Fan in Chicago Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 I have a different take on the Bills situation brought to a head by the EM situation. Consider what has happened with player moves: - Releases Bobby Shaw - Bench JP for non-performance - Benched Sam Adams - Speaks out against lack of effort on WM's part - Tries MW at LG, fails, corrects mistake - JP comes in for injured KH, plays welll and gets starting job for good - Asks for EM suspension I see a trend here. MM seems to be taking more control of the team and sending a clear message. If you are hard working and perform well, you are assured of your place in the starting line-up. If you are not trying, lazy you will be reprimanded. I ask all of those calling for MM's head one question - If Bill Parcells was our head coach and did the above, wouldn't we all be saying he is a hard ass, a disciplinarian and just wants performers on the team ? MM wants to make Buffalo into a Pittsburgh like team of blue-collared type players who play hard every day and work as a team. No living on past glory (EM), no beating your chest (WM), no lazy a$$ play (Sam), no detrimental activites (apparently Bobby Shaw) Bottom line, MM seems to be getting more in charge around here. He would not have made all these moves if he was 'constrained' by TD or RW. Feel free to fire away at my assessment. Don't say that a lot of conclusions based on little information. This is end actions that we all have seen that drove my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfanmiami(oh) Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 I respect your different take on the situation but I disagree. If Mularkey was taking the "hard working, blue-collar, no bs" approach then how do you explain his post game sentiment from Sunday's meltdown? The team blew a freakin 20 point lead in the 4th quarter! After the game Mularkey talks about how "the team tried their best" and "he feels bad for them that it worked out that way". Why wasn't he pissed off!!? I said somewhere in another thread that in high school hockey when we were awful in a game, the post-game talk and following practice were utter hell. I don't buy the fact that he's "weeding out" the slackers on the team. If that were true, on this past Monday morning our roster would have about 13 active players and 40 suspensions / cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 I respect your different take on the situation but I disagree. If Mularkey was taking the "hard working, blue-collar, no bs" approach then how do you explain his post game sentiment from Sunday's meltdown? The team blew a freakin 20 point lead in the 4th quarter! After the game Mularkey talks about how "the team tried their best" and "he feels bad for them that it worked out that way". Why wasn't he pissed off!!? I said somewhere in another thread that in high school hockey when we were awful in a game, the post-game talk and following practice were utter hell. I don't buy the fact that he's "weeding out" the slackers on the team. If that were true, on this past Monday morning our roster would have about 13 active players and 40 suspensions / cuts. 524651[/snapback] You're not actually advocating treating grown men like high school students, are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted December 8, 2005 Author Share Posted December 8, 2005 I respect your different take on the situation but I disagree. If Mularkey was taking the "hard working, blue-collar, no bs" approach then how do you explain his post game sentiment from Sunday's meltdown? The team blew a freakin 20 point lead in the 4th quarter! After the game Mularkey talks about how "the team tried their best" and "he feels bad for them that it worked out that way". Why wasn't he pissed off!!? I said somewhere in another thread that in high school hockey when we were awful in a game, the post-game talk and following practice were utter hell. I don't buy the fact that he's "weeding out" the slackers on the team. If that were true, on this past Monday morning our roster would have about 13 active players and 40 suspensions / cuts. 524651[/snapback] Thanx for respecting my difference of opinion. If he did not blow it in the press conference, it speaks of his self control. He could have well blown a fuse and a steam valve in the locker room. Which is the right thing to do as opposed to ripping his team in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 I have a different take on the Bills situation brought to a head by the EM situation. Consider what has happened with player moves: - Releases Bobby Shaw - Bench JP for non-performance - Benched Sam Adams - Speaks out against lack of effort on WM's part - Tries MW at LG, fails, corrects mistake - JP comes in for injured KH, plays welll and gets starting job for good - Asks for EM suspension I see a trend here. MM seems to be taking more control of the team and sending a clear message. If you are hard working and perform well, you are assured of your place in the starting line-up. If you are not trying, lazy you will be reprimanded. I ask all of those calling for MM's head one question - If Bill Parcells was our head coach and did the above, wouldn't we all be saying he is a hard ass, a disciplinarian and just wants performers on the team ? MM wants to make Buffalo into a Pittsburgh like team of blue-collared type players who play hard every day and work as a team. No living on past glory (EM), no beating your chest (WM), no lazy a$$ play (Sam), no detrimental activites (apparently Bobby Shaw) Bottom line, MM seems to be getting more in charge around here. He would not have made all these moves if he was 'constrained' by TD or RW. Feel free to fire away at my assessment. Don't say that a lot of conclusions based on little information. This is end actions that we all have seen that drove my thoughts. 524626[/snapback] Good take. But even if the intention has been good, the execution has been horrible. That, combined with the awful game-day management & decisions, tells me it's time for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChasBB Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 I pretty much agree with your assessment. Mularkey realizes that football is a team sport. You don't see a lot of big heads on the New England squad, but you do see a lot of Super Bowl banners. Bill Belichick doesn't stand for "me"-type players. That's one of the major reasons for New England's success. I'm not suggesting that Mularkey is another Belichick, but he's certainly got the right idea about this being a team sport. This also doesn't mean that we have to run every star player out of town. Star players can be team players, but someone has to keep them in check and that someone is the head coach. I don't have any problem at all with Mularkey trying to pull the reigns in on crappy behavior and attitude from certain players. That's part of his job. Since the depth on this team is not all that great it hurts the on-field talent to bench some of these guys, but it has to be done. It also sends a message to the younger players that this type of behavior will not be tolerated. If these players cannot change their ways, then they need to be sent packing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfanmiami(oh) Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 You're not actually advocating treating grown men like high school students, are you? 524657[/snapback] Not at all. I'm just saying that a coach should have no tollerance for a meltdown like last week's, not be in the locker room after the game giving pats on the back for a "good effort". What do you think Parcells, Marvin Lewis, Herm Edwards, Belicheck, Cowher, etc. would have been like if their team blew a 20 point lead in the 4th quarter against their arch rival, with the last glimmer of hope for a playoff birth on the line? Obviously you have to coach professionals much different than high schoolers but show me some emotion and don't throw out sympathy for your team that just had one of the worst meltdowns in franchise history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted December 8, 2005 Author Share Posted December 8, 2005 I don't have any problem at all with Mularkey trying to pull the reigns in on crappy behavior and attitude from certain players. That's part of his job. Since the depth on this team is not all that great it hurts the on-field talent to bench some of these guys, but it has to be done. It also sends a message to the younger players that this type of behavior will not be tolerated. If these players cannot change their ways, then they need to be sent packing. 524668[/snapback] This season is the turning point for MM. In a way, he is using this season to find the hard workers, find his own identity, impose his personality and try out tricky plays. Blame lies with TD that he did not build up the team with adequate number of good players and did not pay attention to depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 I have a different take on the Bills situation brought to a head by the EM situation. Consider what has happened with player moves: - Releases Bobby Shaw - Bench JP for non-performance - Benched Sam Adams - Speaks out against lack of effort on WM's part - Tries MW at LG, fails, corrects mistake - JP comes in for injured KH, plays welll and gets starting job for good - Asks for EM suspension I see a trend here. MM seems to be taking more control of the team and sending a clear message. If you are hard working and perform well, you are assured of your place in the starting line-up. If you are not trying, lazy you will be reprimanded. I ask all of those calling for MM's head one question - If Bill Parcells was our head coach and did the above, wouldn't we all be saying he is a hard ass, a disciplinarian and just wants performers on the team ? MM wants to make Buffalo into a Pittsburgh like team of blue-collared type players who play hard every day and work as a team. No living on past glory (EM), no beating your chest (WM), no lazy a$$ play (Sam), no detrimental activites (apparently Bobby Shaw) Bottom line, MM seems to be getting more in charge around here. He would not have made all these moves if he was 'constrained' by TD or RW. Feel free to fire away at my assessment. Don't say that a lot of conclusions based on little information. This is end actions that we all have seen that drove my thoughts. 524626[/snapback] I think you are probably right... All that may very well be true and I think TD has told Mularkey that he has free reign in these areas...Of coarse if he continues to lose and get out-coached on Sunday it wont matter much cause he'll lose all control when he's shown the door... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 I have a different take on the Bills situation brought to a head by the EM situation. Consider what has happened with player moves: - Releases Bobby Shaw - Bench JP for non-performance - Benched Sam Adams - Speaks out against lack of effort on WM's part - Tries MW at LG, fails, corrects mistake - JP comes in for injured KH, plays welll and gets starting job for good - Asks for EM suspension I see a trend here. MM seems to be taking more control of the team and sending a clear message. If you are hard working and perform well, you are assured of your place in the starting line-up. If you are not trying, lazy you will be reprimanded. I ask all of those calling for MM's head one question - If Bill Parcells was our head coach and did the above, wouldn't we all be saying he is a hard ass, a disciplinarian and just wants performers on the team ? MM wants to make Buffalo into a Pittsburgh like team of blue-collared type players who play hard every day and work as a team. No living on past glory (EM), no beating your chest (WM), no lazy a$$ play (Sam), no detrimental activites (apparently Bobby Shaw) Bottom line, MM seems to be getting more in charge around here. He would not have made all these moves if he was 'constrained' by TD or RW. Feel free to fire away at my assessment. Don't say that a lot of conclusions based on little information. This is end actions that we all have seen that drove my thoughts. 524626[/snapback] You might add: He took playcalling away from TC because Tom's playcalling SUCKED. Of course, then you'd have to add that that MM himself has done a miserable job on game day and perhaps he should suspend himself. You are right about one thing...if it were Parcells, he'd get a big giant break on TSW...but, not from me. In the defense of those who would give the Big Fat Tuna some slack...he has the hardware to warrant some slack. MM has nothing but a season and three-quarters of a mixed-bag of coaching and management successes and failures. While I'm not a guy trumpeting the hiring of an established Disciplinarian coach (wow, that's some bad spelling...no?), there's some logic to it. A guy with an established reputation (particularly if he's had success...so Parcells yes, Coughlin no) comes with that rep and some credibility. An unknown (like MM) has to build his rep...and that's a very tough thing to do. MM has made it harder on himself by SEEMING to be a low-key "players' c0ach" (whatever the hell that means) on one hand...and having run-ins with his established vertern leaders on the other. Good luck with that plan, Mikey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 I have a different take on the Bills situation brought to a head by the EM situation. Consider what has happened with player moves: - Releases Bobby Shaw - Bench JP for non-performance - Benched Sam Adams - Speaks out against lack of effort on WM's part - Tries MW at LG, fails, corrects mistake - JP comes in for injured KH, plays welll and gets starting job for good - Asks for EM suspension I see a trend here. MM seems to be taking more control of the team and sending a clear message. If you are hard working and perform well, you are assured of your place in the starting line-up. If you are not trying, lazy you will be reprimanded. I ask all of those calling for MM's head one question - If Bill Parcells was our head coach and did the above, wouldn't we all be saying he is a hard ass, a disciplinarian and just wants performers on the team ? MM wants to make Buffalo into a Pittsburgh like team of blue-collared type players who play hard every day and work as a team. No living on past glory (EM), no beating your chest (WM), no lazy a$$ play (Sam), no detrimental activites (apparently Bobby Shaw) Bottom line, MM seems to be getting more in charge around here. He would not have made all these moves if he was 'constrained' by TD or RW. Feel free to fire away at my assessment. Don't say that a lot of conclusions based on little information. This is end actions that we all have seen that drove my thoughts. 524626[/snapback] There are several "adjustments" or different cuts I would have on your thoughtful take: Are there really only two extreme choices here (players are lazy or studs, coaches are hardasses or weenies)? I think one of the failings which applies to many TSW debates (and ubfortunately many political debates in this Fox News driven times) is a false dichotomy that there are only two extreme positions and if you are not on my side totally then obviously you are a total weenie, cut and run, surrender like a Frenchman idiot. I'm sorry, but the real world is a little more nuanced than that. Players run the gamut from being lazy bums to being studs who always show up, but when an HC or a GM attempts to treat everyone the same based on some ideology (a good idea in theory) he runs head on into the reality that very few (and sometimes Brett Favre aside no players) actually are 100% lazy or 100% studs all the time. When an HC attempts to hold to some ideological approach 100% of the time, he eventually ends up punishing everyone severely on that day a player happens to be having a bad hair day and is more lazy than stud. Bill Parcells is such a great HC because he demonstrates and has honed the skill of not being one way all the time (he always is a hardass) but he is good because he works and operates using both extremes. He is a hardass and a disciplinarian a significant amount of time, but he also has a great sense of humor and really makes life a party a significant amount of time as well. Take the example of Keyshawn Johnson, Drew Bledsoe and several other players who have been everything from major idiots in their approach to life to failures on the field. Parcells is great not because he holds to one ideology or doctrine, but because he has found a way to vacillate all over the map in the way he deals with people but he is consistent in how he takes extreme approaches. Where Parcells and MM differ in my book is that Parcells uses both extremes but for a player he is predictable so a player knows where he stands. The worse thing about this Moulds episode is that it is really unclear to the broader public (and probably to the players to who hear the same things we hear in terms of public knowledge and get more information but get different perspectives from multiple sides they have to sort out) who is in charge (MM cannot pull the trigger until he speaks to RWS in a conversation which should have occured or been understood before MM pulled the trigger). It is the inconsistency (Moulds and thus the other players are confused) that is the problem. One can get short-term performance and benefits out of the HC instilling a reign of terror. However, eventually it gets a bit old living with this uncertainty and NFL players are set for near life fiancially and have skills in many cases which they can get a bunch of money for if they make it to the free-market. Like Tom Coughlin In NC, eventually many of the players turn off to a difficult to predict coach and even when cut lose make out like bandits in the free market (Kerry Collins) or even make it to the SB. Even worse when the team gives up on an inconsistent HC they fail and get him canned. What unfortunately may be going on here is that MM did bring discipline to the players and get performance from them when he cut Bobby Shaw. Shaw was a quality guy who was not performing on the field in the MM system. However, he had really stepped up to the plate when Moulds was hurt under GW and Reed was bad and played as our #1 WR when he was more of a #3 in WR talent. He was cut when there was no financial benefit to the Bills in cutting him and little impact on the field. It may be that we went 9-7 with this wake up call that focused effort to work last year. However, it also behind the scenes in players heads focused them to worry about themeselves more than to worry about being a team and we paid for that this year, My sense is that I agree with you that the Bobby Shaw cut may be a big deal for us here, but ironically the effect may have been that Bills like MW and the rest are playing every man for himself rather than being a TEAM like the Pats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted December 8, 2005 Author Share Posted December 8, 2005 I'm sorry, but the real world is a little more nuanced than that. Bill Parcells is such a great HC because he demonstrates and has honed the skill of not being one way all the time (he always is a hardass) but he is good because he works and operates using both extremes. He is a hardass and a disciplinarian a significant amount of time, but he also has a great sense of humor and really makes life a party a significant amount of time as well. One can get short-term performance and benefits out of the HC instilling a reign of terror. However, eventually it gets a bit old living with this uncertainty and NFL players are set for near life fiancially and have skills in many cases which they can get a bunch of money for if they make it to the free-market. My sense is that I agree with you that the Bobby Shaw cut may be a big deal for us here, but ironically the effect may have been that Bills like MW and the rest are playing every man for himself rather than being a TEAM like the Pats. 525135[/snapback] Agree with life not being extremes. But that is not my point - I am not saying that MM is a genius or a total idiot. What I am saying is that he may have a philosophy which he is imparting to his team. Those with the program will stay and play while those that balk will be disciplined or let go. When Bellicheck built the Patriots it was a different mentality of every player playing his role correctly and the team will do fine. It was different at the time and eventually became successful. Parcells has way too many years of experience and he might be the Phil Jackson (LA Lakers) of the NFL (part-coach, part-psychologist). What we do not know yet is what MM's plan is and how successful he will be. Personally, I value hard work over everything else and if MM is striving to get that from his players, I support him fully. We do not know what the long term plan is but I am willing to give him the benefit of doubt and see what happens. he is just in his second year so it will take some time for the results to show. TD on the other hand has had 5 years and has not done much to take this team to the post-season. Lastly, I really fail to understand why the media is ripping MM for handling the EM situation badly. What has MM done wrong ? He first said that he has talked privately to him and then requested a suspension. In the press conference, he stated the bottom line and said the chapter is closed there is nothing more to discuss. He basically told the media the end result without discussing the internal details. And that is fine by me. For all we know, there may be a substance abuse situation here. Only time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts