Kelly the Dog Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 But they have no track record to speak of. If they did, perhaps I'd let them drag me through a year or even two years of short-term pain. But my shareholder aren't going to sit quietly while I let a couple of complete nobodies embark on a questionable strategy simply because they promise a payoff in the future... While that is a good point, you're still asking the management team to choose someone to run their new business they genuinely believe is inferior to another guy, whether they have a track record or not. You hired them because you believe in their judgment and vision. Now you are asking them to take a lesser manager.
skibum Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 So KC is willing to give up a middle round pick to see if Ragland can live up to his potential, but the Bills aren't willing to to do it for free.
Boatdrinks Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 Yes, of course! The funny thing is that so many here supported Whaley for so long and loved the Ragland pick at the time. The same sort of poster was outraged at "Black Friday" a few weeks ago...which is why I have faith it was a great idea. Finally watching the replay of the Ravens game right now....8:16 left in 1st quarter...my God we don't look very good. Is it an indictment of the selection , or of the team constantly changing systems thus rendering their drafted players useless? I though Whaley gave up too much to draft Ragland. That has zero effect on if he is / can be a good player. This scheme change is forcing them to let lots of draft investments go for little future capital. I'm starting to question why. Is it because Dareus fits a 4-3 better? Is Dareus a cornerstone to build around and jettison players in the process ?
Coach Tuesday Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 (edited) While that is a good point, you're still asking the management team to choose someone to run their new business they genuinely believe is inferior to another guy, whether they have a track record or not. You hired them because you believe in their judgment and vision. Now you are asking them to take a lesser manager. I'm saying something else: I wouldn't buy into the "judgment and vision" of an unheralded management team that proposed to sell away the core assets of a billion dollar business at a low-value discount, in exchange for future opportunities. At the very least, I'd have them on a short leash, overseen by someone with a real track record - a Ron Wolf type. Note that this would be especially true if I were a newby owner with no experience in the industry, a la Terry. Edited August 28, 2017 by Coach Tuesday
CommonCents Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 Your analogy is close, but not exact. It would be better if you said that a new owner buys a company where the manufacturing was good, but the sales team was bad. So he hires a new manager to fix the sales, but at the same time he takes the ax to the manufacturing side. Sales is fixed, but they're selling a crappy product. So a new manager is brought in to fix manufacturing, and he decides to axe the well performing sales team. And I'm not ready to apply that analogy to the players' departure. But I will apply that analogy to McD's coaching choices in keeping Crossman, and adding Castillo & Rico. What about Leslie?
Boatdrinks Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 So KC is willing to give up a middle round pick to see if Ragland can live up to his potential, but the Bills aren't willing to to do it for free. Yep, and the same goes for Sammy. But we'll have Dareus in a 4-3 Defense for the future Super Bowl run.
reddogblitz Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 I'm having a hard time understanding how a top 50 drafted guy with all the tools, size, speed etc. Can play in a 4-3 but NOT in a 3-4. I'm having a hard time understanding "build through the draft" when we're trading away recent high draft picks. Their "system" better be good and Beane better be one he11 of a drafter.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 I'm saying something else: I wouldn't buy into the "judgment and vision" of an unheralded management team that proposed to sell away the core assets of a billion dollar business at a low-value discount, in exchange for future opportunities. At the very least, I'd have them on a short leash, overseen by someone with a real track record - a Ron Wolf type. Note that this would be especially true if I were a newby owner with no experience in the industry, a la Terry. While it is inarguable that the Bills have sucked for twenty years, I am of the opinion that a GM and anyone on the personnel side needs to always, always, always think in terms of short term, midterm, and long term simultaneously - and one of the main problems we have had is everyone was always thinking only in terms of short term and ignoring mid and long term. That said, knowing these jokers were only thinking short term at the expense of midterm and long term, it's incredible that they managed to have botched the short term so much.
CommonCents Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 I'm having a hard time understanding how a top 50 drafted guy with all the tools, size, speed etc. Can play in a 4-3 but NOT in a 3-4. I'm having a hard time understanding "build through the draft" when we're trading away recent high draft picks. Their "system" better be good and Beane better be one he11 of a drafter. Their defensive system is the one that Pittsburgh is trying to shed because it has been a sieve against the Pats.
rant_and_go Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 Why is it every single time we clean house on the defensive side it has to come with a switch between a 3-4 and a 4-3. Stache 600-600 4-3, Pettine 3-4, Schwartz 4-3, Rex 3-4, McDermott 4-3. The talent erosion would not have been nearly this bad if they just limited the house leaning moves to the same general scheme. Thing about it, I saw them playing a lot of fronts where they covered the center, and then brought down Lorax. That's a 3-4. So they're really is no scheme change. Just churning the roster to buy a few years worth of paychecks.
YoloinOhio Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 So KC is willing to give up a middle round pick to see if Ragland can live up to his potential, but the Bills aren't willing to to do it for free. the Chiefs run a D very similar to Rex scheme, which he was drafted for specifically. We run a D very different than Rex scheme. One makes sense to take a chance on. Which one do you think that might be?
GG Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 What about Leslie? He's part of the side that's getting fixed. The bar is set higher for the offense because that unit was half way decent. On the radio today Wood made it sound that the new scheme is clicking, but they should be on a short leash.
Coach Tuesday Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 While it is inarguable that the Bills have sucked for twenty years, I am of the opinion that a GM and anyone on the personnel side needs to always, always, always think in terms of short term, midterm, and long term simultaneously - and one of the main problems we have had is everyone was always thinking only in terms of short term and ignoring mid and long term. That said, knowing these jokers were only thinking short term at the expense of midterm and long term, it's incredible that they managed to have botched the short term so much. I don't disagree, and my premise is simple: the safest way to build both short-term and long-term is to leverage your core strengths. Trading away your young talent because it doesn't fit your new "schemes" is not the way to do that.
Wayne Cubed Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 I don't disagree, and my premise is simple: the safest way to build both short-term and long-term is to leverage your core strengths. Trading away your young talent because it doesn't fit your new "schemes" is not the way to do that. The greatest coach in history, is constantly changing his defensive scheme to his players. He's used a 3-4, a 4-3, it doesn't matter for him.
Coach Tuesday Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 The greatest coach in history, is constantly changing his defensive scheme to his players. He's used a 3-4, a 4-3, it doesn't matter for him. I'm well aware!
GoBills808 Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 The greatest coach in history, is constantly changing his defensive scheme to his players. He's used a 3-4, a 4-3, it doesn't matter for him. He's also constantly changing his players, to be fair. Belichick is the OG of trading away talent.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 I don't disagree, and my premise is simple: the safest way to build both short-term and long-term is to leverage your core strengths. Trading away your young talent because it doesn't fit your new "schemes" is not the way to do that. I haven't liked any of their trades so far. So I hear ya. I understand what they are thinking and doing, but I wouldn't be doing it this way at all. So I agree with you. The greatest coach in history, is constantly changing his defensive scheme to his players. He's used a 3-4, a 4-3, it doesn't matter for him. They just cut Kony Ealy because he didn't fit Satan's system.
CommonCents Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 I haven't liked any of their trades so far. So I hear ya. I understand what they are thinking and doing, but I wouldn't be doing it this way at all. So I agree with you. They just cut Kony Ealy because he didn't fit Satan's system. That's misleading. He didn't listen. He is a hard head. Same reason he wasn't liked in Carolina. None of these guys have had a bad word said about their willingness to learn/adapt.
Wayne Cubed Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 They just cut Kony Ealy because he didn't fit Satan's system. Or he didn't think he's talented enough. The fact remains Satan has changed his scheme and will find a way to use talented players.
HT02 Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 This isn't like shopping at a retail store. You can't return your broken product for a full refund. How hard is this to understand? Or is it just fashionable to be outraged? He's a 2nd round pick that blew out his knee. If that injury had happened in his senior year, he probably would have been a 6th or 7th round pick. In a best-case scenario he was going to play special teams for us this year, if he was even going to dress at all on Sundays. Gee if I were only as smart and football knowledgeable as you. If you can understand that a player can lose value I'm sure you can understand that they can also gain value by playing well after fully recovering from an injury. My objection is selling a smart, skilled player like Ragland when his value is at its lowest. Learn how to exchange opinions without being obnoxious.
Recommended Posts