Kelly the Dog Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 This is where your argument gets beat up, because none of that matters to many of these guys. They simply and only care about W/L because that's the only thing that matters to them. I get it, kinda. But I don't. 379105[/snapback] Your job as a manager or a small business owner is to make a profit, bottom line. As big a profit as you can. That is your main job. Some say only job. But if that meant you make a killing in 2005 but lose all your employees in 2006 and 2007, cannot keep up with emerging new trends and technologies, spend your whole wad on getting every penny this year at the expense of being bankrupt next year, yeah, sure, you did great and you're awesome because bottom line, you pulled in the cash. Sorry. Your job will be gone.
dave mcbride Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 How can you then complain about the job that TD is doing if you just discount 50% or more of what his job is because you don't think it's relevant. It IS relevant, it is irrefutably relevant, because that is what the job is. That is like saying a maid is great because she does dishes well but you're not going to count vacuuming and laundry and washing floors because you don't think they're relevant, you like clean dishes. A GM's job is to field a winner, acquire talent, deal with the cap, have a balance of veterans and youngsters for the immediate present and near future, etc, and not just try to win as many games as he can for one season. Unless you're favoring and arguing for the Dan Snyder model of fielding a team, you cannot just discount the relevant factors just because it hurts your argument. Either you would trade the WHOLE TEAM AND ALL ITS FACTORS including age and salary cap or you wouldn't. Again, perhaps you still would make those 13 trades, and that's cool. But please don't just discount extremely important elements of a GM's job, and then say that TD is not doing well as a GM because all that matters is wins and losses. 379073[/snapback] whoa there. where in any of my posts have i lashed out at donohoe for doing a bad job. his record so far isn't great, but i'm focusing on the present. my only point is where the bills stack up presently vis as vis the rest of the league. i'm not making pronouncements about the state of the bills future. i will say that all i really care about is wins and losses, and would prefer to have them beyond simply this year. hopefully that will happen. however, neither you nor i has any insight on how the bills will measure up vis a vis the rest of the league's teams in 2006. it's a waste of effort, in my opinion to project that far ahead.
dave mcbride Posted July 11, 2005 Posted July 11, 2005 How can you then complain about the job that TD is doing if you just discount 50% or more of what his job is because you don't think it's relevant. It IS relevant, it is irrefutably relevant, because that is what the job is. That is like saying a maid is great because she does dishes well but you're not going to count vacuuming and laundry and washing floors because you don't think they're relevant, you like clean dishes. A GM's job is to field a winner, acquire talent, deal with the cap, have a balance of veterans and youngsters for the immediate present and near future, etc, and not just try to win as many games as he can for one season. Unless you're favoring and arguing for the Dan Snyder model of fielding a team, you cannot just discount the relevant factors just because it hurts your argument. Either you would trade the WHOLE TEAM AND ALL ITS FACTORS including age and salary cap or you wouldn't. Again, perhaps you still would make those 13 trades, and that's cool. But please don't just discount extremely important elements of a GM's job, and then say that TD is not doing well as a GM because all that matters is wins and losses. 379073[/snapback] p.s. that stuff is relevant to some people, but it's only relevant to me nsofar it has a bearing on the team's success in the win/loss column. of course i'd prefer that the bills be a consistent winner, but i'd prefer that it happen sooner rather than later because the future in the nfl is harder to predict than any other sport. moreover, after a number of years mired in mediocrity, i'll take a winning season now and worry about the future later.
Berg Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 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. 378677[/snapback] You're right. That's probably all it is for most fans. Which makes most fans - including you - terrible judges of the performance of a GM.
Nanker Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Hey, how IS fat Pat's auto body shop doing in Buffalo anyway? I'll bet he's going to be doing a land office business this year. All his loyal fans will be bringing in their dinged up Corvairs and Mazda 626's in for a hot paint job following this little statement of love. Phat Pat's gonna Pimp My Ride!
dave mcbride Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 You're right. That's probably all it is for most fans. Which makes most fans - including you - terrible judges of the performance of a GM. 379321[/snapback] oh really? it would seem to me that if i were to take a poll of TBDers, the vast majority would say that donohoe has been a better gm for the bills than john butler. in the 8 years he served as gm, the bills made the playoffs 5 times. he also supervised most of the drafts in the glory years under polian. in 4 years, donohoe hasn't made it once. yet he saved the team from "cap jail", put butts in the seats, has done wonders with the marketing stuff, and has the organization running like a more smoothly greased business machine, all in all. these are not things to sneer at, especially if you're collecting checks like ralph wilson and his family. i, however, am not ralph wilson and his family. the profitability stuff that matters to wilson (as it should) doesn't matter to me. i'm a simple man when it comes to the nfl -- my prime concern is that the team i root for be good, and that it make the playoffs. as for moving the team, well, if the bills move after a couple of decades of stellar fan support and the locality bending over backwards, the hell with them. not like it would ever happen -- the bills ain't going anywhere in the forseeable future.
jad1 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 oh really? it would seem to me that if i were to take a poll of TBDers, the vast majority would say that donohoe has been a better gm for the bills than john butler. in the 8 years he served as gm, the bills made the playoffs 5 times. he also supervised most of the drafts in the glory years under polian. in 4 years, donohoe hasn't made it once. yet he saved the team from "cap jail", put butts in the seats, has done wonders with the marketing stuff, and has the organization running like a more smoothly greased business machine, all in all. these are not things to sneer at, especially if you're collecting checks like ralph wilson and his family. i, however, am not ralph wilson and his family. the profitability stuff that matters to wilson (as it should) doesn't matter to me. i'm a simple man when it comes to the nfl -- my prime concern is that the team i root for be good, and that it make the playoffs. as for moving the team, well, if the bills move after a couple of decades of stellar fan support and the locality bending over backwards, the hell with them. not like it would ever happen -- the bills ain't going anywhere in the forseeable future. 379357[/snapback] Yeah but you have to recognize that Butler's Bills were built on the momentum of a rebuilding period during the mid 80s, during which the Bills went through a period of 3 seasons where they won 8 games. Good leadership during that time however, netted the Bills core of talent that lasted almost 15 years. Kelly, Smith, Reed, Hull, and Talley were all added. Donahoe has just brought the team through a similar down cycle. There's no question that he has brought talent to the team, what remains to be seen is if the team can take the next step after improving over the last 3 years. As fans we all want our team to win every game. We want our team to make the playoffs every year. But the reality is that the NFL, through design, is cyclical in nature.
dave mcbride Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Yeah but you have to recognize that Butler's Bills were built on the momentum of a rebuilding period during the mid 80s, during which the Bills went through a period of 3 seasons where they won 8 games. Good leadership during that time however, netted the Bills core of talent that lasted almost 15 years. Kelly, Smith, Reed, Hull, and Talley were all added. Donahoe has just brought the team through a similar down cycle. There's no question that he has brought talent to the team, what remains to be seen is if the team can take the next step after improving over the last 3 years. As fans we all want our team to win every game. We want our team to make the playoffs every year. But the reality is that the NFL, through design, is cyclical in nature. 379644[/snapback] if that's the case, then the future is now for donohoe. it's year five and it's time to start winning. he's done a lot of good things, so i have some hope. it all comes down to the qb, though. if losman doesn't pan out fairly quickly, it's going to be a subpar to middling season. he's never had much success with qbs. in retrospect, neil o'donnell tops the charts for him, and he pretty much chased him out of town after the 95 season. the rest -- jim miller, kordell stewart, rob johnson, drew bledsoe -- were at best mediocre. there's one silver lining in the sea of clouds -- the steelers actually had a couple of good seasons with stewart, which remains inexplicable to me given how bad i thought he was. so it's possible to win with a lousy qb.
nick in* england Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 I was mad at Pat when I first read these comments - but then I realised he probably wanted to stay in Buffalo for the length of his career and his sour at not getting the shot. He's a good guy and I won't rip on him for being upset that he was forced to leave a team he loves. Hope he can retire a Buffalo Bill.
Alaska Darin Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 if that's the case, then the future is now for donohoe. it's year five and it's time to start winning. he's done a lot of good things, so i have some hope. it all comes down to the qb, though. if losman doesn't pan out fairly quickly, it's going to be a subpar to middling season. he's never had much success with qbs. in retrospect, neil o'donnell tops the charts for him, and he pretty much chased him out of town after the 95 season. the rest -- jim miller, kordell stewart, rob johnson, drew bledsoe -- were at best mediocre. there's one silver lining in the sea of clouds -- the steelers actually had a couple of good seasons with stewart, which remains inexplicable to me given how bad i thought he was. so it's possible to win with a lousy qb. 379654[/snapback] We started winning last season. Last time I checked, 9-7 was a winning record.
dave mcbride Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 We started winning last season. Last time I checked, 9-7 was a winning record. 379660[/snapback] 9-7 didn't get the bills in the playoffs. sure, it's a winning record, and i was happy about it considering the 0-4 start, but both you and i know it's 1 game above 500 and falls squarely in the realm of "average." to argue otherwise is to miss the point. the bills need to elevate to a double-digit win season, and hopefully it'll be this year. 9-7 will not put the bills in the playoffs in 2005. there are too many good teams in the afc for that.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 9-7 didn't get the bills in the playoffs. sure, it's a winning record, and i was happy about it considering the 0-4 start, but both you and i know it's 1 game above 500 and falls squarely in the realm of "average." to argue otherwise is to miss the point. the bills need to elevate to a double-digit win season, and hopefully it'll be this year. 9-7 will not put the bills in the playoffs in 2005. there are too many good teams in the afc for that. It's pretty good, considering the Bills had a rookie coach, a new offensive coaching staff, and a new ST's coach, even though most of them were MAJOR upgrades over their predecessors.
Alaska Darin Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 9-7 didn't get the bills in the playoffs. sure, it's a winning record, and i was happy about it considering the 0-4 start, but both you and i know it's 1 game above 500 and falls squarely in the realm of "average." to argue otherwise is to miss the point. the bills need to elevate to a double-digit win season, and hopefully it'll be this year. 9-7 will not put the bills in the playoffs in 2005. there are too many good teams in the afc for that. 379666[/snapback] A decent performance by either our QB or starting RB in a couple of the first 4 games meant an 11-5 record while playing in the toughest division in football. But let's blame the GM for those two meatheads not playing up to their pedigree. - Because it's conVENient. I really hate the offseason and the seeming short attention span theater our culture is so ripe with.
dave mcbride Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 A decent performance by either our QB or starting RB in a couple of the first 4 games meant an 11-5 record while playing in the toughest division in football. But let's blame the GM for those two meatheads not playing up to their pedigree. - Because it's conVENient. I really hate the offseason and the seeming short attention span theater our culture is so ripe with. 379767[/snapback] ????? When did i ever blame donohoe for that? you're putting words in my mouth, and i'm not sure what your point is in this case anyway. i've said it before, but i suppose i need to say it again: over the course of 4 years, the bills record has been sub-average (26-38). they got better last year, largely because the coaches were a distinct improvement and because some of the younger players on offense turned out to be quite good (mcgahee, evans), capable of putting the ball in the endzone with regularity. hence, i have some real hope for the near future. however, i also have real concern given the record of 1st year qbs in the nfl over the last couple of decades. in any case, 9-7 is 9-7, which is not good enough for the playoffs in the afc. moreover, if the talent level on this team is as good as many people here seem to believe that it is, then it's time to take a step forward to a double-digit win season. five years is more than enough time in the nfl to reach the playoffs, a league in which over a third of the teams make it every year.
JinVA Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 Pat is making himself more stupider everyday. 379066[/snapback]
Ramius Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 ????? When did i ever blame donohoe for that? you're putting words in my mouth, and i'm not sure what your point is in this case anyway. i've said it before, but i suppose i need to say it again: over the course of 4 years, the bills record has been sub-average (26-38). they got better last year, largely because the coaches were a distinct improvement and because some of the younger players on offense turned out to be quite good (mcgahee, evans), capable of putting the ball in the endzone with regularity. hence, i have some real hope for the near future. however, i also have real concern given the record of 1st year qbs in the nfl over the last couple of decades. in any case, 9-7 is 9-7, which is not good enough for the playoffs in the afc. moreover, if the talent level on this team is as good as many people here seem to believe that it is, then it's time to take a step forward to a double-digit win season. five years is more than enough time in the nfl to reach the playoffs, a league in which over a third of the teams make it every year. 379788[/snapback] fist off, starting 9-2 and finishing 9-7 is waaaaay different that starting off 0-4 and 1-5 and finishing 9-7...theres a huge difference in team momentum and development and it shows teams going in different directions... and about your playoff rant, would you rather be the chicago bears? yah they've made the playoffs in the past 5 years, but it was 1 flash in the pan season...every other year they are 5-11 or so...but they did make the playoffs once, so maybe that would keep you more happy than a GM setting up a team for the long haul.... Ding! Your meatball and cheese is ready.
dave mcbride Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 fist off, starting 9-2 and finishing 9-7 is waaaaay different that starting off 0-4 and 1-5 and finishing 9-7...theres a huge difference in team momentum and development and it shows teams going in different directions... and about your playoff rant, would you rather be the chicago bears? yah they've made the playoffs in the past 5 years, but it was 1 flash in the pan season...every other year they are 5-11 or so...but they did make the playoffs once, so maybe that would keep you more happy than a GM setting up a team for the long haul.... Ding! Your meatball and cheese is ready. 379804[/snapback] playoff rant? is it too much to ask that the bills make the playoffs? I mean, why the hell else should i follow the team? so i can project into the future? look, here's the gist of what i've been saying in this thread: the bills are an ok team vis a vis the competition, smack dab in the middle of the pack--nothing more, nothing less. i've relied on past records to back that up, and my own admittedly subjective assessment of their current talent level. on balance, the criticisms i've received have been a mix of wishful thinking and accusations that i don't understand the job description of gm. i do know this - the bills lost some talent that they didn't replace this offseason, and are banking on a qb that hasn't played before. they've also been 23-25 after they reattained respectability in 2002. they have some good talent as well as some good coaches. i hope that offsets some of the losses. i also hope that losman is good. but that's hope, not a prediction based on plausible evidence.
San-O Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 playoff rant? is it too much to ask that the bills make the playoffs? I mean, why the hell else should i follow the team? so i can project into the future? look, here's the gist of what i've been saying in this thread: the bills are an ok team vis a vis the competition, smack dab in the middle of the pack--nothing more, nothing less. i've relied on past records to back that up, and my own admittedly subjective assessment of their current talent level. on balance, the criticisms i've received have been a mix of wishful thinking and accusations that i don't understand the job description of gm. i do know this - the bills lost some talent that they didn't replace this offseason, and are banking on a qb that hasn't played before. they've also been 23-25 after they reattained respectability in 2002. they have some good talent as well as some good coaches. i hope that offsets some of the losses. i also hope that losman is good. but that's hope, not a prediction based on plausible evidence. 379965[/snapback] You are never going to get anywhere with a lot of these guys. Don't bring up winnning and losing, or record. It's not about that apparently. GMs aren't judged on win-loss record. At least not ours. TD is great, the record doesn't matter because the Bills sell a lot of T-shirts and jackets, Oh yeah, you left out going into the season with an unknown at LT.
San-O Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 and about your playoff rant, would you rather be the chicago bears? yah they've made the playoffs in the past 5 years, but it was 1 flash in the pan season...every other year they are 5-11 or so...but they did make the playoffs once, so maybe that would keep you more happy than a GM setting up a team for the long haul.... 379804[/snapback] How long is this "haul" going to take and where is it going to end up?
jad1 Posted July 12, 2005 Posted July 12, 2005 How long is this "haul" going to take and where is it going to end up? 379985[/snapback] If you use the mid-80s Bills as a rebuilding model, 4-6 years, ending up in the Super Bowl. You'll find that most teams that do end up in the SB go through a similar reconstruction time period. Using the Bills as an example, here's their fall and rise during the '80s: 81 - 10-6 (playoffs) 82 - 4-5 (strike) 83 - 8-8 84 - 2-14 85 - 2-14 86 - 4-12 87 - 7-8 (strike) 88 - 12-4 (Div Champs) 89 - 9-7 (Div Champs) 90 - 13-3 (SB) So 6 seasons between playoff appearances, during which time they built a team that would post over 100 wins in the 1990s. And here's the record break-down since the last playoff appearance: 99 - 10-6 (playoffs) 00 - 8-8 01 - 3-13 (TD's first year) 02 - 8-8 03 - 6-10 04 - 9-7 It would be wrong to make a complete comparison between the teams of these two eras, but there are a couple of interesting similarities: --Both teams followed up their last playoff year (in '81 and '99) with a .500ish record. They were at the end of their runs, and were erroded by age. The 80's team, having no salary cap consideration, was able to eek out one more .500 season before collapsing. Donahoe, under cap constraints, started rebuilding sooner. -- Both teams bottomed out, hard, and both had chaotic QB situations. Donahoe was able to stabilize the QB position with Bledsoe, which is why the team was able to rebound more quickly than the 80's squad, who suffered through Kofler and Dufek before Kelly arrived. --The biggest increase in season-to-season wins is 5 games for both teams. Polian's team jumped from 7 to 12 wins, while Donahoe's jumped from 3 to 8. Donahoe's jump happened earlier in his tenure. So if you're a long-time Bills fan, you seen this type of rebuilding effort before. You understand the up-and-down cycles that NFLs parity-promoting rules cause. And if you judge Donahoe's record against the last rebuilding effort for the team, you see that he does have the team on a good track, not out of the realm of reasonablity for creating a strong and solid team that can win season after season.
Recommended Posts