New structure has disaster written all over it

[Kelly the Dog]

ah, but you see, my negativity was directed to events that had already occurred or were in the process of occurring. i have nothing to be negative about regarding this change, since there is no evidence to be negative. my most negative post (from a couple of weeks ago), in which i said the bills were a no-talent team, was based on the fact that they had a terrible record and were mired in the bottom of every defensive and offensive statistical category.

555279[/snapback]

Actually I believe you said we sucked top to bottom before the season started, except for maybe Nate Clements.

[In space no one can hear]

Damn. I was feeling pretty good about my life until I was compared to Jerry Sullivan. 

555252[/snapback]

 

 

 

Well you might not be quite in Sullivans category yet.

 

At least we don't have to increase our milligrams of Prozac after reading your posts!

[GG]

Thus, to me his hiring is worse that hiring some unknown with no prior GM experience.    At least an "unknown" would have some current prior Front Office Experience.    But Marv's been a broadcaster for the last however-many years.  And how have things turned out for the last team that hired a broadcaster as a GM?

 

In short, I believe that in hiring our next GM the question should have been:

1) Which GM candidate will build a team that will produce the most wins over the five years?

555198[/snapback]

 

Now, you're going in a circular argument. Are you saying that the only viable candidate for the GM spot is someone who's already had GM experience? Wouldn't that only leave people who failed at their previous GM jobs? Thus, if by hiring a former personnel director to take over GM duties, aren't you taking the same risk that the guy won't be able to handle the full responsibility of a GM?

 

The GM spot is an executive position. I'd venture to guess that you can take a solid senior executive out of IBM or GE and he can turn out to be a capable NFL GM.

 

Marv was a decent GM in Montreal. He was integrally involved in managing the team when he was coach, as he worked very closely with Polian, Butler & Adams. I don't feel that his 8 year absense from the game is going to be as big a factor as people make it out to be.

[dave mcbride]

Now, you're going in a circular argument.  Are you saying that the only viable candidate for the GM spot is someone who's already had GM experience?  Wouldn't that only leave people who failed at their previous GM jobs?  Thus, if by hiring a former personnel director to take over GM duties, aren't you taking the same risk that the guy won't be able to handle the full responsibility of a GM?

 

The GM spot is an executive position.  I'd venture to guess that you can take a solid senior executive out of IBM or GE and he can turn out to be a capable NFL GM. 

 

Marv was a decent GM in Montreal.  He was integrally involved in managing the team when he was coach, as he worked very closely with Polian, Butler & Adams.  I don't feel that his 8 year absense from the game is going to be as big a factor as people make it out to be.

555306[/snapback]

marv was also a broadcaster when he was hired in 1987.

[Sound_n_Fury]

Marv was a decent GM in Montreal.  He was integrally involved in managing the team when he was coach, as he worked very closely with Polian, Butler & Adams.  I don't feel that his 8 year absense from the game is going to be as big a factor as people make it out to be.

555306[/snapback]

 

Agreed. I believe he won the Grey Cup as GM of the Allouttes. And his "absense" from the game hasn't exactly been lounging on some beach. His announcing and writing gigs have allowed him to stay up to date on the players and NFL trends.

[obie_wan]

Dave, you lost me here...did the defense really improve greatly between 1991 and 1992?  I think the world of Marv, but I always thought that Walt Corey was his biggest mistake...that defense had some great individual players who made great plays, but, IMO, never played well as a unit.  In the end, they were underachieving.  Did Walt Corey ever make a half-time adjustment that worked?

555054[/snapback]

 

 

Walt Corey was an abolsute joke as a DC. He had multiple ProBowl and Hall of Fame caliber defenders his defense was ranked in bottom 20% of the league.

 

Worse -that defense could not get off the field (see Giants Super Bowl)

 

The common complaint was that it wasn't the defenses fault- it was because the offense scored too quickly. In retrospect, what a bunch of Mullarkey!!

[JDG]

Now, you're going in a circular argument.  Are you saying that the only viable candidate for the GM spot is someone who's already had GM experience?  Wouldn't that only leave people who failed at their previous GM jobs?  Thus, if by hiring a former personnel director to take over GM duties, aren't you taking the same risk that the guy won't be able to handle the full responsibility of a GM?

 

The GM spot is an executive position.  I'd venture to guess that you can take a solid senior executive out of IBM or GE and he can turn out to be a capable NFL GM. 

 

Marv was a decent GM in Montreal.  He was integrally involved in managing the team when he was coach, as he worked very closely with Polian, Butler & Adams.  I don't feel that his 8 year absense from the game is going to be as big a factor as people make it out to be.

555306[/snapback]

 

Come on Gerry, I explicitly addressed your first paragraph in the bit you quoted. No, I don't believe that the only viable candidates are former GM's. I did, however, say that current Front Office experience would be a huge plus. For example, a current "Director of Pro Personnel" for a successful franchise will already *know* and be familiar with all sorts of pro personnel information that he has been dealing with on a daily basis for the last few years. Marv is going to have to take some time to ramp himself up in order to match that same level of familiarity and understanding an experienced candidate would have.

 

I also disagree that an IBM executive would make a successful GM. The GM is a *football* position, hence Marv's second title of "Director of Football Operations." If Marv is to be a normal GM, he is going to be making final decisions on whom to draft, what street free agents to work out, what unrestricted free agents to pursue, how much to value potential signees, how much to value (and offer) our current players with contract issues, and have input on whom to cut in training camp. His job is going to consist of making football decisions on a daily basis.

 

And like I said, Marv isn't disqualified from succeeding. I have a hard time, however, seeing him as being the most-qualified person to succeed.

 

JDG

[dave mcbride]

Dave, you lost me here...did the defense really improve greatly between 1991 and 1992?  I think the world of Marv, but I always thought that Walt Corey was his biggest mistake...that defense had some great individual players who made great plays, but, IMO, never played well as a unit.  In the end, they were underachieving.  Did Walt Corey ever make a half-time adjustment that worked?

555054[/snapback]

 

p.s. the bills d improved from 27th in 91 to 13th in 92. in 93, they were dead last in yards, but they forced a gazillion turnovers and ended up giving up the fifth fewest points as a consequence.

 

the bills d was not poorly coordinated in the giants super bowl; it just failed to make key tackles. in the 91 season playoffs, they blew out kc and shut out denver until there was a minute to go. they lost to the redskins on a number of levels, but the key one was turnovers and a complete inability to run the ball. in the 92 season playoffs, the d rallied mightily after being buried by houston in the first half, crushed pitt in pitt to the tune of 3 points, and obliterated miami in miami.

in the 93 season playoffs, they shut down the raiders after the first 20 minutes except for one big play to tim brown and crushed the chiefs, knocking montana out of the game after he had taken a real pounding.

 

like i said, the retrospective trashing of the coaches because they bills played well in most every game except the super bowl totally neglects the other 18-19 games of the season. corey certainly wasn't perfect -- he was no master tactician like belichick -- but his read and react philosophy generally meant that the bills rarely gave up long passing plays and teams were rarely off to the races against them.

[obie_wan]

p.s. the bills d improved from 27th in 91 to 13th in 92. in 93, they were dead last in yards, but they forced a gazillion turnovers and ended up giving up the fifth fewest points as a consequence.

 

the bills d was not poorly coordinated in the giants super bowl; it just failed to make key tackles.  in the 91 season playoffs, they blew out kc and shut out denver until there was a minute to go.  they lost to the redskins on a number of levels, but the key one was turnovers and a complete inability to run the ball. in the 92 season playoffs, the d rallied mightily after being buried by houston in the first half, crushed pitt in pitt to the tune of 3 points, and obliterated miami in miami.

in the 93 season playoffs, they shut down the raiders after the first 20 minutes except for one big play to tim brown and crushed the chiefs, knocking montana out of the game after he had taken a real pounding.

 

like i said, the retrospective trashing of the coaches because they bills played well in most every game except the super bowl totally neglects the other 18-19 games of the season. corey certainly wasn't perfect -- he was no master tactician like belichick -- but his read and react philosophy generally meant that the bills rarely gave up long passing plays and teams were rarely off to the races against them.

555373[/snapback]

 

That defense with the talent he had should have been as dominant as the 85 Bears. Corey played soft and refused to attack.

[dave mcbride]

That defense with the talent he had should have been as dominant as the 85 Bears. Corey played soft and refused to attack.

555673[/snapback]

you've got to be kidding me. who were the bills defensive tackles? their safeties? their left defensive end? come on - aside from bruce, bennett, and conlan for about 5 seasons (which were punctuated by injuries), there were no great players on that defense.

[Fan in San Diego]

I think this will work just fine. Give it a try, what other choice do you have ?

[Buftex]

you've got to be kidding me. who were the bills defensive tackles? their safeties? their left defensive end? come on - aside from bruce, bennett, and conlan for about 5 seasons (which were punctuated by injuries), there were no great players on that defense.

555685[/snapback]

 

 

Darryl Talley, Nate Odomes and Henry Jones may not have been hall of famers, but they were amongst the best at their positions during those years.

 

Not to disagree with you Dave, because I appreciate your historical knowledge of the Bills (anyone who would have the guts to use Bullough for their avatar must be supremely confident), but I think you are giving Corey more credit than he deserves. It is true that they did well enough to win a ton of regualar season games, and playoff games, but I would argue that their success was due, in most part, to the tremendous players that they were, not because the defensive coaches put them in the best position to succeed. In those days, the Bills rarely lost, but when they did, their defenses were dominated. Once they couldn't accumualte enough turnovers to compensate for all of the yards they were giving up, they were done.

 

I am not normally one to trash old players and coaches in retrospect either. I know that is the norm around here. But I swear, even then, I thought Corey was a miserable DC. If Wade Phillips were here for just one of those Super Bowls, I think their chances of winning would have increased a lot...I remember the offensive co-ordinater for the '91 Redskins that walloped us (can't remember his name right now) made some comment, after that game that the Bills defense "is pretty basic, they really don't change things up a lot". Crud, getting pissed thinking about it even now!

[Scraps]

Darryl Talley, Nate Odomes and Henry Jones may not have been hall of famers, but they were amongst the best at their positions during those years. 

 

Not to disagree with you Dave, because I appreciate your historical knowledge of the Bills (anyone who would have the guts to use Bullough for their avatar must be supremely confident), but I think you are giving Corey more credit than he deserves.  It is true that they did well enough to win a ton of regualar season games, and playoff games, but I would argue that their success was due, in most part, to the tremendous players that they were, not because the defensive coaches put them in the best position to succeed.  In those days, the Bills rarely lost, but when they did, their defenses were dominated.  Once they couldn't accumualte enough turnovers to compensate for all of the yards they were giving up, they were done. 

 

I am not normally one to trash old players and coaches in retrospect either.  I know that is the norm around here.  But I swear, even then, I thought Corey was a miserable DC.  If Wade Phillips were here for just one of those Super Bowls, I think their chances of winning would have increased a lot...I remember the offensive co-ordinater for the '91 Redskins that walloped us (can't remember his name right now) made some comment, after that game that the Bills defense "is pretty basic, they really don't change things up a lot".  Crud, getting pissed thinking about it even now!

555764[/snapback]

 

Richie Petitbon.

 

Dissing Washingtons offensive line prior to the game didn't help.

[nonprophet]

walt corey? you mean the guy whose defense improved greatly between 1991 and 1992 and whose defense came close to setting a league record for turnovers in 1993?  the guy who marv fired without a problem after the 1994 season?

 

i'm not saying corey was great, but my god, the retrospective trashing of the assistants is just ridiculously wrong.  the problem with the bills defense had a great deal to do with the lack of good defensive tackles than walt corey's strategic acumen.

554479[/snapback]

The problem with the defense, IMHO, is that the offense scored too darned quickly. Those guys spent A LOT of time on the field during games and they got tired. Parcells knew this so his plan was to slow down the Bills offense and run at them often.

[dave mcbride]

Darryl Talley, Nate Odomes and Henry Jones may not have been hall of famers, but they were amongst the best at their positions during those years. 

 

Not to disagree with you Dave, because I appreciate your historical knowledge of the Bills (anyone who would have the guts to use Bullough for their avatar must be supremely confident), but I think you are giving Corey more credit than he deserves.  It is true that they did well enough to win a ton of regualar season games, and playoff games, but I would argue that their success was due, in most part, to the tremendous players that they were, not because the defensive coaches put them in the best position to succeed.  In those days, the Bills rarely lost, but when they did, their defenses were dominated.  Once they couldn't accumualte enough turnovers to compensate for all of the yards they were giving up, they were done. 

 

I am not normally one to trash old players and coaches in retrospect either.  I know that is the norm around here.  But I swear, even then, I thought Corey was a miserable DC.  If Wade Phillips were here for just one of those Super Bowls, I think their chances of winning would have increased a lot...I remember the offensive co-ordinater for the '91 Redskins that walloped us (can't remember his name right now) made some comment, after that game that the Bills defense "is pretty basic, they really don't change things up a lot".  Crud, getting pissed thinking about it even now!

555764[/snapback]

 

i agree largely with what you are saying. i wasn't a huge fan of corey either. i guess my point is that he wasn't THAT bad, and there were far worse DCs at the time. the defense did have some real bright spots -- they did force TOs, they did play well at home and in the afc playoffs as a rule, and they had a consistent philosophy. perhaps it wasn't the best philosophy -- having kelso playing 40 yards off the line of scrimmage was coaching scared -- but the consistency of its application did help them. one minor point -- jones was only around for the 2 final super bowls. he was an excellent player in his prime, though. re wade, yeah, but look at denver's defense when he was the head coach and they didn't have any quality dts. they were eaten alive. having ted washington (or someone like him) would have made a huge difference. as it turns out, he was in my opinion the best player on the field in the pats-carolina super bowl a couple of years ago ...

[obie_wan]

The problem with the defense, IMHO, is that the offense scored too darned quickly. Those guys spent A LOT of time on the field during games and they got tired. Parcells knew this so his plan was to slow down the Bills offense and run at them often.

555966[/snapback]

 

 

always loved the arguement that you scored too many points is why you defense was inadequate.

 

maybe if they made plays on third down and got off the field, they wouldn't have got so tired.

 

How is that the offenses fault?

[JDG]

No one knows what will happen but to me this series of moves stinks, for several reasons. The biggest of which is that the biggest problem with the Bills, besides their lines, is no team identity and no team direction. Right now, although the numbers may fluctuate on an hourly basis, you're going to have four disparate headstrong guys all having 25% of the power and input. Ralph, Marv, Modrak, Mularkey, and maybe five depending on who actually will now negotiate contracts and be responsible for the cap, like Overdorf or whatever his name is. There is nobody really in charge. There is no vision. There is no leadership. There is no one the team can get behind and say we're going to war for this guy. Modrak and Mularkey are lame ducks.

 

The only way this will work, IMO, is if Ralph really put Marv as GM only in title, with Modrak in charge of the draft and the player personel, working with Marv. Marv is the public face of the team and handles the press and fans and sweettalks free agents and is lovable Uncle Mo. But Modrak is making most of the football decisions behind the scenes and without the responsibility of being the marketing guy and public face and capologist, etc. That way, he could give Mularkey one chance to get the team on the right track.

554397[/snapback]

 

Wow, Kelly, this post was remarkably prescient in light of today's press conference. Ralph Wilson was asked who will be hiring the coaching Assts., and the answer seemed to go something like Mularkey... and Marv.... and Modrak.... and oh yeah "I (Ralph Wilson) want to be involved in the discussion too!"

 

Oy vey.....

 

JDG

[PatPatPatSack]

The GM spot is an executive position.  I'd venture to guess that you can take a solid senior executive out of IBM or GE and he can turn out to be a capable NFL GM. 

 

Marv was a decent GM in Montreal.  He was integrally involved in managing the team when he was coach, as he worked very closely with Polian, Butler & Adams.  I don't feel that his 8 year absense from the game is going to be as big a factor as people make it out to be.

555306[/snapback]

 

Good opine.

 

The question is what exactly has changed in managing a football team in the last 8 years that is different than the previous 8? I mean on one hand we want experience (which I believe Marv has). We want accomplishments (regardless of any of our dumb a$$ opinions, he is in the Hall of Fame. Many football experts consider him one of the greatest football men of all time).

 

So what radical improvements have been made in the last 8 years? It's not like Marv only knows student body right or the wishbone.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Good opine.

 

The question is what exactly has changed in managing a football team in the last 8 years that is different than the previous 8? I mean on one hand we want experience (which I believe Marv has). We want accomplishments (regardless of any of our dumb a$$ opinions, he is in the Hall of Fame. Many football experts consider him one of the greatest football men of all time).

 

So what radical improvements have been made in the last 8 years? It's not like Marv only knows student body right or the wishbone.

556701[/snapback]

 

Isn't there talk about possibly getting rid of the cap?

 

Not sure where I heard that?

[34-78-83]

p.s. the bills d improved from 27th in 91 to 13th in 92. in 93, they were dead last in yards, but they forced a gazillion turnovers and ended up giving up the fifth fewest points as a consequence.

 

the bills d was not poorly coordinated in the giants super bowl; it just failed to make key tackles.  in the 91 season playoffs, they blew out kc and shut out denver until there was a minute to go.  they lost to the redskins on a number of levels, but the key one was turnovers and a complete inability to run the ball. in the 92 season playoffs, the d rallied mightily after being buried by houston in the first half, crushed pitt in pitt to the tune of 3 points, and obliterated miami in miami.

in the 93 season playoffs, they shut down the raiders after the first 20 minutes except for one big play to tim brown and crushed the chiefs, knocking montana out of the game after he had taken a real pounding.

 

like i said, the retrospective trashing of the coaches because they bills played well in most every game except the super bowl totally neglects the other 18-19 games of the season. corey certainly wasn't perfect -- he was no master tactician like belichick -- but his read and react philosophy generally meant that the bills rarely gave up long passing plays and teams were rarely off to the races against them.

555373[/snapback]

 

Excellent points.