granitestatebillsbackers Posted December 5, 2005 Posted December 5, 2005 This is the NFL. Some players enter the league, rise to their peak performance, and then fade away. Others have great promise and turn out to be flops, e.g. Ryan Leaf. GMs and coaching staffs make boneheaded decisions that can keep teams out of the post-season for years. And in the midst of it all, seemingly random events occur that NOBODY--not even the "experts" on TBD--can predict. For example, if I told you a sixth-round (seventh?) backup could take the pathetic Pats to three Super Bowls when he was drafted, you would have laughed me out of here. Or if I told you a head coach who was a moron in Cleveland would become a bonafide Hall of Famer, you'd ban me from posting again. Fact: it takes a rare combination of personnel, coaching, front office and luck to get to the playoffs in the National Parity League. We are missing a couple pieces this year--and we all got a little carried away from listening to the pre-season hype. The way I see it, I have two choices: I can cry and whine and B word and moan about the Bills, the ownership, TD, MM, WMcG, Losman, etc. etc. etc. etc. OR I can commiserate with my fellow fans, see the glass as half-full because of the great core of young players, and look forward to the rest of 2005, next season and beyond. I'm going with the latter. Most of the fun of watching this team get to the playoffs and Super Bowls last time was the anticipation, e.g. "No, they can't win this one, can they?" And watching my Bills sink to these depths, while disturbing, is going to make those future seasons (when we return to crushing the AFC East--esp. the Patsies--routinely) even sweeter. I've been a Bills fan since I was five, and have watched some pretty miserable seasons. NOTHING will ever be as bad as watching Norwood's kick sail wide right, in my opinion.\ Not even the play call on 3rd and 1 yesterday.
KOKBILLS Posted December 5, 2005 Posted December 5, 2005 This is the NFL. Some players enter the league, rise to their peak performance, and then fade away. Others have great promise and turn out to be flops, e.g. Ryan Leaf. GMs and coaching staffs make boneheaded decisions that can keep teams out of the post-season for years. And in the midst of it all, seemingly random events occur that NOBODY--not even the "experts" on TBD--can predict. For example, if I told you a sixth-round (seventh?) backup could take the pathetic Pats to three Super Bowls when he was drafted, you would have laughed me out of here. Or if I told you a head coach who was a moron in Cleveland would become a bonafide Hall of Famer, you'd ban me from posting again. Fact: it takes a rare combination of personnel, coaching, front office and luck to get to the playoffs in the National Parity League. We are missing a couple pieces this year--and we all got a little carried away from listening to the pre-season hype. The way I see it, I have two choices: I can cry and whine and B word and moan about the Bills, the ownership, TD, MM, WMcG, Losman, etc. etc. etc. etc. OR I can commiserate with my fellow fans, see the glass as half-full because of the great core of young players, and look forward to the rest of 2005, next season and beyond. I'm going with the latter. Most of the fun of watching this team get to the playoffs and Super Bowls last time was the anticipation, e.g. "No, they can't win this one, can they?" And watching my Bills sink to these depths, while disturbing, is going to make those future seasons (when we return to crushing the AFC East--esp. the Patsies--routinely) even sweeter. I've been a Bills fan since I was five, and have watched some pretty miserable seasons. NOTHING will ever be as bad as watching Norwood's kick sail wide right, in my opinion.\ Not even the play call on 3rd and 1 yesterday. 521211[/snapback] Well if it takes the great mix you speak of to be successful in the NFL, and I think you are 100% correct btw, how can you look at what has happened over the last 5 Years and be optimistic? Is it just blind faith that this bunch is going to stumble into being able to Field, or Coach a consistant winner? I just think the evidence is overwhelming at this point...We need to find the proper ingredients you speak of to be successful...They are not in Buffalo currently for whatever reason... Time to try again...
granitestatebillsbackers Posted December 5, 2005 Author Posted December 5, 2005 Well if it takes the great mix you speak of to be successful in the NFL, and I think you are 100% correct btw, how can you look at what has happened over the last 5 Years and be optimistic? Is it just blind faith that this bunch is going to stumble into being able to Field, or Coach a consistant winner? I just think the evidence is overwhelming at this point...We need to find the proper ingredients you speak of to be successful...They are not in Buffalo currently for whatever reason... Time to try again... 521225[/snapback] I think it is going to take a new general manager with a different personnel philosophy. Wilson has never opened the wallet to hire marquee coaching talent (Levy was not a Hall of Fame-bound coach when he got to Buffalo), so it is going to take a pretty sharp football guy to be able to find a coaching diamond in the rough. I like Mularkey, but we're not getting there with him at the helm. He's here because of a connection, and a GM who (apparently) is able to spin like crazy and get us all to take the bait.
KOKBILLS Posted December 5, 2005 Posted December 5, 2005 I think it is going to take a new general manager with a different personnel philosophy. Wilson has never opened the wallet to hire marquee coaching talent (Levy was not a Hall of Fame-bound coach when he got to Buffalo), so it is going to take a pretty sharp football guy to be able to find a coaching diamond in the rough. I like Mularkey, but we're not getting there with him at the helm. He's here because of a connection, and a GM who (apparently) is able to spin like crazy and get us all to take the bait. 521265[/snapback] Well said...
kasper13 Posted December 5, 2005 Posted December 5, 2005 The Bills Cycle of Good/Bad. 1960-1962-Bad 1963-1966-Good 1967-1972-Bad 1973-1975-Good 1976-1979-Bad 1980-1981-Good 1982-1987-Bad 1988-1993 Great 1994 Bad 1995-1996 Good 1997 Bad 1998-1999 Good 2000-2005 Bad In theory, this should be the end of the "Bad Cycle". In reality, as long as Tom Donahoe is in charge, the Bills will be in a bad cycle. Say bad enough and the word loses all meaning and it sounds funny.
R. Rich Posted December 5, 2005 Posted December 5, 2005 Stop the madness; I want off of this 'cycle'.
30dive Posted December 5, 2005 Posted December 5, 2005 The Bills Cycle of Good/Bad. 1960-1962-Bad 1963-1966-Good 1967-1972-Bad 1973-1975-Good 1976-1979-Bad 1980-1981-Good 1982-1987-Bad 1988-1993 Great 1994 Bad 1995-1996 Good 1997 Bad 1998-1999 Good 2000-2005 Bad In theory, this should be the end of the "Bad Cycle". In reality, as long as Tom Donahoe is in charge, the Bills will be in a bad cycle. Say bad enough and the word loses all meaning and it sounds funny. 521277[/snapback] So this is the '82 - '87 cycle it should end now? What changes were made to end each bad cycle? And how do they apply today?
BRH Posted December 5, 2005 Posted December 5, 2005 Wilson has never opened the wallet to hire marquee coaching talent 521265[/snapback] Do the words "Chuck Knox" mean anything to you? That guy had a great run with the Rams in the '70s and although he never got to the SB, he was very highly regarded and, as I recall, very well-compensated (for the times) to come here. In fact I still remember the headline in the D&C when he was hired: "Knox Banks On Buffalo."
granitestatebillsbackers Posted December 5, 2005 Author Posted December 5, 2005 So this is the '82 - '87 cycle it should end now? What changes were made to end each bad cycle? And how do they apply today? 521292[/snapback] My point was that the NFL is cyclical; teams rise and fall all the time. Some take longer than others, e.g. the Bengals. You can't I'm not sure you can analyze the length of the good/bad spans and try to anticipate what might happen. Too much change in the league re: salary cap, free agency, etc., and 99% depends on the personnel decisions made during the "down" cycles. The problems in 2005 are serious: we don't have the core of much of anything on the two lines, so it may take a little longer than we'd like to crawl back. Players such as Losman, Spikes, McGahee, Evans and a few others--given the right leadership, game planning and front office to fill in key positions around them--will shine. Losman to Evans may become as common and exciting as Kelly to Reed. The next time we have the dominant defensive backfield in the league it will be for real--not a result of a weak late-2004 schedule and a lot of hype.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 5, 2005 Posted December 5, 2005 My point was that the NFL is cyclical; teams rise and fall all the time. Some take longer than others, e.g. the Bengals. You can't I'm not sure you can analyze the length of the good/bad spans and try to anticipate what might happen. Too much change in the league re: salary cap, free agency, etc., and 99% depends on the personnel decisions made during the "down" cycles. The problems in 2005 are serious: we don't have the core of much of anything on the two lines, so it may take a little longer than we'd like to crawl back. Players such as Losman, Spikes, McGahee, Evans and a few others--given the right leadership, game planning and front office to fill in key positions around them--will shine. Losman to Evans may become as common and exciting as Kelly to Reed. The next time we have the dominant defensive backfield in the league it will be for real--not a result of a weak late-2004 schedule and a lot of hype. 521304[/snapback] Well, i fear that this so-called "down-cycle" (and I classify down cycles as seasons without a playoff win) is in serious danger of lasting 15-20 years at this rate. Yes, it's been 10 years since we've won a playoff game. Frightening.
granitestatebillsbackers Posted December 5, 2005 Author Posted December 5, 2005 Do the words "Chuck Knox" mean anything to you? That guy had a great run with the Rams in the '70s and although he never got to the SB, he was very highly regarded and, as I recall, very well-compensated (for the times) to come here. In fact I still remember the headline in the D&C when he was hired: "Knox Banks On Buffalo." 521299[/snapback] Point well taken--I forgot about Chuck's compensation. It supports my point that any one aspect--personnel, GM, coaching, luck--can't carry a team on its own.
granitestatebillsbackers Posted December 5, 2005 Author Posted December 5, 2005 Well, i fear that this so-called "down-cycle" (and I classify down cycles as seasons without a playoff win) is in serious danger of lasting 15-20 years at this rate. Yes, it's been 10 years since we've won a playoff game. Frightening. 521307[/snapback] Conservatively, we could be looking at 3-4 seasons to the next playoff win. A wildcard spot would look damned good right now, wouldn't it?
Boatdrinks Posted December 5, 2005 Posted December 5, 2005 Well, it sounds good, but the facts don't back up your claim. Just a handful of NFL teams have failed to make a playoff appearance since 2000, and we just happen to be amongst that sorry bunch. This is a full blown crisis now. The "parity" is exactly what makes it easier to pull your team out of the depths and into the playoff fray. That is the intention of the NFL, and by and large it has worked. Parity has sought only to end the long term dynasties and droughts that become boring to fans. With all props to NE, this has been a success. Their time appears to have come and gone. But that makes it all the more distressing that we cannot break into the playoffs. Only the truly sorry organizations do that these days, and we are firmly among them now. Shades of the mid '80s.
BRH Posted December 5, 2005 Posted December 5, 2005 The Bills Cycle of Good/Bad. 1960-1962-Bad 1963-1966-Good 1967-1972-Bad 1973-1975-Good 1976-1979-Bad 1980-1981-Good 1982-1987-Bad 1988-1993 Great 1994 Bad 1995-1996 Good 1997 Bad 1998-1999 Good 2000-2005 Bad In theory, this should be the end of the "Bad Cycle". In reality, as long as Tom Donahoe is in charge, the Bills will be in a bad cycle. Say bad enough and the word loses all meaning and it sounds funny. 521277[/snapback] Let's take a look at who the coaches were during these cycles. And I would argue that 1982 (the strike year) was not "bad;" they were 5-4 and I'll give Knox a pass there. 1960-1962-Bad -- GARRARD RAMSEY (2), LOU SABAN (1) 1963-1966-Good -- LOU SABAN (3), JOE COLLIER (1) 1967-1972-Bad -- JOE COLLIER (1), JOHN RAUCH (2), HARVEY JOHNSON (2), LOU SABAN (1) 1973-1975-Good -- LOU SABAN (3) 1976-1979-Bad -- JIM RINGO (2), CHUCK KNOX (2) 1980-1982-Good -- CHUCK KNOX (3) 1983-1987-Bad -- KAY STEPHENSON (2), HANK BULLOUGH (2), MARV LEVY (1) 1988-1993 Great -- MARV LEVY (6) 1994 Bad -- MARV LEVY (1) 1995-1996 Good -- MARV LEVY (2) 1997 Bad -- MARV LEVY (1) 1998-1999 Good -- WADE PHILLIPS (2) 2000-2005 Bad -- WADE PHILLIPS (1), GREGG WILLIAMS (3), MIKE MULARKEY (2) So, what do we have? Great and Good: Marv Levy (8), Lou Saban (6), Chuck Knox (3) Wade Phillips (2), Joe Collier (1). Bad: Garrard Ramsey (2), John Rauch (2), Harvey Johnson (2), Jim Ringo (2), Kay Stephenson (2), Hank Bullough (2), Gregg Williams (3), Mike Mularkey (2), Marv Levy (4), Chuck Knox (2), Lou Saban (1), Joe Collier (1). Okay, now. Let's leave off Phillips and Collier since they were basically continuing with the nucleus that the previous coach left them, and they left the program in worse shape than they found it. Let's also disregard Levy's, Saban's and Knox's "bad" seasons since they generally came while taking over for a putrid predecessor and they left the program in better shape than they found it. Wht do we have left? Good: Levy, Saban, Knox. Bad: Ramsey, Rauch, Johnson, Ringo, Stephenson, Bullough, Williams, Mularkey. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you what the problem is.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 5, 2005 Posted December 5, 2005 Let's take a look at who the coaches were during these cycles. And I would argue that 1982 (the strike year) was not "bad;" they were 5-4 and I'll give Knox a pass there. 1960-1962-Bad -- GARRARD RAMSEY (2), LOU SABAN (1) 1963-1966-Good -- LOU SABAN (3), JOE COLLIER (1) 1967-1972-Bad -- JOE COLLIER (1), JOHN RAUCH (2), HARVEY JOHNSON (2), LOU SABAN (1) 1973-1975-Good -- LOU SABAN (3) 1976-1979-Bad -- JIM RINGO (2), CHUCK KNOX (2) 1980-1982-Good -- CHUCK KNOX (3) 1983-1987-Bad -- KAY STEPHENSON (2), HANK BULLOUGH (2), MARV LEVY (1) 1988-1993 Great -- MARV LEVY (6) 1994 Bad -- MARV LEVY (1) 1995-1996 Good -- MARV LEVY (2) 1997 Bad -- MARV LEVY (1) 1998-1999 Good -- WADE PHILLIPS (2) 2000-2005 Bad -- WADE PHILLIPS (1), GREGG WILLIAMS (3), MIKE MULARKEY (2) So, what do we have? Great and Good: Marv Levy (8), Lou Saban (6), Chuck Knox (3) Wade Phillips (2), Joe Collier (1). Bad: Garrard Ramsey (2), John Rauch (2), Harvey Johnson (2), Jim Ringo (2), Kay Stephenson (2), Hank Bullough (2), Gregg Williams (3), Mike Mularkey (2), Marv Levy (4), Chuck Knox (2), Lou Saban (1), Joe Collier (1). Okay, now. Let's leave off Phillips and Collier since they were basically continuing with the nucleus that the previous coach left them, and they left the program in worse shape than they found it. Let's also disregard Levy's, Saban's and Knox's "bad" seasons since they generally came while taking over for a putrid predecessor and they left the program in better shape than they found it. Wht do we have left? Good: Levy, Saban, Knox. Bad: Ramsey, Rauch, Johnson, Ringo, Stephenson, Bullough, Williams, Mularkey. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you what the problem is. 521322[/snapback] I wish I had an applause smilie. That was by far and away the BEST post I've ever seen on TSW. Kudos.
bdelma Posted December 5, 2005 Posted December 5, 2005 How log should we be waiting. my gosh it's already been long enough. Maybe we can at best competive again. That would be nice.
Recommended Posts