Tom Donahoe is an excellent GM

[marck]

Your response just shows you to be a know nothing whinner. When you have something worthwhile to contribute then post. Otherwise, just go back to surfing porn on the internet and waiting for your unemployment check to arrive loser.

 

 

 

This is an assumption that we're supposed to accept as fact.  Why?  Because you say so? 

 

Allow me to counter: 

 

Donahoe sucks as a GM, name someone better. 

 

Hell, I'd rather have any one of half of our season ticket holders be the GM.

458791[/snapback]

[Kelly the Dog]

49ers. Jets. Raiders. Dolphins. Packers. Bears. Rams.

 

They all made the playoffs in 2001. Would you rather have those teams' rosters than the Bills?

 

Jets. Browns. Titans. Raiders. 49ers. Giants. Packers.

 

They all made the playoffs in 2002. Would you rather have their rosters now than the Bills?

 

The object is to win the Super Bowl and then stay there. It's not just to get to the playoffs and flame out or hit a ceiling. It's not to bet all your marbles on one season and then find your entire franchise is screwed. Remember the last time that happened? John Butler did it, and that's why we were in cap hell for two years.

 

TD set out to build a team that would be a combination of talented veterans and promising young guys with talent all around that could compete year by year for the Super Bowl. he has failed to reach it, or even come close. But the theory is the one that I also agree with and many of the pieces are in place. I don't think they're going to win the SB but he is building a solid team and structure.

[dave mcbride]

49ers. Jets. Raiders. Dolphins. Packers. Bears. Rams.

 

They all made the playoffs in 2001. Would you rather have those teams' rosters than the Bills?

 

Jets. Browns. Titans. Raiders. 49ers. Giants. Packers.

 

They all made the playoffs in 2002. Would you rather have their rosters now than the Bills?

 

The object is to win the Super Bowl and then stay there. It's not just to get to the playoffs and flame out or hit a ceiling. It's not to bet all your marbles on one season and then find your entire franchise is screwed. Remember the last time that happened? John Butler did it, and that's why we were in cap hell for two years.

 

TD set out to build a team that would be a combination of talented veterans and promising young guys with talent all around that could compete year by year for the Super Bowl. he has failed to reach it, or even come close. But the theory is the one that I also agree with and many of the pieces are in place. I don't think they're going to win the SB but he is building a solid team and structure.

458852[/snapback]

 

dog, see my post above. there's a lot to like about donohoe without buying the salary cap hell kool-aid. and that is what it was. remember, much of the cap stuff had been cleaned up after 99 with the departures of smith, thomas, and reed (and no, butler didn't leave because he didn't want to deal with the "mess" - he left because alex spanos offered him millions more in a really nice city). sure, they had to deal with salary cap issues after 2000, but a lot of that derived more from some very poor personnel decisions by williams (and donohoe).

[dave mcbride]

49ers. Jets. Raiders. Dolphins. Packers. Bears. Rams.

 

They all made the playoffs in 2001. Would you rather have those teams' rosters than the Bills?

 

Jets. Browns. Titans. Raiders. 49ers. Giants. Packers.

 

They all made the playoffs in 2002. Would you rather have their rosters now than the Bills?

 

458852[/snapback]

 

hmm. let me see. the raiders. a playoff appearance (where they were robbed) followed by a super bowl appearance. past events, to be sure, but events that actually happened and are etched in people's memories. the bills: nada. this year: the raiders, notwithstanding their record (and they could easily be 3-0), look to be a better team than the bills. there's a lot of football to be played, of course. the point is that the past isn't immaterial simply because it's in the past.

 

the jets: in the playoffs almost every year; have as good a roster as the bills at present (don't laugh at vinnie - he's sliced up the bills too many times to do that). they have the same record as the bills, by the way, and lost one game in OT that they should have won.

 

the giants are 2-1 with a qb who looks like the real deal.

 

the packers: give me a break. they've been in the playoffs for like 12 straight years. they're due for a down year.

 

the browns and the niners i'll give you.

[Kelly the Dog]

dog, see my post above. there's a lot to like about donohoe without buying the salary cap hell kool-aid. and that is what it was. remember, much of the cap stuff had been cleaned up after 99 with the departures of smith, thomas, and reed (and no, butler didn't leave because he didn't want to deal with the "mess" - he left because alex spanos offered him millions more in a really nice city).  sure, they had to deal with salary cap issues after 2000, but a lot of that derived more from some very poor personnel decisions by williams (and donohoe).

458853[/snapback]

Nonsense. First off, we couldn't sign Washington. He was the one that publicly said he wasn't going to sign with the Bills. We had enormously over-paid guys like Jones and Holocek and Newman and Rogers and Ostroski and (I think Panos) and two five-plus-million dollar quarterbacks that weren't the future.

[Hollywood Donahoe]

Name someone better?

 

New Englands GM Scott Paoli

Pioli is the Patriots' Vice President of Player Personnel.

 

Belichick is the GM.

[Kelly the Dog]

hmm. let me see. the raiders. a playoff appearance (where they were robbed) followed by a super bowl appearance. past events, to be sure, but events that actually happened and are etched in people's memories.  the bills: nada. this year: the raiders, notwithstanding their record (and they could easily be 3-0), look to be a better team than the bills. there's a lot of football to be played, of course. the point is that the past isn't immaterial simply because it's in the past.

 

the jets: in the playoffs almost every year; have as good a roster as the bills at present (don't laugh at vinnie - he's sliced up the bills too many times to do that). they have the same record as the bills, by the way, and lost one game in OT that they should have won.

 

the giants are 2-1 with a qb who looks like the real deal.

 

the packers: give me a break. they've been in the playoffs for like 12 straight years. they're due for a down year.

 

the browns and the niners i'll give you.

458858[/snapback]

 

The point is, obviously, that a lot of teams go through up and down years and just because they were playoff teams, the next year or few years they often go down and other teams go up. And fans would be bitching about what have you done for me lately, I don't care about 2001 or 2002 I want to win now! The Bills have a very talented roster that was built over the years. I know you have a ridiculous fascination with the Raiders and you would want them over the Bills but I think that's insane. The Jets and the Bills are close but I like the Bills present and future a lot more than the Jets. The same goes for the Giants. The Packers, Browns and 49ers are obvious.

[dave mcbride]

Nonsense. First off, we couldn't sign Washington. He was the one that publicly said he wasn't going to sign with the Bills. We had enormously over-paid guys like Jones and Holocek and Newman and Rogers and Ostroski and (I think Panos) and two five-plus-million dollar quarterbacks that weren't the future.

458860[/snapback]

nonsense? then how come cbs reported that in march 2001, washington, who expected to find great riches on the open market, went back to the bills with a very reasonable salary request (about 1.5 million) after finding out that no one wanted to pay him what he was expecting? williams' response: no fat guys.

 

and what does "enormously overpay" actually mean? remember that rogers, jones, and holocek were all making in the 2 million dollar range -- hardly salary cap breakers. of course, they became that once they were cut and their bonuses accelerated. rogers is a classic example: a very solid player rarely out of position who missed almost no games.

[PTS]

And he'll never develop that, right? I mean, you can know EVERYTHING about a QB's future after three starts, right?

 

RIGHT.

458752[/snapback]

I know one thing, QBs can greatly improve their accuracy and throwing ability quickly. However, JP is lost on the field with no awareness and that is a problem that would take years to fix.

[ganesh]

I know many of you on this board do not remember or are too young and immature to think backs of the teams under Bill Pollian that went 2-14, 4-12 and 4-12 before maturing into the team that won the AFC East from 1988 to 1991 and went to four straight Super Bowls.

 

458703[/snapback]

I agree to all your points...except one difference....Polian built this team when

there was no FA...He could keep all the super-stars together and jumped from

the 4-12 season to 12-4 and to the superbowls...

 

With FA, for TD it is going to be much harder (as Butler found out while

inheriting the team built by Polian) to keep the good players together...

 

Plus, TD is coming to a point where quite a # of the players he collected are

going to be FA soon..especially on the D..and how is he going to handle them....Soon by next season

he will have to deal with Clements, Sam Adams, London Fletcher,

Jeff Posey.

 

I am more happy with Offense, as most of these guys are signed for

another 3 to 4 years....and I think by end of the season Duke Preston will

be starting in place of Trey Teague.

[todd]

I know one thing. QB can greatly improve their accuracy and throwing ability. JP is lost on the field and that is a problem that would take years to fix.

458886[/snapback]

 

Tell me, have you ever actually watched a first time starter before. Have you ever watched a football game before? Given by the stupidity of the above comment, I'd say no.

[dave mcbride]

The point is, obviously, that a lot of teams go through up and down years and just because they were playoff teams, the next year or few years they often go down and other teams go up. And fans would be bitching about what have you done for me lately, I don't care about 2001 or 2002 I want to win now! The Bills have a very talented roster that was built over the years. I know you have a ridiculous fascination with the Raiders and you would want them over the Bills but I think that's insane. The Jets and the Bills are close but I like the Bills present and future a lot more than the Jets. The same goes for the Giants. The Packers, Browns and 49ers are obvious.

458867[/snapback]

? i don't have a ridiculous fascination with the raiders. i merely pointed out that they made the playoffs a couple of times and one super bowl in the time span we're talking about. i also don't think they have the best roster in the league by any stretch. but i do think they have some difference makers on their roster (i.e., moss) that makes it more attractive than ours. the bills roster isn't great, but it's at least decent. i'd say the raiders talent overall is in the "pretty good" category, and moderately better than the bills. by the way, you can bet that the bills wouldn't have lost a squeaker in philly last week. they would have gotten killed. the big issue for the raiders, of course, is kerry collins, a bledsoe clone. we'll see how that plays it in the next few weeks.

[kegtapr]

Quotes from marck in this thread

 

for all of the individuals on this board who think they have any knowledge of football

 

People, please get your heads out of your collective a__ses

 

I know many of you on this board do not remember or are too young and immature to think backs of the teams....

 

frankly I am getting fed up reading it from you bandwagon losers

 

Try making some reasons and justifications and then generate an actual intelligent response.

 

Answer me that hot shot!!

 

Your response just shows you to be a know nothing whinner. When you have something worthwhile to contribute then post. Otherwise, just go back to surfing porn on the internet and waiting for your unemployment check to arrive loser.

 

marck, I would love to sit here and argue some of your points but I won't, because you've proven that you cannot engage in grown-up conversation. I think the quotes I just pointed out speak more about yourself than anyone here. Good day.

[Kelly the Dog]

nonsense? then how come cbs reported that in march 2001, washington, who expected to find great riches on the open market, went back to the bills with a very reasonable salary request (about 1.5 million) after finding out that no one wanted to pay him what he was expecting? williams' response: no fat guys.

 

and what does "enormously overpay" actually mean? remember that rogers, jones, and holocek were all making in the 2 million dollar range -- hardly salary cap breakers. of course, they became that once they were cut and their bonuses accelerated. rogers is a classic example: a very solid player rarely out of position who missed almost no games.

458878[/snapback]

So you wanted to keep all those aging, over-priced, out of position in this defense players for one extra year so they could be making tackles four yards from the LOS instead of five that their replacements were making? Each one of those cuts with the exception of Williams was IMO without question the right thing to do at the time, in the short term, in the long term, and in retrospect.

[Kelly the Dog]

? i don't have a ridiculous fascination with the raiders. i merely pointed out that they made the playoffs a couple of times and one super bowl in the time span we're talking about. i also don't think they have the best roster in the league by any stretch.  but i do think they have some difference makers on their roster (i.e., moss) that makes it more attractive than ours.  the bills roster isn't great, but it's at least decent. i'd say the raiders talent overall is in the "pretty good" category, and moderately better than the bills.  by the way, you can bet that the bills wouldn't have lost a squeaker in philly last week. they would have gotten killed. the big issue for the raiders, of course, is kerry collins, a  bledsoe clone. we'll see how that plays it in the next few weeks.

458894[/snapback]

Yeah, Norv Turner is terrific. And they really handled that Charles Woodson deal fabulously lately. And their drafting has been exemplary. And they have young studs at virtually every position. And as you said, Kerry Collins is highly underrated. And those fat DTs are really pulling their weight. That team is a mess and I wouldn't go near them.

[dave mcbride]

So you wanted to keep all those aging, over-priced, out of position in this defense players for one extra year so they could be making tackles four yards from the LOS instead of five that their replacements were making? Each one of those cuts with the exception of Williams was IMO without question the right thing to do at the time, in the short term, in the long term, and in retrospect.

458908[/snapback]

 

like i said, i view football as entertainment meant to entertain in the present; it's not a futures contract. i'd have happily taken a 6-10/7-9 season over a 3-13 one that year watching players i actually gave a crap about.

 

as for out of position, well, they may have been out of position in a defense that was forced upon them. they seemed to do ok the year before in the defense they played in.

 

just so you know, i'm also of the mind at this point in my life that if a team goes 10-6, makes the playoffs, and puts on a good showing for one or two games before dropping out, that's great. i'm happy. they've entertained me and made life more fun. i'm long past being one of those super bowl-or-bust people (the kind of people who think polian hasn't done anything since his bills days because his teams haven't made the super bowl).

 

by the way, you never responded to the ted washington issue. it's hard to believe because it's so stupid, but it actually happened. as i said in my previous post, i blame williams for a lot of it, so this shouldn't necessarily be construed as an attack on donohoe. washington, of course, has had two dominating seasons since he left (2001, 2003) and looks great this year.

[todd]

like i said, i view football as entertainment meant to entertain in the present; it's not a futures contract. i'd have happily taken a 6-10/7-9 season over a 3-13 one that year watching players i actually gave a crap about.

 

458957[/snapback]

 

That explains much, thanks.

[dave mcbride]

Yeah, Norv Turner is terrific. And they really handled that Charles Woodson deal fabulously lately. And their drafting has been exemplary. And they have young studs at virtually every position. And as you said, Kerry Collins is highly underrated. And those fat DTs are really pulling their weight. That team is a mess and I wouldn't go near them.

458921[/snapback]

let's assess this at the end of the season and compare the records of the two teams. of course, i hope you're right. whether i ever said collins is underrated i can't recall, but i do know that he has been in 2 championship games, a super bowl, and another playoff game against sf in which the giants were absolutely robbed by the officials after collins had a stellar performance. and i know that qb stats can lie, but he is the fifth rated qb in the nfl right now with a 95.9 qb rating and a 6 to 0 td/int ratio.

[RJsackedagain]

Quotes from marck in this thread

marck, I would love to sit here and argue some of your points but I won't, because you've proven that you cannot engage in grown-up conversation. I think the quotes I just pointed out speak more about yourself than anyone here. Good day.

458907[/snapback]

And to think, Marck is an english teacher!!!

[Bill from NYC]

Quotes from marck in this thread

marck, I would love to sit here and argue some of your points but I won't, because you've proven that you cannot engage in grown-up conversation. I think the quotes I just pointed out speak more about yourself than anyone here. Good day.

458907[/snapback]

 

I don't know, "hot-shot" WAS pretty funny.

I guess that's what I get for thinking that Parcells doesn't suck.