Mario Williams released

[The Big Cat]

 

For all the crying over the locker room void when Fred Jackson was cut, you'd think more people would recognize this reality. When the highest paid player on the team pulls that sh-- it's time to boot him.

 

Totally agree.

 

My pre-2015 Rex Ryan reservations were: being inconsistently prepared, giving players more leeway than they could handle and being loyal to a fault.

 

We were regretful audience to each of those this year. And the loyalty angle really played out in his decision to keep playing Mario. BUT, where does that loop begin/end? Million-man-Mario is throwing a pity party and bringing down the locker room so what good would benching him do? Seems like it would only exacerbate the problem. Especially when we come to grips with the reality of locker room-sway that a salary carries.

[YoloinOhio]

 

Totally agree.

 

My pre-2015 Rex Ryan reservations were: being inconsistently prepared, giving players more leeway than they could handle and being loyal to a fault.

 

We were regretful audience to each of those this year. And the loyalty angle really played out in his decision to keep playing Mario. BUT, where does that loop begin/end? Million-man-Mario is throwing a pity party and bringing down the locker room so what good would benching him do? Seems like it would only exacerbate the problem. Especially when we come to grips with the reality of locker room-sway that a salary carries.

and... He was a Captain in 2014.

[The Big Cat]

and... He was a Captain in 2014.

 

Right, but when you point to these intangible factors, they're easily/readily/assuredly dismissed. Which is dumb.

[boyst]

Free agent in it for the money. In other news, water is wet. More at 11.

its 12:47. I'm still waiting. What else?

Honestly I think he is a downgrade from Wake

in our scheme maybe so but overall. Apples and oranges. Mario is great at the run. Declining in pass rush. Wake is decent at both. And slowing down quick

[YoloinOhio]

its 12:47. I'm still waiting. What else?

in our scheme maybe so but overall. Apples and oranges. Mario is great at the run. Declining in pass rush. Wake is decent at both. And slowing down quick

Dont get me wrong - for the Bills I would rather have a rookie than either one. 10+ years younger, more explosive, gobs cheaper, can draft specific to scheme, will have vets across the DL to support him. But if I'm Miami and for whatever reason just have to pay one of them 8 mill or more, I would take Wake. Better pass rusher in a passing league, and better teammate. He's 3 years older but IMO still has a lot left and his recent film is better... neither one is a long term fixture. Why don't they just give Vernon, age 25 and better than both, whatever he wants and draft a pass rusher? Edited March 8, 2016 by YoloinOhio

[boyst]

 

This is a ridiculous statement.

 

Ed Reed.

Terrell Suggs.

Haloti Ngata.

David Harris.

Sheldon Richardson.

Muhammed Wilkerson.

Darelle Revis.

 

Just to name a few. All played in Rex Ryans system, all played extremely well and didn't "kill their production"

hilarious. 3 ID those are HOF talented. 4 of theme are extremely gifted athletes. Only one of those wasn't taken in the first. Harris. All of those you listed are light years better than the average schlub that is in the NFL.

 

Besides the high level talent what did Rex have? He has yet to bring the most of out a group or team of underachievers. Harris, Leonhard and Scott were about as average their entire career as anyone. They were famous for being mouthy or in on a million tackles when Rex's d could not stop a cold.

 

The amount of talent Ryan has squandered amazes me. All but one year in the last 7 or 8 they went defense w the first pick. And one year with two in the first they used them both on defense. All those firsts and Rex still didn't win ****.

[FireChan]

 

Totally agree.

 

My pre-2015 Rex Ryan reservations were: being inconsistently prepared, giving players more leeway than they could handle and being loyal to a fault.

 

We were regretful audience to each of those this year. And the loyalty angle really played out in his decision to keep playing Mario. BUT, where does that loop begin/end? Million-man-Mario is throwing a pity party and bringing down the locker room so what good would benching him do? Seems like it would only exacerbate the problem. Especially when we come to grips with the reality of locker room-sway that a salary carries.

Maybe half the team wouldn't B word about him getting "paid to take two steps and stop playing."

 

It would show the team that Rex doesn't care how much you're making if you suck or quit. Is that a bad message to send as an HC?

[boyst]

Dont get me wrong - for the Bills I would rather have a rookie than either one. 10+ years younger, more explosive, gobs cheaper, can draft specific to scheme, will have vets across the DL to support him. But if I'm Miami and for whatever reason just have to pay one of them 8 mill or more, I would take Wake. Better pass rusher in a passing league, and better teammate.

I hate this game. It makes me reflect on how much we wasted. I wanted to keep Dwan Edwards. Bring in cliff avril instead of Anderson and have Mario Williams there to play outside. Hughes and avril swifting in... wow.

[YoloinOhio]

I hate this game. It makes me reflect on how much we wasted. I wanted to keep Dwan Edwards. Bring in cliff avril instead of Anderson and have Mario Williams there to play outside. Hughes and avril swifting in... wow.

Dwan is available - still want him? I thought I read he still has house in WNY.

[The Big Cat]

Maybe half the team wouldn't B word about him getting "paid to take two steps and stop playing."

 

It would show the team that Rex doesn't care how much you're making if you suck or quit. Is that a bad message to send as an HC?

 

Turn off the sarcasm for a few seconds and please communicate clearly what point you're trying to make.

[JohnC]

Last season Eagles OG Evan Mathis was offered 5.5 mill per from a team and he chose to take less pay to play with a contender. He was rewarded with a super bowl ring and I commend him for doing what he did to get that ring.

 

In the beginning of players careers, I think that most only want the money and as they age and see how few players actually get a super bowl ring. Then that desire for a ring usually grows as time goes on. After 10 seasons in the league, Mario should have enough money stashed away to not be that concerned about his next contract. I dunno, perhaps he has money issues due to some bad investing. Kinda difficult to believe, but it happens.

 

If I were in his place I know I'd rather sign with the Panthers, Patriots or Cardinals rather than the Dolphins / Giants with new coaching staffs.

 

At this point in his career, I would think they only thing left to accomplish is to get that ring. So yea, it is sad and disappointing that all he is concerned about is the money.

The highlighted point indirectly makes my point. You make decisions on what you want to do, not what others nostalgically recommend for you. Whether Mathis had bank full of money or if he was a pauper he made a decision that he felt was in his own best interest. That's what Mario is doing and that is what Incognito is going to do.

 

It's not unfair to presume that Peyton Manning is going to be considered one of the top qbs in the history of the game. He was released by the Colts because they felt it was in their best interest to move on and draft Andrew Luck. It was both a long term football and business decision. So much for loyalty and sentimentality! I'm not criticizing anyone for making self-interested corporate or individual decisions. I'm simply pointing out that is the way the this particular business functions.

 

Wherever Mario ends up is fine with me because I simply don't care where he ends up. That is his business. Whether he gets a rich contract or a small contract is fine with me. That is his business.

 

Why do you think Mario Williams first signed with the Bills? The weather? The winning tradition? The brilliant coaching? The astute front office? The good deer hunting?

 

The mind-set he has now is the same mind-set he had when we first signed him. Criticizing a football player whose career can end on one hit or whose post career can be full of health complications (perpetual pain) for trying to maximize their earning power while playing makes little sense to me.

[FireChan]

 

Turn off the sarcasm for a few seconds and please communicate clearly what point you're trying to make.

There is no sarcasm. You claimed that benching Mario would exacerbate the problem. I don't see how that could be possible, when half the team was boiling over already at Mario's antics.

 

At least if he was off the field, Rex would set the tone that **** like that wouldn't be tolerated. He'd set the tone that even stars who make the most money are held accountable. How is any of that bad? Do you think that that would make the team care more or less? Do you think the defense played harder or softer when they watched Mario quit on the field over and over? Is Preston Brown gonna sacrifice his body when he sees Mario standing straight up in front of his face 40 snaps a game?

 

How anyone could try to say that's its acceptable that Rex didn't bench Mario, while simultaneously pounding on the table that Mario was a cancer who needed to be cut, is unfathomable to me. It does not compute. He needs to be tossed from the locker room, but also needs to see the field every week is incompatible.

Edited March 8, 2016 by FireChan

[boyst]

Dwan is available - still want him? I thought I read he still has house in WNY.

ID consider it for a cheaper side deal. He can play 43DT 34DE. 43DE. He's got skills. Just not what they were. He played behind Charles Johnson and Jared Allen in NC. Both of them were terrible.

[YoloinOhio]

ID consider it for a cheaper side deal. He can play 43DT 34DE. 43DE. He's got skills. Just not what they were. He played behind Charles Johnson and Jared Allen in NC. Both of them were terrible.

could be good depth... Crickets from OBD on Carrington so far

[Nihilarian]

hilarious. 3 ID those are HOF talented. 4 of theme are extremely gifted athletes. Only one of those wasn't taken in the first. Harris. All of those you listed are light years better than the average schlub that is in the NFL.

 

Besides the high level talent what did Rex have? He has yet to bring the most of out a group or team of underachievers. Harris, Leonhard and Scott were about as average their entire career as anyone. They were famous for being mouthy or in on a million tackles when Rex's d could not stop a cold.

 

The amount of talent Ryan has squandered amazes me. All but one year in the last 7 or 8 they went defense w the first pick. And one year with two in the first they used them both on defense. All those firsts and Rex still didn't win ****.

+1000

 

Whoever pushed Ryan to the Pegula's to hire after a 4-12 season with the Jets should be taken to the woodshed. Now we get a second season of his nonsense....or more!

[JohnC]

There is no sarcasm. You claimed that benching Mario would exacerbate the problem. I don't see how that could be possible, when half the team was boiling over already at Mario's antics.

 

At least if he was off the field, Rex would set the tone that **** like that wouldn't be tolerated. He'd set the tone that even stars who make the most money are held accountable. How is any of that bad? Do you think that that would make the team care more or less? Do you think the defense played harder or softer when they watched Mario quit on the field over and over? Is Preston Brown gonna sacrifice his body when he sees Mario standing straight up in front of his face 40 snaps a game?

 

How anyone could try to say that's its acceptable that Rex didn't bench Mario, while simultaneously pounding on the table that Mario was a cancer who needed to be cut, is unfathomable to me. It does not compute. He needs to be tossed from the locker room, but also needs to see the field every week is incompatible.

I agree with your well stated take on this issue.

 

The more important story is not Mario's lack of effort. It's the coach's response to his disinterested play. Let's call it what it is: coaching malfeasance or nonfeasance. In all levels of coaching from pop warner to high school to college to the pro ranks coaches deal with a small number of players who are selfish and simply don't care about the team. At every level the appropriate response is the same: take the player off the field and if need be take the player off the squad.

 

As you point out the issue isn't only about Mario---it is also the message you are sending to the rest of the squad. If a player is not held accountable for blatant insubordinate conduct on the field then how much authority and respect are the coach/es going to have with the rest of the team.

 

The Bills were one of the most penalized teams in the league last year and they were one of the most undisciplined teams in the league. No one should be surprised. Coaching matters!

[Wayne Cubed]

hilarious. 3 ID those are HOF talented. 4 of theme are extremely gifted athletes. Only one of those wasn't taken in the first. Harris. All of those you listed are light years better than the average schlub that is in the NFL.

 

Besides the high level talent what did Rex have? He has yet to bring the most of out a group or team of underachievers. Harris, Leonhard and Scott were about as average their entire career as anyone. They were famous for being mouthy or in on a million tackles when Rex's d could not stop a cold.

 

The amount of talent Ryan has squandered amazes me. All but one year in the last 7 or 8 they went defense w the first pick. And one year with two in the first they used them both on defense. All those firsts and Rex still didn't win ****.

Did you even read the post before that I was responding to? It was about players regressing in Ryans system. Is it accurate to say that all those players listed didn't regress under Ryan? I know where they were drafted. I know they are some of the best players, point was they didn't regress.

[FireChan]

I agree with your well stated take on this issue.

 

The more important story is not Mario's lack of effort. It's the coach's response to his disinterested play. Let's call it what it is: coaching malfeasance or nonfeasance. In all levels of coaching from pop warner to high school to college to the pro ranks coaches deal with a small number of players who are selfish and simply don't care about the team. At every level the appropriate response is the same: take the player off the field and if need be take the player off the squad.

 

As you point out the issue isn't only about Mario---it is also the message you are sending to the rest of the squad. If a player is not held accountable for blatant insubordinate conduct on the field then how much authority and respect are the coach/es going to have with the rest of the team.

 

The Bills were one of the most penalized teams in the league last year and they were one of the most undisciplined teams in the league. No one should be surprised. Coaching matters!

Exactly.

 

As loathe as I am to draw this comparison because of the heat it will bring, I don't think Marrone allows Mario to last 2 weeks acting the way he did. His other coaching faults aside, Marrone was benching players for sulking in practice or making anti-team comments to the media. No chance he allows this gross lack of accountability.

[The Big Cat]

There is no sarcasm. You claimed that benching Mario would exacerbate the problem. I don't see how that could be possible, when half the team was boiling over already at Mario's antics.

 

 

Benching the highest paid player on the team for being a malcontent might lead to more internal unrest: It's fine if you don't see how that's possible. That doesn't make it impossible. I don't know how to explain it to you.

 

Also, I'm not sure we share a reality wherein "half" the team was "boiling" over "Mario's" antics. I think each of the three quoted terms are highly debatable. So if your premise rests there...I can't help you.

 

 

1How is any of that bad? 2Do you think that that would make the team care more or less? 3Do you think the defense played harder or softer when they watched Mario quit on the field over and over? 4Is Preston Brown gonna sacrifice his body when he sees Mario standing straight up in front of his face 40 snaps a game?

 

 

1. Well like many of us have been saying, it could have negative repercussions throughout the team. Why was it a bad thing that Marrone lined up the team to rehearse the national anthem? I understand the value in it. But I can also understand why it pissed off some veterans.
2. I think it would have unpredictable effects with the potential for some of the effects to be negative.
3. I imagine it varied player to player. I don't think the the defense was a monolith of thought and emotion.
4. I can see a scenario wherein a player would be motivated to play harder and send a message. I can see a scenario wherein the quitting is contagious.

 

 

 

How anyone could try to say that's its acceptable that Rex didn't bench Mario, while simultaneously pounding on the table that Mario was a cancer who needed to be cut, is unfathomable to me. It does not compute. He needs to be tossed from the locker room, but also needs to see the field every week is incompatible.

 

Nobody has said that it was acceptable. In fact, I said the exact opposite. I do, however, acknowledge the intangible difficulties it presents that you (predictably) dismissed. Now, if you don't understand WHY benching the highest paid player would have adverse effects, then I don't know how to help you.

 

It'd be like me explaining to you that I don't understand why teams don't pull up at the one yard line and always settle for a field goal rather than go for a touchdown touchdown. I'm perfectly within my right to not understand something like that, silly though it may seem. But my lack of understanding doesn't make field goals preferable over touch downs.

[FireChan]

 

Benching the highest paid player on the team for being a malcontent might lead to more internal unrest: It's fine if you don't see how that's possible. That doesn't make it impossible. I don't know how to explain it to you.

 

Also, I'm not sure we share a reality wherein "half" the team was "boiling" over "Mario's" antics. I think each of the three quoted terms are highly debatable. So if your premise rests there...I can't help you.

 

 

1. Well like many of us have been saying, it could have negative repercussions throughout the team. Why was it a bad thing that Marrone lined up the team to rehearse the national anthem? I understand the value in it. But I can also understand why it pissed off some veterans.
2. I think it would have unpredictable effects with the potential for some of the effects to be negative.
3. I imagine it varied player to player. I don't think the the defense was a monolith of thought and emotion.
4. I can see a scenario wherein a player would be motivated to play harder and send a message. I can see a scenario wherein the quitting is contagious.

 

 

 

Nobody has said that it was acceptable. In fact, I said the exact opposite. I do, however, acknowledge the intangible difficulties it presents that you (predictably) dismissed. Now, if you don't understand WHY benching the highest paid player would have adverse effects, then I don't know how to help you.

 

It'd be like me explaining to you that I don't understand why teams don't pull up at the one yard line and always settle for a field goal rather than go for a touchdown touchdown. I'm perfectly within my right to not understand something like that, silly though it may seem. But my lack of understanding doesn't make field goals preferable over touch downs.

Benching the highest paid player on the team for being a malcontent might lead to more internal unrest: It's fine if you don't see how that's possible. That doesn't make it impossible. I don't know how to explain it to you.

 

Haha, no.

 

That's not what you said.

 

"Million-man-Mario is throwing a pity party and bringing down the locker room so what good would benching him do? Seems like it would only exacerbate the problem"

 

Huge difference between "may have negative repercussions" and "would only exacerbate the problem." Funny how you attempted to chastise me for not seeing the (small) potential negatives, when the potential positives weren't even possible in your original post.

 

Also, I'm not sure we share a reality wherein "half" the team was "boiling" over "Mario's" antics. I think each of the three quoted terms are highly debatable. So if your premise rests there...I can't help you.

 

Clearly Ty Dunne's article shows that members of the team were unhappy with the way Mario acted. Per usual, you attack semantics vs. the argument. Mario's antics upset players in the locker room who proceeded to vocalize that. I think it's fair to say there were more players unhappy with Mario than pleased with his behavior. Feel free to argue otherwise.

 

1. It could have some negative repercussions, okay. Weigh the positives and negatives. IMO, the positives of benching Mario outweigh the negatives. By about 1000% (quick, hammer me on how "debatable" that number is). Thus, Rex's response was the wrong one, even with some debatable reasons If the reasons for doing something outweigh the reasons to not do something, the former is the correct move. That's just logic.

 

2. Direct contradiction of your original post, but I'll dive in. I don't see how showing players you won't tolerate QUITTING ON YOUR TEAM could ever been a net negative. Look at all the educated folks, yourself included, who have killed Mario for quitting. It's the biggest sin in any sort of team environment. It ruins everything. You can't trust that teammate, you can't believe in them, etc etc. And yet, punishing that behavior could be worse than letting it fester? On what grounds? Explain it. Go in-depth. Walk me through how benching Mario hurts the psyche of the team, piece by piece.

 

3. This is barely worth it as a point. I'll just point to the above and ask if you the majority of Bills players, in your opinion, were happy or angry with Mario's antics. Fire away. Don't tell me it's arguable, argue it

 

4. Which scenario is more likely? Which has more of a benefit, playing with 10 guys who are "motivated" by the quitter sharing the field with them (I find this scenario to be a terrible stretch) or playing with 11 guys, none of whom are quitting in front of each other?

 

I don't understand because it makes no logical sense. By virtue of believing the solution to the Mario "problem" is cutting him, thus eliminating him from the field in 2016, how is eliminating him from the field in 2015 any less of a solution? Clearly, there are potential negatives in both scenarios, but you believe they outweigh the benefits in one year, but don't in the next. Again, rectify those situations.

 

 

 

 

Totally agree.

 

My pre-2015 Rex Ryan reservations were: being inconsistently prepared, giving players more leeway than they could handle and being loyal to a fault.

 

We were regretful audience to each of those this year. And the loyalty angle really played out in his decision to keep playing Mario. BUT, where does that loop begin/end? Million-man-Mario is throwing a pity party and bringing down the locker room so what good would benching him do? Seems like it would only exacerbate the problem. Especially when we come to grips with the reality of locker room-sway that a salary carries.