Mikie2times Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 Do you guys really think that TD is clueless? Do you really think he's just totally unaware of what's wrong with the team, and that we suck? You guys make it sound like he's just up there partying with Modrak, completely indifferent to what is going on. Believe it or not, we don't know more than TD does. Being that it's his team, I'm pretty sure that he's just as pissed off, if not more so, than the rest of us. I'm sure that he's immensely frustrated with the way certain people are performing, and I would bet my ass that he's going to do whatever he can to continue trying to get it right. 508578[/snapback] Nobody said he wasn't trying his best, or isn't just as pissed as us right now, but his solutions have been ineffective, and the progress is non existent. This team is running in mud, and in some cases is going backwards. I can't speak for what TD and this team will do in the coming years, but by evaluating what’s already happened how can we be optimistic that things will get turned around?
Tcali Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 I think we have enough good players to make the playoffs and win a game or two. We have good LBs, CBs, and pretty good safeties...although they don't hit for schit. Good DEs, mediocre DTs. Mediocre line, very good WRs, although I don't want to see Josh Reed continue to drop balls and get that stupid look on his face. Bench 'em. I'd rather see J. SMith out there. Anyway, my point is that I belive the problem is coaching. I just don't think Jerry Gray is as good as billed. I don't believe it. And I don't think we have coaches with the elite smarts that it takes to get the job done. They're good enough to win one, lose two, win two, lose three, win one, lose one, win one, lose three, etc. Last year's run consisted of two tough wins and three marshmallow teams with a fired coach. It was a mirage. I'm going empirical on the Bills. Screw "belief". I'll doubt these guys until they prove otherwise. In the meantime, maybe the Sabres can do something. 508586[/snapback] Yeah...love our good DEs.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 We are missing badly in the drafts in getting guys that anchor our team for any length of time. Guys that dominate their positions for a multi-year window. 508557[/snapback] And whose head does THAT fall on? Exactly. But wait, I'm sure that Simon will have some sorry excuse for TDs ineptitude. He's built a team on a foundation of losing. Way to go TD. Way to pass up on Marvin Lewis, John Fox, Charlie Weis, Romeo Crennel, Jack Del Rio, Tony Dungy, etc...etc... Tom Donohoe leaves Pissburgh and they own us over that same time span record-wise. It's time for a change from ownership on down.
SDS Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 He's built a team on a foundation of losing. Way to go TD. Way to pass up on Marvin Lewis, John Fox, Charlie Weis, Romeo Crennel, Jack Del Rio, Tony Dungy, etc...etc... 508760[/snapback] You have no idea how those interviews went (for those who were even interviewed) or even if those coaches were interested. You also have no idea what constraints he was under (from the ownership). There is enough to complain about here that we don't need to make wild speculations based upon very little evidence.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 You have no idea how those interviews went (for those who were even interviewed) or even if those coaches were interested. You also have no idea what constraints he was under (from the ownership). There is enough to complain about here that we don't need to make wild speculations based upon very little evidence. 508774[/snapback] Fact: TD has hired the following two coaches in his tenure: Gregg Williams Mike Mularkey Combined, the two have a sub-500 record and look CLUELESS.
SDS Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 Fact: TD has hired the following two coaches in his tenure: Gregg Williams Mike Mularkey Combined, the two have a sub-500 record and look CLUELESS. 508784[/snapback] That's fine. But you are accusing the guy for passing on Tony Dungy for crying out loud. There is no need to make sh-- up when there are a lot of real things to complain about.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 That's fine. But you are accusing the guy for passing on Tony Dungy for crying out loud. There is no need to make sh-- up when there are a lot of real things to complain about. 508787[/snapback] Well, he didn't hire any of those other guys, now did he?
SDS Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 Well, he didn't hire any of those other guys, now did he? 508788[/snapback] Again, "hiring" is a two way street. You can make an offer, but that offer needs to be accepted. A candidate can make demands that ownership my refuse. Is this that hard to understand? You don't know the facts and neither do I.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 Again, "hiring" is a two way street. You can make an offer, but that offer needs to be accepted. A candidate can make demands that ownership my refuse. Is this that hard to understand? You don't know the facts and neither do I. 508791[/snapback] Typically the press will report if someone turns down an offer. Outside of Marvin Lewis, I never heard of any of those guys turning it down.
MDH Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 Typically the press will report if someone turns down an offer. Outside of Marvin Lewis, I never heard of any of those guys turning it down. 508793[/snapback] While Mularky and co. aren't doing a bang up job, no coach could coax a winning season out a team with this little talent in the trenches, on both sides of the ball. We get dominated at the point of attack each and every week.
nick in* england Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 But but but - if we win out (albeit unlikely) and make the playoffs do we want TD to stay? I think we need to wait until the season is well and truly out of reach before we call for his head. Next week sadly could be the week we are officially out though.
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 70 players and this is our top talent? How many years did we have Kelly, Thomas, Reed, Smith, Hansen, Tasker, Pike, Talley, Bennett, Hull and company holding down key spots? 508557[/snapback] Your football posts are pretty much spot-on, SDS. I'd like to add though that Polian had the benefit of putting this team together before the explosion of free agency in '92. Let's not forget that. Yes, there was quality, but there was also the hope that most of it would be more easily retained.
stuckincincy Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 Typically the press will report if someone turns down an offer. Outside of Marvin Lewis, I never heard of any of those guys turning it down. 508793[/snapback] Just conjecture on my part, but it's possible that Lewis felt comfortable coming to Cincinnati (no place to go but up!) because his division experience would be an asset to him - 4 years as LB coach with PGH and 6 years as DC with BAL.
nick in* england Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 We are missing badly in the drafts in getting guys that anchor our team for any length of time. Guys that dominate their positions for a multi-year window. 508557[/snapback] I agree with most of what u said apart from this... They key change between the kelly, tasker, hull, smith, etc years is Free Agency and the added complication of salary cap management. It is so much harder to draft a guy and keep him for many years without breaking the bank - doing so with a high number of draft picks thsat routinely are at the top of their game is nigh on impossible. Look at superbowl winners in the FA/Salary Cap era... No one team had a 'complete' team with a plethora of high performing, long-standing veterans like you describe... So much of the NFL today is based on breakout players who fade the next year. Even the Patriots have had holes each time they went to the show - but they are, as we all know, a special case. I don't have a gripe about the ability to draft and retain the best players and retain them year in year out at their highest performance. What I would complain about is the ability of the coaches to harness the ups and downs of the players they are presented with... After all - after last year, on paper anyway, we were going to win the whole lot this season.
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 I agree with most of what u said apart from this... They key change between the kelly, tasker, hull, smith, etc years is Free Agency and the added complication of salary cap management. 508808[/snapback] For shame, Nick... Stealing my line!
nick in* england Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 For shame, Nick... Stealing my line! 508811[/snapback] Great minds..................................
BuffaloRebound Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 This is a pretty good thread. Count me in the camp that in today's NFL, you need to be lucky when it comes to turning it around. The margin between winning and losing gets smaller every year. How can a team hold KC to 3 points one week then the following week give up 48 to San Diego? Put Carson Palmer or Peyton Manning on this team and everything changes, even the defense. Also, this team is playing without its All-Everything LB and its 2 starting DT's. Add in QB struggles and being without your 2nd and 3rd round picks for much of the season, and it's a wonder this team has won 4 games. I don't have a problem with Donahoe's leadership. I just think that you only get so long to turn it around and time and patience are running thin.
Kelly the Dog Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 If there were free agency like it is today in the Kelly/Super Bowl years there is zero chance we would have been able to keep that team together. We would have had to franchise either Bruce or Kelly and the other would have gotten the largest contract in history, or something close to it. That doesn't even count Thurman, or Reed, who would surely have tried the free agency waters. Then Bennett and Talley and Hull and Ballard and Hansen? Not a chance in the world.
MDH Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 This is a pretty good thread. Count me in the camp that in today's NFL, you need to be lucky when it comes to turning it around. 508830[/snapback] I disagree. The difference between winning and losing consistently has very little to do with the "star" players. It has to do with the role-players, depth and coaching. A GM and scouting department that have a knack for finding middle of the road players that can play in their schemes are the guys that field solid teams consistently. With FA a team can only field so many big time players. This magnifies the role of the coaches and their ability to get the most out of these middle of the road players. Sure, there are a few players out there who can put their team on their backs but you can’t count on that happening. Look at the Colts, that would still be a playoff team with a average/above average QB at the helm. They wouldn’t be nearly as dominant but they’d be in the playoffs nonetheless. Obviously injuries can wreck a season, particularly if its one of your stars that goes down. But for the most part it’s the no-name guys on the team (which is the majority of any team) that do their jobs well that equate to winning consistently. Finding these guys is not “luck”, it’s the mark of a good scouting department and quality coaches that know how to use them. Simply sticking Peyton Manning on a bad team isn’t going to cover all the team’s deficiencies. The Bills wouldn’t be a playoff team even with Manning.
Dan Gross Posted November 21, 2005 Posted November 21, 2005 I'm an advocate of cohesiveness to your team, and I certainly think a long tenured GM fits into that picture, but when is a spade a spade? We keep losing, we keep showing no progress, and against good teams we have been coming up short since TD came here. Everybody tries to find a reason for it, maybe, just maybe, we don't have the right talent at the right positions. Against teams with a .500 or better record including TD's first year H- 6-15 A- 4-18 Against teams with a .500 or better record not including TD's first year H- 6-10 A- 3-15 508575[/snapback] I know you aren't the one bringing up the Chargers, but since everyone seems to point at San Diego as a model for how this organization should be run, it's worth pointing out that the Chargers are 11-25 from 2001-2004 under the same criteria. Even "as good as they are now" they can't win against "playoff calibre" teams outside their own division. Many of those wins came in their own division (much like ours, I know). They are "looking so much better" because they have faced 36 8-8 or better teams over that timeframe, versus the 43 that we have faced. This with 4 of the 5 years being with "proven genius" Schottenheimer at the helm. They have also had the "benefit" of 3 top 5 picks in the last 5 years. How many of those did they spend on offensive linemen? 0 (Picks: Manning, traded for Rivers (who's sitting the pine), Jammer and Tomlinson). How many first day picks have they spent on offensive linemen over that time? 3. How many of those are currently on the team? 1. I can't see what way you cut up that organization, especially the way they "lucked" into their QB scenario (who knows what they'd be looking like if Rivers hadn't held out...probably still pretty damn good because they had Tomlinson already on a roll...). Shall we also cover the other "class organization" Bengals? They are almost even in 2003-2004 in W-L against 8-8 or better teams under Lewis (again, most wins coming in the division), being 7-8 in that category (includes a victory against the "resting" Eagles in the last game of last season...yes, I know, something we couldn't do against the "resting" Steelers). The Bills, under "loser" Mularkey, managed the same number of wins against 8-8 or better teams last year as Cincinnati, under "winner" Lewis (4, with the Bills gathering 6 losses to Cincinnati's 5). This is a team with 5 top 10 picks in the last 7 years, you'd think they'd eventually build that into something....
Recommended Posts