lawnboy1977 Posted December 3, 2005 Posted December 3, 2005 The article says the same thing most people hgave been saying, and reinforces a good point. When that draft happened, the overall consensus was that the Bills were going to pick either McKinnie or Williams, the Williams pick wasn't hailed, but it was a general consensus of agreement of being a good pick, from fans, reporters and draft experts alike. From what i remember was that TD sais the Bills didnt like McKinnie's attitude, and dont forget that he held out for more than half of the regular seaosn before signing with the Vikings that year. Hindsight being 20-20, yes we could have gone with Roy Williams maybe, but hey thats the draft, the williams pick wasnt lambasted at the time.
Orton's Arm Posted December 3, 2005 Author Posted December 3, 2005 I am worthy, I have been listening to the Nickelback Song "Hero" while looking at Bruschi's pictures for 3 months I used to like Nickelback, but now all their songs are starting to sound the same.
meazza Posted December 3, 2005 Posted December 3, 2005 I used to like Nickelback, but now all their songs are starting to sound the same. 518509[/snapback] i hate them with a passion gimme my nickelback
meazza Posted December 3, 2005 Posted December 3, 2005 The article says the same thing most people hgave been saying, and reinforces a good point. When that draft happened, the overall consensus was that the Bills were going to pick either McKinnie or Williams, the Williams pick wasn't hailed, but it was a general consensus of agreement of being a good pick, from fans, reporters and draft experts alike. From what i remember was that TD sais the Bills didnt like McKinnie's attitude, and dont forget that he held out for more than half of the regular seaosn before signing with the Vikings that year. Hindsight being 20-20, yes we could have gone with Roy Williams maybe, but hey thats the draft, the williams pick wasnt lambasted at the time. 518505[/snapback] I agree, but whether or not what the situation is, the GM has to make the best out of it or he's gone. It's as simple as that. In any position of authority when you're not able to steer the boat properly you get replaced. Same goes for CEO's of big firms. Oh sales are down, oh there's a recession, well here's your severance pay. Overall if TD can't get a playoff team by next year, he should be gone.
Rico Posted December 3, 2005 Posted December 3, 2005 In any position of authority when you're not able to steer the boat properly you get replaced. Same goes for CEO's of big firms. Oh sales are down, oh there's a recession, well here's your severance pay. 518513[/snapback] Of course, if a CEO delivers a nice profit for his company and has set up his company to continue to make nice profits in the future, the CEO is more likely to get a bonus than a pink slip.
meazza Posted December 3, 2005 Posted December 3, 2005 Of course, if a CEO delivers a nice profit for his company and has set up his company to continue to make nice profits in the future, the CEO is more likely to get a bonus than a pink slip. 518514[/snapback] I agree but a CEO's job is to make a profit. On the other hand the general manager of a sports franchise has two goals, now depending on what the owner wants I'd say in a perfect world, winning should be greater than profit but obviously it's easy to say when you're money's not on the line.
Orton's Arm Posted December 3, 2005 Author Posted December 3, 2005 Of course, if a CEO delivers a nice profit for his company and has set up his company to continue to make nice profits in the future, the CEO is more likely to get a bonus than a pink slip. 518514[/snapback] The problem is, a lot of the money TD's been making has been based on preseason hype followed by disappointing regular seasons. Eventually he'll drink that well dry.
meazza Posted December 3, 2005 Posted December 3, 2005 The problem is, a lot of the money TD's been making has been based on preseason hype followed by disappointing regular seasons. Eventually he'll drink that well dry. 518521[/snapback] Personally from what I saw in buffalo from when i was there, I think even a disastrous bengals/cardinals type run will still generate attendance (although not as much as a winning record would bring in). It has to do with the history of the franchise as well, and its attachment to the fans. Look at my hometown habs, they sucked since 94 and they still have an avg of 21 000 fans ( the venue fits 21,783). The fans are too attached to the team and it's like when you're in love, even if you keep getting mistreated, cheated on and abused you still go back because you think they could change.
IBTG81 Posted December 3, 2005 Posted December 3, 2005 I used to like Nickelback, but now all their songs are starting to sound the same. 518509[/snapback] Kind of like your posts...
Orton's Arm Posted December 3, 2005 Author Posted December 3, 2005 Kind of like your posts... 518529[/snapback] Does it bother you that your contribution to this thread has been precisely zero? I'm just curious.
Orton's Arm Posted December 3, 2005 Author Posted December 3, 2005 Personally from what I saw in buffalo from when i was there, I think even a disastrous bengals/cardinals type run will still generate attendance (although not as much as a winning record would bring in). It has to do with the history of the franchise as well, and its attachment to the fans. Look at my hometown habs, they sucked since 94 and they still have an avg of 21 000 fans ( the venue fits 21,783). The fans are too attached to the team and it's like when you're in love, even if you keep getting mistreated, cheated on and abused you still go back because you think they could change. 518524[/snapback] Good point. You could put a monkey in the Buffalo GM spot--even a feces-throwing monkey--and you'd still get attendance. But as the fans become disillusioned with TD and his hype, going in a different direction with the GM position will start to make more financial sense.
Ramius Posted December 3, 2005 Posted December 3, 2005 Does it bother you that your contribution to this thread has been precisely zero? I'm just curious. 518532[/snapback] Interesting...in 1 post, Ed has equaled your level of contributions...
Orton's Arm Posted December 3, 2005 Author Posted December 3, 2005 Interesting...in 1 post, Ed has equaled your level of contributions... 518545[/snapback] You know, every time you say something incredibly stupid like this, it makes me want to change my login name to Locke. My sig would be, "It seems we have a Ramius problem."
meazza Posted December 3, 2005 Posted December 3, 2005 Interesting...in 1 post, Ed has equaled your level of contributions... 518545[/snapback] all you ever do is say something sarcastic after someone makes a post making your level of contribution in the negative ranges..
IBTG81 Posted December 3, 2005 Posted December 3, 2005 Does it bother you that your contribution to this thread has been precisely zero? I'm just curious. 518532[/snapback] Like I ever contribute anything? Ha, shows how long you've been around...
Dan Gross Posted December 3, 2005 Posted December 3, 2005 Personally from what I saw in buffalo from when i was there, I think even a disastrous bengals/cardinals type run will still generate attendance (although not as much as a winning record would bring in). It has to do with the history of the franchise as well, and its attachment to the fans. Look at my hometown habs, they sucked since 94 and they still have an avg of 21 000 fans ( the venue fits 21,783). The fans are too attached to the team and it's like when you're in love, even if you keep getting mistreated, cheated on and abused you still go back because you think they could change. 518524[/snapback] How do you explain the attendance growing the longer we go without playoffs? Why are season ticket sales higher than they were at the end of the previous GM's tenure?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 3, 2005 Posted December 3, 2005 Does it bother you that your contribution to this thread has been precisely zero? I'm just curious. 518532[/snapback] Ed's contribution has been precisely zero for a very long time. He does have an excuse, though, as he is a horrible human being.
IBTG81 Posted December 3, 2005 Posted December 3, 2005 Ed's contribution has been precisely zero for a very long time. He does have an excuse, though, as he is a horrible human being. 518556[/snapback] I already beat ya to it, you ignoramous. You're turning into VaBills on us here...
meazza Posted December 3, 2005 Posted December 3, 2005 How do you explain the attendance growing the longer we go without playoffs? Why are season ticket sales higher than they were at the end of the previous GM's tenure? 518555[/snapback] Because the belief was there that this time things will be different. Well that's a possibility, I can't really explain why 70 + thousand decide to go to a football game but I personally was hyped about the Bills and I know other Bills fans who were as well. Before Bledsoe, with RJ and Flutie I felt this team was going nowhere and I guess that was felt by others as well and led to less tickets being purchased.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 3, 2005 Posted December 3, 2005 I sincerely hope you're not actually trying to stick up for CTM. Meazza isn't the only one who has found him and his posts an obstruction to an intelligent, reasonable discussion. 518477[/snapback] You mean...like this one? Give me a break...people like you and meazza demonstrate on a daily basis that you aren't capable of intelligent, reasonable discussion. Then you whine because I sink to your level?
Recommended Posts