Doug Whaley - The Tim Graham Feature Story

[Tenhigh]

Good article that raises genuine concerns. At this point Id give Whaley a C plus. Hes done some very good things and some not so good things. Unless he and rex cant stand each other Im bringing everyone back for one more year. That includes Tyrod. Draft a qb in he top three rounds. Bring in a back up vet. Clean house if no playoffs next year including brandon.

Gotta love the typo police. Frustrated english majors who got blocked from the Edgar Allen Poe site for being overly argumentative. Come to TBD to put us commoners in our place.

You must have missed his post that inferred anyone who disagreed with his point of view had a low IQ. The rules of the internet clearly state that anytime you post on a message board calling someone stupid for disagreeing with you, and said post contains spelling and/or grammatical errors, you should be verbally shamed all participating in that thread....

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I don't follow Graham's whole premise that # of draft picks on a team is a suitable metric for the quality of the GM.

Graham makes a classic mistake here. He makes the correlation that having a higher percentage of drafted players on your team CAUSES success. In policy study circles, they'd say he is ignoring a latent variable that is driving both high draft pick roster percentage and success.

Teams with franchise QBs have to rely primarily on draft picks because the QB eats up so much cap room. Teams without a franchise QB salary, can afford to have a higher percentage of pro personal on their rosters.Having a top QB is the reason teams have long term success. It drives roster decisions as well.

I read an article that said successful school children tended to have more books in their home than other children. Do you suppose the books really had anything to do with it? No, these children had smart/educated parents (who tend to read more) and that's what causes their success. Just filling a room in your house with books won't make your kid a better student.

Just having your roster filled with draft picks won't consistently get you to the playoffs. Having a Franchise QB will.

 

Yep, "correlation= causation" error

[jeffismagic]

I don't follow Graham's whole premise that # of draft picks on a team is a suitable metric for the quality of the GM.

 

Yep, "correlation= causation" error

 

By Graham's own metric trading an injured linebacker in Alonso for a top 3 NFL running back was a mistake since the Eagles drafted Shady. Yeah, dumb metric that he just made up.

 

Same with trading bust Kelvin Sheppard for Jerry Hughes. Teams shouldn't make trades because they could end having Tim Graham write a column on them!

Edited December 22, 2016 by jeffismagic

[BobbyC81]

The article also mentions the Raiders have 66% of their own draft picks and ended their long playoff drought. While it is true that draft picks Khalil Mack, Derek Carr and Amari Cooper are part of their core, they were the only draftees among their 7 players selected for the Pro Bowl. The other 4 are all free agents signed in the last couple of years. In addition WR Michael Crabtree and LB Bruce Irvin were recent free agent signings who have been major contributors to this season.

 

So, a good GM builds a team thru the use of the draft, free agency & trades. Strong player evaluation and some luck contribute to their success.

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2016/12/20/14023652/bills-doug-whaley-another-way-to-assess-the-roster-building-of-buffalo-bills-rex-ryan

 

Not that I agree with this 100%. But, TG is so damned biased it never hurts to have a different take.

[dave mcbride]

Can it be possible that there are legitimate arguments against Graham's take AND for the article to be enlightening given the research he did and the info he got from personnel folks at other teams? I certainly think so. What bugs me about this thread is the (unfortunately) entirely predictable response that Graham is a jerk (as if anyone knows him personally here) and hates the Bills. So, so tired. He's written a bunch of good stories in the past year and should be given some credit for it.

[26CornerBlitz]

Can it be possible that there are legitimate arguments against Graham's take AND for the article to be enlightening given the research he did and the info he got from personnel folks at other teams? I certainly think so. What bugs me about this thread is the (unfortunately) entirely predictable response that Graham is a jerk (as if anyone knows him personally here) and hates the Bills. So, so tired. He's written a bunch of good stories in the past year and should be given some credit for it.

 

He is a good writer when it comes to human interest stories. In this particular case it seems to me he had a narrative going in and sought out evidence to support his (and others at TBN) preconceived notion.

[dave mcbride]

He is a good writer when it comes to human interest stories. In this particular case it seems to me he had a narrative going in and sought out evidence to support his (and others at TBN) preconceived notion.

You disagree with his take -- which is cool. I get that and respect it. But it often gets personal with Graham here, and it is freaking tired. As for his preconceived notion, it is that the Bills are an unsucccessful organization that is badly run. That is hardly an illogical take, but there are a lot of shades of gray and it's not as if they're the worst team in the league right now.

Edited December 22, 2016 by dave mcbride

[26CornerBlitz]

You disagree with his take -- which is cool. I get that and respect it. But it often gets personal with Graham here, and it is freaking tired. As for his preconceived notion, it is that the Bills are an unsucccessful organization that is badly run. That is hardly an illogical take, but there are a lot of shades of gray and it's not as if they're the worst team in the league right now.

 

The recent results on the field say the Bills are not badly run. IMO they say while not satisfactory, things are improved from where they were since 2013. The draft results have been up and down while the pro personnel department is far better.

[Mr. WEO]

Can it be possible that there are legitimate arguments against Graham's take AND for the article to be enlightening given the research he did and the info he got from personnel folks at other teams? I certainly think so. What bugs me about this thread is the (unfortunately) entirely predictable response that Graham is a jerk (as if anyone knows him personally here) and hates the Bills. So, so tired. He's written a bunch of good stories in the past year and should be given some credit for it.

 

Good luck with that. Such nuance won't be found when talking to that "Graham" a douche" crowd.

 

They can't get past the byline--yet they then babble on about "preconceived notions" with no apparent irony. Classic stuff.

 

 

The recent results on the field say the Bills are not badly run. IMO they say while not satisfactory, things are improved from where they were since 2013. The draft results have been up and down while the pro personnel department is far better.

 

The offense has gotten better, the Defense has gotten steadily worse, despite drafts and FA pickups heavy on Defense.

[Sisyphean Bills]

You disagree with his take -- which is cool. I get that and respect it. But it often gets personal with Graham here, and it is freaking tired. As for his preconceived notion, it is that the Bills are an unsucccessful organization that is badly run. That is hardly an illogical take, but there are a lot of shades of gray and it's not as if they're the worst team in the league right now.

 

Exactly.

 

The "narrative" that the Bills are an exceptionally unsuccessful is a statistical reality. It's inarguable by objective measure.

 

Accepting that reality and then asking "Why?" may be viewed as engaged in constructive thinking. Accepting that things aren't being done well, trying to figure out what other successful franchises do and how it is markedly different shows a path forward and orienting towards positive change.

 

Or it can be framed as the worst, the actions of a terrible clown. There one may define success by squelching criticism and replacing it with enthusiastic cheering.

[C.Biscuit97]

You disagree with his take -- which is cool. I get that and respect it. But it often gets personal with Graham here, and it is freaking tired. As for his preconceived notion, it is that the Bills are an unsucccessful organization that is badly run. That is hardly an illogical take, but there are a lot of shades of gray and it's not as if they're the worst team in the league right now.

I don't know him but he does come across as a sensitive weasel. These guys seem like they enjoy witch hunts and try to get people fired because they won't talk to them. They never break any news stories and seem very petty in their criticism. He doesn't seem like a guy I would like in person.

 

That said, I don't care about him. I just think he is wrong. Whaley's current record is 30-32 in about 4 years. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/executives/McKeRe0.htm

 

For context, here is another GM's record through 4 years: 18-46. This GM inherited an 8-8 team. I wonder how he would have been treated by the media here. And in his 5th year, he has the Raiders back in the playoffs. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/executives/McKeRe0.htm

 

I favor Whaley over Rex because it's his first time being a GM. The pieces are there except at qb, which is the hardest piece to find.

 

But let's keep it non personal with guys who try to get other men fired out of spite. Merry Christmas!

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

Can it be possible that there are legitimate arguments against Graham's take AND for the article to be enlightening given the research he did and the info he got from personnel folks at other teams? I certainly think so. What bugs me about this thread is the (unfortunately) entirely predictable response that Graham is a jerk (as if anyone knows him personally here) and hates the Bills. So, so tired. He's written a bunch of good stories in the past year and should be given some credit for it.

I don't read his column very often. But, the way the research is done, which is something I know a little bit about, is completely biased. Don't know him, don't care too, if someone who worked for me, executed research the way he did in the article, I'd be less than thrilled. He was working like a prosecutor with an agenda. I guess if you think that is his job, you're entitled to your opinion. If I'm on the jury, I disregard the evidence he is presenting.

[C.Biscuit97]

I don't read his column very often. But, the way the research is done, which is something I know a little bit about, is completely biased. Don't know him, don't care too, if someone who worked for me, executed research the way he did in the article, I'd be less than thrilled. He was working like a prosecutor with an agenda. I guess if you think that is his job, you're entitled to your opinion. If I'm on the jury, I disregard the evidence he is presenting.

Good post. If Whaley gave them scoops or interviews, this article would be presented differently. They won't try so hard to deflate every good move he made.

[Mr. WEO]

You can tell when Whaley started making the picks. Under Nix we only drafted SEC and ACC players. Whaley drafted Alonso, Nix never would.

 

 

I don't read his column very often. But, the way the research is done, which is something I know a little bit about, is completely biased. Don't know him, don't care too, if someone who worked for me, executed research the way he did in the article, I'd be less than thrilled. He was working like a prosecutor with an agenda. I guess if you think that is his job, you're entitled to your opinion. If I'm on the jury, I disregard the evidence he is presenting.

 

 

He just wrote about stats regarding the draft and players on the roster. The numbers are what they are. They aren't "biased". You could say most research has a bias--because it start with a hypothesis based on a researchers observations. Then he/she will present data to demonstrate his theory. As presented, his data supports his theory. You are free to disagree with his theory's importance or impact on the Bills consistent failure on the field.

 

The bolded part is why the jury system in this country should be abolished.

[dave mcbride]

I don't know him but he does come across as a sensitive weasel. These guys seem like they enjoy witch hunts and try to get people fired because they won't talk to them. They never break any news stories and seem very petty in their criticism. He doesn't seem like a guy I would like in person.

 

That said, I don't care about him. I just think he is wrong. Whaley's current record is 30-32 in about 4 years. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/executives/McKeRe0.htm

 

For context, here is another GM's record through 4 years: 18-46. This GM inherited an 8-8 team. I wonder how he would have been treated by the media here. And in his 5th year, he has the Raiders back in the playoffs. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/executives/McKeRe0.htm

 

I favor Whaley over Rex because it's his first time being a GM. The pieces are there except at qb, which is the hardest piece to find.

 

But let's keep it non personal with guys who try to get other men fired out of spite. Merry Christmas!

I don't think he's trying to get anyone fired. I think that's a misinterpretation of the piece and more generally what he's up to at the paper. As for him being a weasel, I don't know him and refuse to judge someone based on how they interact with people on Twitter. I don't think we should either.

 

If I'm reading you correctly, you tend to view the view the media as blood-sucking succubi as a general rule. The NFL needs the media and makes its money almost entirely because of the media. Because of that, it's not the media's job to be an amen corner, especially when we're talking about mediocre-to-bad organizations that hasn't had a notable success in nearly two decades.

Edited December 22, 2016 by dave mcbride

[baskingridgebillsfan]

The article also mentions the Raiders have 66% of their own draft picks and ended their long playoff drought. While it is true that draft picks Khalil Mack, Derek Carr and Amari Cooper are part of their core, they were the only draftees among their 7 players selected for the Pro Bowl. The other 4 are all free agents signed in the last couple of years. In addition WR Michael Crabtree and LB Bruce Irvin were recent free agent signings who have been major contributors to this season.

 

So, a good GM builds a team thru the use of the draft, free agency & trades. Strong player evaluation and some luck contribute to their success.

Whaley hasn't been here long enough to have 66 percent of his draft picks on the roster. In addition being on the roster and contributing to success is two different things. Meeks on the roster was a draft so in Tm's world that makes him a asset . Crazy logic

 

What does it matter anyway? The people who want the sources named seem to be (mostly) the people that didn't like the article. Say that Graham had named them. Kermit The Frog, The Truth Fairy, Bozo The Clown, Mickey The Mouse, Oscar The Grouch, The Homer Simpson, Batman, and Elvis. Does that change anyone's mind one iota? No. Not even close. All it does is open a crack to start the effort of character assassination against those sources. Classic post-truth era stuff, but vacuous as far as critical thinking.

the article has nothing to do with critical thinking. His premise can't stand up to simple question like of the draft picks how many play, or how weak was the roster when he started drafting. The whole premise is flawed when Whaley hasn't been gm long enough to have 66 percent of the roster.

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

 

 

 

 

He just wrote about stats regarding the draft and players on the roster. The numbers are what they are. They aren't "biased". You could say most research has a bias--because it start with a hypothesis based on a researchers observations. Then he/she will present data to demonstrate his theory. As presented, his data supports his theory. You are free to disagree with his theory's importance or impact on the Bills consistent failure on the field.

 

The bolded part is why the jury system in this country should be abolished

No this is not correct!

Edited December 22, 2016 by horned dogs

[baskingridgebillsfan]

 

I don't think that anyone unable to spell "inevitable," or to use punctuation, should be lecturing anyone else on their intelligence.

Einstein was a horrible speller . Chomsky believes rules of writing and communication should evolve to the current language of the times.

or in other words lighten up

[Mr. WEO]

No this is not correct!

 

Yeah it is.

 

Also, I'm going to break it to you that all prosecutors have "an agenda"---it's called getting a conviction for a perpetrator who they are convinced committed a crime. Crazy, huh?