blocking TE (since they're just as likely as Lee Smith to get open and catch a pass). I understand the thought process; I completely disagree with it.

[Section242]

But ... Lee Smith, man!! He's gotta play!

 

You draft a WR in the 1st rd this year and two in early rds last year you've gotta gameplan for 3 te sets. Mike Williams is ok. If their was a problem with him in the locker room I'd guess they would just cut him.

 

If the Bills were to trade him they wouldn't get a 6th rd pick back. More likely he'd be cut and not sure if he'd get another chance.

[Mark80]

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.

 

Guess you missed when Mario Williams signed here. Or when Brandon Spikes signed here. Or when Corey Graham signed here. Or when Kyle Orton would rather play here than in Dallas. Or when Keith Rivers signed here. The Bills have signed just as many, if not more big name players the last few years as anyone.