FireChan Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 This thread is the quintessential example of why FireChan is the first and only poster I've ever put on ignore on TSW. Unfortunately his idiocy has been quoted in so many replies I've been compelled to read it. What a joke. Gonna miss ya
Kelly the Dog Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 Kelly. 6-2 QB Jim Kelly on his way to a division title is not Kraig Urbik. Let's be better than that, together. Your answer makes Marrone's decision worse. So stars that can help the team a lot CAN do stuff detrimental to the team and play but just decent starters who can help the team just not as much CAN'T do stuff detrimental because they will be benched for half the season. Got it. Go Doug!
FireChan Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 Your answer makes Marrone's decision worse. So stars that can help the team a lot CAN do stuff detrimental to the team and play but just decent starters who can help the team just not as much CAN'T do stuff detrimental because they will be benched for half the season. Got it. Go Doug! Yes. Stars get more rope. Is it fair? Maybe not. That's just reality.
GG Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 Conduct detrimental to the team is exclusive to on the field play? News to me. And Pac Man. And Greg Hardy. And Ray Rice. And Ray Lewis. And Randy Moss. And.. And.. And.. Marrone did a lot of weird stuff pal. I'm not gonna try to psychoanalyze the guy based on a 10 second clip. Maybe he was defensive because Kraig was acting a POS whiner, and bitching constantly, and acting like a total douche, and Marrone wasn't pleased with it. Holy non sequitur Batman. Who said anything about players' personal misconducts? We're talking about their effect on the team on the field. History is littered with talented malcontents, and as long as they held up their end of the bargain once the ball is snapped, they're not taken out of the line up. They certainly aren't put on a bench for weeks on out and worse players put in their place. And you don't need to analyze one 10 second clip of Marrone. Just splice a season's worth of those 10 second snippets and a fuller picture of a thin skinned quitter emerges.
FireChan Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) Holy non sequitur Batman. Who said anything about players' personal misconducts? We're talking about their effect on the team on the field. History is littered with talented malcontents, and as long as they held up their end of the bargain once the ball is snapped, they're not taken out of the line up. They certainly aren't put on a bench for weeks on out and worse players put in their place. And you don't need to analyze one 10 second clip of Marrone. Just splice a season's worth of those 10 second snippets and a fuller picture of a thin skinned quitter emerges. You said he had no detriment on the team. I extended that to off the field. Do you think that's invalid? Kraig Urbik is not that talented. See, if you had answered my question and said, "No, the talented player should always play ahead of a lesser player unless he's not playing better than the other guy," we could've skipped the last 2 pages of back and forth. Next time, answering the question will be easier. Edited January 6, 2016 by FireChan
4merper4mer Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 You said he had no detriment on the team. I extended that to off the field. Do you think that's invalid? Kraig Urbik is not that talented. He is better at his job than Marrone was at his.
GG Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 You said he had no detriment on the team. I extended that to off the field. Do you think that's invalid? Kraig Urbik is not that talented. See, if you had answered my question and said, "No, the talented player should always play ahead of a lesser player unless he's not playing better than the other guy," we could've skipped the last 2 pages of back and forth. Next time, answering the question will be easier. Next time non evasive questions would also help. Your detrimental examples are detriments to the franchise and to the league. The discipline to those guys' actions are handled by the owners and the commissioner, not the coach. But you knew that when you threw the non sequiturs out there.
FireChan Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) Next time non evasive questions would also help. Your detrimental examples are detriments to the franchise and to the league. The discipline to those guys' actions are handled by the owners and the commissioner, not the coach. But you knew that when you threw the non sequiturs out there. It wasn't evasive. I asked you nicely to answer, and I told you it'd be relevant. No reason to spend all this time talking past each other with clear philosophical difference. Not always handled by the commissioner. Manziel was handled by his coach. The Bickering Bills were all handed fines by Marv directly. Dez has been yanked by his coach mid game for tantruming on the sidelines. Coughlin was rightly chastised for not yanking OBJ during his tantrum. Coaches have played a role in player discipline for both on the field and off the field behavior at all levels since, well, as long as I can remember He is better at his job than Marrone was at his. Does it keep you up at night knowing that Dougie will have gotten us our highest record for at least the next two years? That makes it what, the best record in 13 years. Not too shabby. Edited January 6, 2016 by FireChan
GG Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 It wasn't evasive. I asked you nicely to answer, and I told you it'd be relevant. No reason to spend all this time talking past each other with clear philosophical difference. Not always handled by the commissioner. Manziel was handled by his coach. The Bickering Bills were all handed fines by Marv directly. Dez has been yanked by his coach mid game for tantruming on the sidelines. Coughlin was rightly chastised for not yanking OBJ during his tantrum. Coaches have played a role in player discipline for both on the field and off the field behavior at all levels since, well, as long as I can remember Does it keep you up at night knowing that Dougie will have gotten us our highest record for at least the next two years? That makes it what, the best record in 13 years. Not too shabby. All examples you presented were handled by the league. All these new examples were for on field behavior or something that affected the team. You know, different from what you're arguing.
FireChan Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) All examples you presented were handled by the league. All these new examples were for on field behavior or something that affected the team. You know, different from what you're arguing. Something that affected the team....like a malcontent? Do you believe that malcontents can negatively impact the rest of the team's play? Edited January 6, 2016 by FireChan
GG Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 Something that affected the team....like a malcontent? Do you believe that malcontents can negatively impact the rest of the team's play? Not when the rest of the team agrees with the malcontent.
FireChan Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 Not when the rest of the team agrees with the malcontent. Yet another [citation needed.] And yes, our defense looked great this year when half of them bought what Mario was selling.
LA Grant Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 Something that affected the team....like a malcontent? Do you believe that malcontents can negatively impact the rest of the team's play? This is so stupid. Your argument only boils down to "we weren't in the locker room, so we should defer to Coach Marrone's decision and assume benching Urbik was the right decision, therefore he must have been a malcontent" despite that Urbik's play was clearly superior when he finally played and no indications (besides benching) that Urbik was doing anything detrimental to the team as a whole. In fact, all of the evidence points the other way — that Marrone loved power games. His track record is full of stupid pissing contests, whereas Urbik's (as far as I know) is not. Now, if you want to make a separate argument on coaching strategy ("how effective is it to play head games with pro players?"), then that would at least be more constructive than the current debate, which is basically you just arguing poorly for a dumb position. Even then, it's hard to say the strategy of head games were effective because Urbik > Pears.
Nihilarian Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 Urbik should have been the starting RG. He was always a guy that could play both and played there this year. It was insane to put Pears there. There is not a coach in the league that would do that. I agree, but what I was referring to earlier was that Pears at RG fits Buddy Nix's narrative that any OT can be moved to OG if need be. So, perhaps that was presented to him by Whaley. Not like Marrone had a great selection of star players to plug in on that line at LG, RT, RG. Look at the lack of talent on the offensive line vs the defensive line where each and every starter is a high quality and highly paid player. This has been the philosophy of the Bills FO since failing with Mike Williams at LT it seems. Trading away all pro-LT Jason Peters and then expecting to replace him with a 7th round pick in Demetress Bell. Replacing Andy Levitre with Colin Brown. Legurski, Chris Williams and finally back to Urbik who was plucked off the waiver wire with Pears. We don't know the whole story on Marrone and exactly why he walked away from Buffalo. We all know we are happy about that situation given his choice for OC but we also know he clashed with the current GM over some things and we don't know the entirety of those things either.
FireChan Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 This is so stupid. Your argument only boils down to "we weren't in the locker room, so we should defer to Coach Marrone's decision and assume benching Urbik was the right decision, therefore he must have been a malcontent" despite that Urbik's play was clearly superior when he finally played and no indications (besides benching) that Urbik was doing anything detrimental to the team as a whole. In fact, all of the evidence points the other way that Marrone loved power games. His track record is full of stupid pissing contests, whereas Urbik's (as far as I know) is not. Now, if you want to make a separate argument on coaching strategy ("how effective is it to play head games with pro players?"), then that would at least be more constructive than the current debate, which is basically you just arguing poorly for a dumb position. Even then, it's hard to say the strategy of head games were effective because Urbik > Pears. I have indications that Urbik was a malcontent.
4merper4mer Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 I have indications that Urbik was a malcontent. The world has indications that Greggo Marrone is a douche bag and bad coach.
Maury Ballstein Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 The world has indications that Greggo Marrone is a douche bag and bad coach. It's pretty transparent.
dave mcbride Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) I keep opening this thread to find out if there's any more news about Marrone in Miami. Can we change the thread title to "Doubling down on Marrone's unwise benching policies" so I don't have to open this again? Edited January 6, 2016 by dave mcbride
YoloinOhio Posted January 6, 2016 Author Posted January 6, 2016 I keep opening this thread to find out if there's any more news about Marrone in Miami. Can we change the thread title to "Doubling down on Marrone's unwise benching policies" so I don't have to open this again? he interviews Friday
Recommended Posts