MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 Not from the paying public's perspective... Tell that to the people who have bought almost all the tickets to the 1st 3 games.
DeeRay Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 But you see it as a way to judge TD based on W/L when it has absolutely, positively nothing to do with TD's W/L record. Not to mention that judging TD strictly on his W/L record is a terrible way to judge a football GM. Dude... the earth is round. That's fact. Donahoe as Bills GM is <.500. That's fact. What's to judge and what's to argue???? FACT??? The bottom line is two rookie coaches and two rebuliding cycles... and no playoffs under Donahoe. No one knows what the circumstances were contractually between Pat Williams and the Bills... and we don't know if there was even an offer or if Pat would have stayed for considerably less than what he signed for with the Vikes... So, Pat has a general opinion of the Bills management based on his first hand experience. Tom Donahoe has done a great job of filling the stadium and creating a lovey dovey/touchy feely job of reaching out to the fans and community. But that's it. If you're happy with that, that's fine... I'm not. That's the difference between you and me... you accept losing, I don't. I'm neither a pessimist nor an optimist... I'm a "realist". I don't drink Donahoe Koolaid and I'm not a lemming like 95% of the posters on this board.
IDBillzFan Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 If you're happy with that, that's fine... I'm not. That's the difference between you and me... you accept losing, I don't. I'm neither a pessimist nor an optimist... I'm a "realist". I don't drink Donahoe Koolaid and I'm not a lemming like 95% of the posters on this board. 378580[/snapback] I've already had this discussion HERE and I'm really not up to typing it all over again. Unfortunately, Deeray, you have Ice Syndrome, which clearly is defined as "suffering from the delusion that if no one agrees with me then they are okay with losing, are a lemming, and therefore should stop fooling themselves and just accept the fact that they're a loser." See, I don't accept losing. But I don't accept the fact that TD is the sole reason for us losing. Because, if that's the case, then you have to really blame the person who HIRED TD, and that would be Wilson. Is Wilson a loser? According to you, he is. So now you're smarter than Ralph Wilson? Okay, Ice. Whatever.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 If you're happy with that, that's fine... I'm not. That's the difference between you and me... you accept losing, I don't. I'm neither a pessimist nor an optimist... I'm a "realist". I don't drink Donahoe Koolaid and I'm not a lemming like 95% of the posters on this board. 378580[/snapback] Tell me every single one of the teams that you would trade our entire roster for right now. Including everything: entire roster, coaching staff, salary cap, age, years left on contract, everything. How many are there?
stuckincincy Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 Tell me every single one of the teams that you would trade our entire roster for right now. Including everything: entire roster, salary cap, age, years left on contract, everything. How many are there? 378603[/snapback] Philly's would be nice.
ganesh Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 So what's the big deal? Pat speaks the truth. Bills management sucks!! I mean after 4 years of Donahoe, what do we have? Not even .500. What's to argue? So all you optimists tell me is the glass less than half empty or is the glass almost half full? 378514[/snapback] Pat was in that system for the last 4 years...how come he did not question the management in those 4 years and suddenly once you are out there you speak bad about.... It is all about the money...The guy did not want to leave buffalo but wanted to be paid top dollars...the bills evaluated him and chose not to invest the big bucks in him....he is showing his frustration....... I am not sure how Pat blames the mgmt....The mgmt has pumped in so much talent into the defense (Milloy, Takeo, Sam Adams, Posey, Vincent) and have drafted good players in Kelsay, Schoebel and Clements.....How can Pat deem that as bad mgmt....and then last 10 of 12 players in the draft has been offense players....
scribo Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 Tell me every single one of the teams that you would trade our entire roster for right now. Including everything: entire roster, coaching staff, salary cap, age, years left on contract, everything. How many are there? 378603[/snapback] That is a damn good question. Really, it is a thread in itself.
stuckincincy Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 Sour Grapes from a bitter has-been. 378609[/snapback] See ya.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 That is a damn good question. Really, it is a thread in itself. 378617[/snapback] I said it before a few months ago and only a couple replies. McBride was one, who gave about eight teams. I didn't agree with several of them, and wouldn't make that trade myself. To me, there are only a couple. Philly's is good. I am not even sure I would want New England's, despite getting Bellicheck and Brady. I would have to think long and hard about trading our imediate present and near future for theirs. Indy's is good but they have heinous cap problems because of the contracts. San Diego's is pretty good but I think we have a better overall team than the Chargers. Pittsburgh's I would likely take, but not by much.
PromoTheRobot Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 I'm neither a pessimist nor an optimist... I'm a "realist". I don't drink Donahoe Koolaid and I'm not a lemming like 95% of the posters on this board. 378580[/snapback] ha ha ha haha! That's funny considering most of the folks on this board are doomsayers like you. I guess that makes you a lemming! PTR
scribo Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 I said it before a few months ago and only a couple replies. McBride was one, who gave about eight teams. I didn't agree with several of them, and wouldn't make that trade myself. To me, there are only a couple. Philly's is good. I am not even sure I would want New England's, despite getting Bellicheck and Brady. I would have to think long and hard about trading our imediate present and near future for theirs. Indy's is good but they have heinous cap problems because of the contracts. San Diego's is pretty good but I think we have a better overall team than the Chargers. Pittsburgh's I would likely take, but not by much. 378628[/snapback] I'd only take the Steelers if I could get rid of Cower. He'll win a lot of gmaes, but not the game. And that is all I'm interested in anymore. I think I'd only trade with the Pats if I could hire a solid offensive coordinator. And I'd trade with the Eagles if TO comes to camp. OK, I'd trade with the Pats no matter what. Ravens would be quite enticing, too.
dave mcbride Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 But you see it as a way to judge TD based on W/L when it has absolutely, positively nothing to do with TD's W/L record. Not to mention that judging TD strictly on his W/L record is a terrible way to judge a football GM. 378554[/snapback] i have to take issue with this reasoning. the notion that anything counts *for the fan* besides winning and losing is sheer sophistry. do i care that the bills financial house is in order? that they're under the cap? give me a break. who cares?????? and it's not as if the bills are threating to move. the big deal -- the stadium one -- was done before donohoe arrived, and all the other stuff (rochester, which would have happened under butler's watch too; season ticket sales) is just window dressing. moreover, there are many teams with a far greater likelihood to leave their cities than the bills. i'm not here to damn the sub-mediocre but not terrible record of donohoe. i'm here to simply state that the business stuff is all bs and irrelevant to why i follow the bills. with regard to the gm, in my view it's just win, baby.
dave mcbride Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 I said it before a few months ago and only a couple replies. McBride was one, who gave about eight teams. I didn't agree with several of them, and wouldn't make that trade myself. To me, there are only a couple. Philly's is good. I am not even sure I would want New England's, despite getting Bellicheck and Brady. I would have to think long and hard about trading our imediate present and near future for theirs. Indy's is good but they have heinous cap problems because of the contracts. San Diego's is pretty good but I think we have a better overall team than the Chargers. Pittsburgh's I would likely take, but not by much. 378628[/snapback] dog - at the present time, these are the teams that i think have more talent than the bills (there are others with about equal talent). i'm not factoring in the cap, which i continue to think is a plot foisted by the league on the public to make people who try to figure it out think they're smarter than they actually are. NOTE: in a lot of cases, the quality of the QB is an overarching factor minnesota philly NE pittsburgh seattle (i know i'll get heat for this one because the bills crushed them in seattle, but they really do have a lot of good players and a good coach) oakland san diego indy ny jets (they've gotten better since the end of the season) dallas (i expect them to do quite well this year, and not because of DB) KC (a tough one, but the coach and the QB weigh heavily) baltimore (again, they've improved since the end of last season) that puts the bills in a tie for 13th, hovering on the edge of the playoffs. a lot of this is based on my uninformed hunches about losman. put simply, he may end up being great, but i suspect he'll throw more ints than tds this year, which is typically how it plays out for first year starters. but who knows? maybe he'll be the next daunte culpepper. bottom line, though - he's too much an unknown, unlike players such as trent green and hasselback.
KnightRider Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 and it's not as if the bills are threating to move. the big deal -- the stadium one -- was done before donohoe arrived, and all the other stuff (rochester, which would have happened under butler's watch too; season ticket sales) is just window dressing. moreover, there are many teams with a far greater likelihood to leave their cities than the bills. 378677[/snapback] While I can't remember the details, I think there were numerous out clauses in that deal, and they were pretty early in the contract... Butler's biggest failure was not the cap stuff. It was that he could not fill the stadium when we still had most of the SB team intact.
jad1 Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 Philly's would be nice. 378604[/snapback] This is an interesting one. What do you think the reaction of this board would be if the Bills lost the AFC championship game 3 years in a row (twice at home), and the team was still something like $15 million under the salary cap, while it was letting quality players leave the fold? For as much success as they have had over the last four or five years, there's still something that's not right with the way they've built that team.
34-78-83 Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 dog - at the present time, these are the teams that i think have more talent than the bills (there are others with about equal talent). i'm not factoring in the cap, which i continue to think is a plot foisted by the league on the public to make people who try to figure it out think they're smarter than they actually are. NOTE: in a lot of cases, the quality of the QB is an overarching factor minnesota philly NE pittsburgh seattle (i know i'll get heat for this one because the bills crushed them in seattle, but they really do have a lot of good players and a good coach) oakland san diego indy ny jets (they've gotten better since the end of the season) dallas (i expect them to do quite well this year, and not because of DB) KC (a tough one, but the coach and the QB weigh heavily) baltimore (again, they've improved since the end of last season) that puts the bills in a tie for 13th, hovering on the edge of the playoffs. a lot of this is based on my uninformed hunches about losman. put simply, he may end up being great, but i suspect he'll throw more ints than tds this year, which is typically how it plays out for first year starters. but who knows? maybe he'll be the next daunte culpepper. bottom line, though - he's too much an unknown, unlike players such as trent green and hasselback. 378697[/snapback] I gotta believe you're doing this atleast somewhat for shock value. Oakland? KC? Dallas? Seattle? You can't seriously believe that, ok well I guess you do... To each his own.
dave mcbride Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 I gotta believe you're doing this atleast somewhat for shock value. Oakland? KC? Dallas? Seattle? You can't seriously believe that, ok well I guess you do... To each his own. 378722[/snapback] every year some teams get better and some teams get worse. all of these teams to my mind have improved their roster significantly. KC especially has gotten some defensive players who can actually run. as for oakland, believe it or not, kerry collins threw the ball pretty damn well last year. and now he has randy moss, the best receiver in the league, and a healthy ronald curry. plus gallery in all likelihood will be a monster this year. finally, lamont jordan ran the best he ever ran last year, and solves a lot of problems for that offense. dallas is markedly better across the board, and julius jones is one of the better backs i've seen come into the league in the past few years. as for seattle, they have a good qb, a great offensive line, a good back, good TEs, and a young, improving, and most of all talented secondary. i also happen to think the coach is pretty good still. in a nutshell, i have my reasons. all of these teams improved their rosters, while on the face of it the bills didn't, unless you believe in addition by subtraction.
stuckincincy Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 I gotta believe you're doing this atleast somewhat for shock value. Oakland? KC? Dallas? Seattle? You can't seriously believe that, ok well I guess you do... To each his own. 378722[/snapback] Why "shock value"??? Seems like an interesting topic to kick around...
jad1 Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 every year some teams get better and some teams get worse. all of these teams to my mind have improved their roster significantly. KC especially has gotten some defensive players who can actually run. as for oakland, believe it or not, kerry collins threw the ball pretty damn well last year. and now he has randy moss, the best receiver in the league, and a healthy ronald curry. plus gallery in all likelihood will be a monster this year. finally, lamont jordan ran the best he ever ran last year, and solves a lot of problems for that offense. dallas is markedly better across the board, and julius jones is one of the better backs i've seen come into the league in the past few years. as for seattle, they have a good qb, a great offensive line, a good back, good TEs, and a young, improving, and most of all talented secondary. i also happen to think the coach is pretty good still. in a nutshell, i have my reasons. all of these teams improved their rosters, while on the face of it the bills didn't, unless you believe in addition by subtraction. 378732[/snapback] Not to be too argumentative, but you also have to consider that Oakland's D is pretty awful. They could look a lot like the 2002 Bills. Dallas is relying heavily on rookies on the defensive side of the ball, and their best LB, Dat Nygun looks like a poor fit in the 3-4. They also need their aging line to protect Bledsoe, and have a less than steller corpse of receivers. Seattle's receivers have also taken a step back with Robinson's washout, and their TEs are unproven at best. Alexander is on the trading block, and their front seven on the defensive side is shakey to say the least. And KC has bought a lot of defensive talent, but so has Washington in the past. The middle of their D line is still soft and the DEs are nothing to write home about. I like Buffalo's chances better, because Losman or not, they have shown they can run and stop the run, and play excellent special teams.
Recommended Posts