Mr. WEO Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 Tim invented a stat that looks like it means something. We better cut Shady, Hughes, Incognito, Groy, Justin Hunter, Gillislee, Lorax and Zach Brown because they are upsetting our Tim Graham-mandated ratio. How many years does Lorax have in him? And the rest of the D (playing the NFL's junior varsity yesterday not withstanding) has been tanking for months. So how good is the D roster after all? There is no way we can look at personal move in such a vacuum without considering the coaching staff. The biggest problem for Whaley is that he has never been given the ability to freely select his own head coach. Does anyone think he choose Marone or Rex. This team is far more talented on both sides of the ball than anytime within the last 5 years. Fans and the Bills management always want to fire the person that has actually done his job. It's simply amazing, especially after the past week, that you could STILL post such nonsense. Rex was Whaley's guy. That's it. The Pegulas are football bumpkins and relied on Whaley's input (and Bradon's) to make that pick. If Whaley thought Rex was a bad idea he would absolutely NOT been selected. People have mentioned that Hue Jackson was Whaley's preference, but Jackson is a joke of a HC who parlayed an 8-8 season in OAK into the job he has now. If Wahley thought he was going to be a great HC, then Whaley isn't very astute and should not be picking HCs. 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. How much did the Seahawks pay Wilson for those first 2 SB seasons? How much is Dak Prescott getting? Or Winston? Or Marriotta? And teams like the pats, are they suffering because they have to pay Brady all that frachise QB money? No. They just draft better, bring in FA's cheap and dump them before they get expensive. You are saying that the Bills lack of a franchise QB and his salary "affords" them a higher percentage of FAs on the roster. Actually, the fact that so many of their draft picks are not on the roster makes this necessary. The lack of a franchise QB salary makes it financially possible. Also, having and paying a franchise QB doesn't make you better at drafting by necessity--see the Saints. They pay a ton to their QB and don't draft well.
Coach Tuesday Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 Haha, really? So wait, when he says he talks to a personnel guy that works for the Bills, that's ok... but mentioning which teams these other guys work for is off limits. Cmon, tell me you don't believe what you actually wrote. There are hundreds of guys that work in the personnel department of evey team, the Bills have around 130. You honestly think if Tim Graham mentions which team these guys work for, that really outs them? You're so wrong in this thread.
Cripple Creek Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 Mic drop. Thank you. Whaley keeps finding contributors. His hiring of Monos was a very underrated move. Yes, he needs to find a QB, but how many teams in the league actually have that elite quarterback? They don't grow on trees. Which is why you need to try harder than Whaley has. His inattention to the position is his biggest failing.
Wayne Cubed Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 You're so wrong in this thread. Oh yea? Do tell. I mean he called one of his "sources" an NFC executive. Oh my god. There are only a few of those. He basically outed who it was. Hilarious.
H2o Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 Donahoe was better at drafting. You lose all credibility here. Clements, Schobel, Henry, Jennings, Mcgee, Crowell, Kelsey, Mcgahee, Evans who has Whaley really brought in? Gilmore, Watkins, Darby????? That's really about it. Lose all credibility? Of your list I will take Clements, McGahee, maybe Schobel(Mr. loop all the way around to get a coverage sack), and maybe McGee. Evans was a one trick pony. Kelsay? Chris Kelsay? Really? Henry? Decent player, but nothing special as he was replaced with McGahee shortly there after. Crowell had injuries that derailed his career. Whaley has as many hits as Donahoe did along with hosing a couple of teams in trades for core players on this team. Donahoe also had the luxury of bringing in his guy at HC. The effect Whaley has had on the drafts goes even a bit further back though as he was the Director of Pro Personnel under Nix from 2010 until taking over. It's impossible to say who was responsible for what definitively, but I'm sure it is safe to say Whaley has had his hands in the decision making process of more "hits" from the draft than Donahoe.
Justafan9 Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 I thought the article was informative in terms of the #s of retained draftees. The problems with the organization are more broad than Whaley. I would really love to see this type of article on Russ Brandon, comparing his role(s) and qualifications with other NFL execs.
bananathumb Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 Tim Graham for mayor. Whaley should be putting up For Sale signs on his house.
jms62 Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 Haha, really? So wait, when he says he talks to a personnel guy that works for the Bills, that's ok... but mentioning which teams these other guys work for is off limits. Cmon, tell me you don't believe what you actually wrote. There are hundreds of guys that work in the personnel department of evey team, the Bills have around 130. You honestly think if Tim Graham mentions which team these guys work for, that really outs them? Haha you completely missed my point and went on to something I didn't comment on. Oh well I cant help that. For the record I agree with you it is not all right but that wasnt your point you criticised the writer for not givining a clue as to what his sources were.
BrooklynBills Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 Donahoe was better at drafting. You lose all credibility here. Clements, Schobel, Henry, Jennings, Mcgee, Crowell, Kelsey, Mcgahee, Evans who has Whaley really brought in? Gilmore, Watkins, Darby????? That's really about it. Kyle Williams was a donahoe pick also
Justafan9 Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 Does anyone really blame Whaley for the Defense's fall from 4th in the league in 2014? Idk. It seems like if we had that defense with our current offense, we might be in the hunt.
Fixxxer Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 Kyle Williams was a donahoe pick also He was a Jauron/Brandon pick.
Wayne Cubed Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 Haha you completely missed my point and went on to something I didn't comment on. Oh well I cant help that. For the record I agree with you it is not all right but that wasnt your point you criticised the writer for not givining a clue as to what his sources were. Um, no I got your point. I don't agree with it in this instance. Graham could have very well given which teams these guys worked for. I know you think reporters who name their sources won't last long. By saying which team they work for, isn't naming them. Hence why I said that there are a lot of personnel guys on each team. He even quoted one of the sources as an "NFC personnel executive". My point is, he could have named which teams these guys work for. The reason he didn't? Who knows, but IMO it's because the 2 personnel guys who said they don't watch film of under classmen, like what Graham thinks the Bills do, come from winning organizations. And if he lists those teams it defeats the point of his slanted take on Whaley.
baskingridgebillsfan Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 Tim Graham for mayor. Whaley should be putting up For Sale signs on his house. Tim Graham for Mayor ? He can't even hack it for a third rate news paper
SoFFacet Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 What a complete piece of garbage article. Feel bad for anyone that felt persuaded by such trash.
Fixxxer Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 What a complete piece of garbage article. Feel bad for anyone that felt persuaded by such trash. If you don't like Whaley the article is perfect. If you somewhat belive that Whaley is a good talent evaluator and works well with other people (he brought everything Rex wanted for the D) the article has some serious flaws in it.
jms62 Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 Um, no I got your point. I don't agree with it in this instance. Graham could have very well given which teams these guys worked for. I know you think reporters who name their sources won't last long. By saying which team they work for, isn't naming them. Hence why I said that there are a lot of personnel guys on each team. He even quoted one of the sources as an "NFC personnel executive". My point is, he could have named which teams these guys work for. The reason he didn't? Who knows, but IMO it's because the 2 personnel guys who said they don't watch film of under classmen, like what Graham thinks the Bills do, come from winning organizations. And if he lists those teams it defeats the point of his slanted take on Whaley. The reason he didn't is because you don't reveal clues to your sources if you want to continue having sources. Not trying to be a dick but that should be a very simple concept to grasp.
Wayne Cubed Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 The reason he didn't is because you don't reveal clues to your sources if you want to continue having sources. Not trying to be a dick but that should be a very simple concept to grasp. I got that and yet in the same article he said "NFC personnel executive" as one of his unnamed sources. He didn't say NFL, he said NFC. He gave a clue to who his source was. Also, my other point, teams have 100+ people in their personnel departments. Saying a Patriots personnel guy said X, is not really giving away much. Again, IMO Graham doesn't say who the teams are because it doesn't merry up with the point he's attempting to make.
jms62 Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 I got that and yet in the same article he said "NFC personnel executive" as one of his unnamed sources. He didn't say NFL, he said NFC. He gave a clue to who his source was. Also, my other point, teams have 100+ people in their personnel departments. Saying a Patriots personnel guy said X, is not really giving away much. Again, IMO Graham doesn't say who the teams are because it doesn't merry up with the point he's attempting to make. You have to admit giving out the conference isn't the same as giving out the team right? When you start giving out the team your sources start thinking it is getting way to close and you are putting them in the position of having to say it wasn't them.
Wayne Cubed Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 You have to admit giving out the conference isn't the same as giving out the team right? When you start giving out the team your sources start thinking it is getting way to close and you are putting them in the position of having to say it wasn't them. I'm not a journalist so I can't really say but in terms of the information provided and the number of people in the personnel departments of each team, I don't think a source would think that. Hell, he doesn't even quatify if the teams are winning teams or losing teams or top teams. He just says 8 personnel guys, and we tithe reader are just suppose to assume they are from winning programs. Let me ask this, if the 2 teams that do it the way Whaley supposedly does it, which is not true to begin with, are the Pats and the Steelers. And the 6 teams that do it the other way are the Chargers, Browns, Bears, Jets, 49ers and Jaguars, does Grahams point hold as much weight? That Whaley is doing it wrong?
dave mcbride Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 (edited) Um, no I got your point. I don't agree with it in this instance. Graham could have very well given which teams these guys worked for. I know you think reporters who name their sources won't last long. By saying which team they work for, isn't naming them. Hence why I said that there are a lot of personnel guys on each team. He even quoted one of the sources as an "NFC personnel executive". My point is, he could have named which teams these guys work for. The reason he didn't? Who knows, but IMO it's because the 2 personnel guys who said they don't watch film of under classmen, like what Graham thinks the Bills do, come from winning organizations. And if he lists those teams it defeats the point of his slanted take on Whaley. You do realize that guys working for other teams likely require total anonymity before they speak on the record? That's a basic fact of life in reporting, and kinda journalism 101. The last thing a guy from another team who is speaking to a reporter wants to convey that he's speaking for the organization as a whole, which is how it is likely to be interpreted. Edited December 19, 2016 by dave mcbride
Recommended Posts