Pet Peeve: Does this grate on anyone else?

[SDS]

Demanded ? That's not how it went down. Ralph stated publicly he wanted to become less involved and wished to turn over the day to day operations at age 82.

 

I still blame Ralph for this current organizational image problem but TD was anything but just a GM on the football side. During practices, I viewed him sticking his nose in huddles and and standing right next to players during drills. When Lindell practiced FG's, he'd stand almost on top of the holder, watching his kicks. Then directly behind him, right in his personal space. Your not a coach Tom and the sidelines are over there. 

 

The suite he bought was directly behind the seats where I sit. For the last 2 years, he was never in it. He stood right behind the coaches in the booth as they tried to call plays.

 

  An established Veteran Coach would have told him to get the hell out of his way and let him coach. First time HC's like Williams or Mularkey wouldn't have the sack to tell him that. He knew that when he hired them.

 

Mularkey obviously wasn't the mastermind behind dumping Bledsoe and just handing the starting QB job to JP, without Veteran competition. It should have been Mulakeys decision. Obviously, Mularkey favored Holcomb.

 

I viewed TD as a controlling micro manager who just couldn't delegate.

 

He meddled and showed it as clear as day.

567250[/snapback]

 

OK, "demanded" was my word, and it may not have gone down like that, but I think it was something he desired.

 

Now, the rest of your post may be true, but it can have different interpretations. The point I am railing against is the "to avoid power struggle, must hire butt boy to keep job safe".

 

That isn't the picture you painted above. What you painted above was someone who wanted to be involved in every aspect of the team. That argument is never made, but the former one has been made every day since he the fans turned on GW.

[Mark VI]

OK, "demanded" was my word, and it may not have gone down like that, but I think it was something he desired.

 

Now, the rest of your post may be true, but it can have different interpretations.  The point I am railing against is the "to avoid power struggle, must hire butt boy to keep job safe".

 

That isn't the picture you painted above.  What you painted above was someone who wanted to be involved in every aspect of the team.  That argument is never made, but the former one has been made every day since he the fans turned on GW.

567268[/snapback]

 

I remember when Fassel came here for his interview, prior to the Mularkey hire. He literally left the parking lot at OBD an hour later. Made me think he was firm in his belief about Bledsoes ability or some other aspect of the team TD didn't like hearing. He must have spoke his mind or TD spoke his and Fassel immediately realized he wasted a plane trip

 

Interview over ! So long , Jim.

 

I do think he had some real confidence in both GW and MM, long term. But I find it hard to believe these guys dazzled him over more well esablished names with better credentials during the hiring process.

 

It's still a bottom line business based on wins and losses. TD was a sharp guy but lost focus on what his priorities were in getting this team to win.

 

In the Cap age, it's a Coaches game more than ever. Every team has a shortage within a certain positional unit of the team. Ours was the biggest of all, the trenches on O and D. ( That's TD's area ) So you must have a sharp coach with proven success and working schemes to overcome this. Mularkey was badly outcoached most every week and regardless of our roster, we had limited opportunities to win.

 

He aquired some good talent but never finished the job by picking the strong Coach, due to his past with Cowher.

 

That thought process cost him.

[Dawgg]

Wow... your opinions are awfully strong.

 

Yep it is a childish or moronic assertion, take your pick users of it including Sullivan.

567230[/snapback]

[Kipers Hair]

it makes my skin crawl everytime I read that junior high assertion... 

 

TD was the fuggin' President of the Buffalo Bills and had unprecedented power in the organization.  He was NOT going to lose ANY power struggle with anyone he brought into town... he had as much power as he could possibly of had w/o actually owning the team.

 

Just wanted to get that off my chest...

567133[/snapback]

 

This is a moot point, BUT - does not matter than he was all powerful in Buffalo...he was all powerful in Pittsburgh too. When a caoch has a ton of success and is a charasmatic personality - he can take you down. It happened in Pitt and it certainly could have happened in Buffalo. It's not that hard to understand.

 

If this was not the case, then what you are saying is - Gregg Williams was the best choice??? Mike Mularky was more impressive then Cranell? Weiss? TD's forte' was a talent evaluator...I guess he lost that ability in Buffalo huh?

[MDH]

He was also "the man" in Pittsburgh until the team encountered success and he lost out in a power struggle with the very coach he hired.

567138[/snapback]

 

So TD was trying to avoid success so he wouldn't lose another power struggle?

[Dawgg]

Yeah that's exactly what I said -- NOT.

 

So TD was trying to avoid success so he wouldn't lose another power struggle?

567338[/snapback]

[MDH]

Yeah that's exactly what I said -- NOT.

567343[/snapback]

 

Apparently TD could lose a power struggle to a no name coach that has success. So then how does TD not hiring a "big time" head coach play into this exactly? It seems that success is the critical factor in the point you are making not how "big" the coach was coming in.

[Dawgg]

Cowher has a strong personality and is a great leader. Once he asserted himself as the leader of the team, he wanted to take even more of a leadership role and that ultimately led to TD's demise.

 

GW and MM are essentially the opposite. Even if they were successful, it is doubtful that they would have been a threat to TD's position.

 

So it's not necessarily about hiring a "big time" coach -- rather, it's an issue of whether or not he was willing to hire a coach with strong leadership skills. What happened in Pittsburgh must have affected him deeply and I can't blame him. It was his hometown team, he built the team from scratch, worked his way up the ladder only to get booted by his owner in favor of a no-name coach he discovered and hired.

 

Apparently TD could lose a power struggle to a no name coach that has success.  So then how does TD not hiring a "big time" head coach play into this exactly?  It seems that success is the critical factor in the point you are making not how "big" the coach was coming in.

567344[/snapback]

[SDS]

This is a moot point, BUT - does not matter than he was all powerful in Buffalo...he was all powerful in Pittsburgh too.  When a caoch has a ton of success and is a charasmatic personality - he can take you down.  It happened in Pitt and it certainly could have happened in Buffalo.  It's not that hard to understand.

 

If this was not the case, then what you are saying is - Gregg Williams was the best choice???  Mike Mularky was more impressive then Cranell?  Weiss?  TD's forte' was a talent evaluator...I guess he lost that ability in Buffalo huh?

567306[/snapback]

 

No, he was Director of Football Operations. He was not President. With Buffalo he was the top dog - there was no one within the power structure of the team above him but an elderly owner. His only advesary was failure.

 

What YOU are saying is that in order to keep his job safe he pursued the only avenue that cost him his job.

[SDS]

So TD was trying to avoid success so he wouldn't lose another power struggle?

567338[/snapback]

 

that is the logical conclusion to the whole "weak coach/protect job" argument, which is why that line of reason is silly. Maybe he wanted to meddle and maybe established coaches would reject that, but he certainly didn't see out MM because of some concocted theory of power struggle avoidance.

[GG]

.....

 

What you painted above was someone who wanted to be involved in every aspect of the team.  That argument is never made, ...

567268[/snapback]

 

It isn't, or hasn't been? News to me & some others, who've been making this point for the last 5 years.

[SDS]

It isn't, or hasn't been?  News to me & some others, who've been making this point for the last 5 years.

567469[/snapback]

 

The argument being that he hired GW and MM specifically because they were "weak coaches" that would allow him to stick his nose in every thing.

 

Now, I probably misspoke when I said "never"... 5 years is a long time and I easily missed 10's of thousands of posts. However, when this subject IS broached - the "weak coach" theory has been associated with job security, not meddling tendencies.

[The Dean]

it makes my skin crawl everytime I read that junior high assertion... 

 

TD was the fuggin' President of the Buffalo Bills and had unprecedented power in the organization.  He was NOT going to lose ANY power struggle with anyone he brought into town... he had as much power as he could possibly of had w/o actually owning the team.

 

Just wanted to get that off my chest...

567133[/snapback]

 

 

Of course it's a stupid junior high assertion. It's as stupid as thinking Gray tanked a game on purpose (BTW, I know you didn't say he did...just that some thought so, and that IS serious).

 

But, I'll take this opportunity to jack this thread (don't worry, I rarely succeed) and say this:

 

I believe that Ralph felt disconnected to the team because he allowed TD to have all that control, but never felt like he was given the straight and total story. While I have nothing solid on which to base that assumption (never stopped me before), the fact that Ralph seemed to be shocked by the banning of the signs tipped me off.

 

Think what you will about RW...but, he's a straight shooter and a class guy (he may be cheap and meddling...but those are different issues).

 

My fact-free assessment of what went on is this:

 

Ralph let TD run-the-show while RW played the proper owner role of STFU and let the football guy do his job. If what we've heard recently is true, RW would call TD often (my guess is he didn't call MM) to inquire about the state of the team. TD was telling Ralph what he wanted to hear and what TD wanted to tell him. I REALLY think RW was surprised by how screwed up things were (or at least how screwed up he perceived things were).

 

So, i agree that TD had no interest in hiring a "weak" coach...that's just stupid. But, I wouldn't be surprised if TD wasn't totally above board with RW and used his power in a way that RW felt was deceptive.

 

That's all...play on.

[SDS]

Think what you will about RW...but, he's a straight shooter...

567481[/snapback]

 

 

Interesting, because recent events lead me to believe that he lies through his teeth every time he talks. Just from the last week:

 

Ralph says TD resigned, but everyone else says fired. Ralph says he didn't know what was going on, but GW says he called "every 10 minutes". Ralph says he has no idea what he pays the coaches, but yet TD paid bottom of the barrell prices with someone else's money.

 

Now, I'm not going to rip on RW, but there has been so much conflicting info that it appears to me that it is RW that has been less than forthcoming than his counterparts in those situations.

[GG]

Now, I'm not going to rip on RW, but there has been so much conflicting info that it appears to me that it is RW that has been less than forthcoming than his counterparts in those situations.

567504[/snapback]

 

He does play the role of the forgetful old man, well.

 

Interesting that you say that it's not a Shakespearian drama, as I think it totally is. TD had gotten all the control that he needed, so there was no reason for him to worry about losing stature. Yet he operated as if there was a grand conspiracy threatening his reign every minute. Es tu, Tom Modrak?

[The Dean]

Interesting, because recent events lead me to believe that he lies through his teeth every time he talks.  Just from the last week:

 

Ralph says TD resigned, but everyone else says fired.  Ralph says he didn't know what was going on, but GW says he called "every 10 minutes".  Ralph says he has no idea what he pays the coaches, but yet TD paid bottom of the barrell prices with someone else's money.

 

Now, I'm not going to rip on RW, but there has been so much conflicting info that it appears to me that it is RW that has been less than forthcoming than his counterparts in those situations.

567504[/snapback]

 

While I stick by my defense of Ralph as an honorable man, I see what you're saying. Let me attempt to put some of your astute observations into possible context (again, I don't know s#it from squat, so I'm spitballing here...and I'm kinda drunk).

 

Having personally been in a "resigned or fired" situation, I can attest that these things are fluid. An exit negotiation is usually difficult and one (or both) of the parties wants to frame the situation in a particular way. Sometimes it has to do with compensation...sometimes ego...sometimes it has do do with misplaced kindness. Seriously, SDS...that's a total non-issue with me. The two guys decided to end it. My guess is Ralph fells bad about saying he canned TD and feels it sounds better to say he resigned. It's really not any of our business how/why the two men parted. It was time, it happened, they'll both go forward in their careers. (I could go into this in more detail...but, I think you get the point.)

 

There's a HUGE difference between calling and asking questions and knowing what's going on. that was the point of my initial post (and thank you for letting me thread-jack). I have no doubt that he sticks his nose in and calls for update. My point is, I suspect he thinks TD was misleading him or not giving him all the info he wanted.

 

As for the salaries of the coaches...well, I can make a defense for Ralph: (Try this one on: He gave TD a bottom-line $, but let TD decide how to distribute it.) But, my guess is RW knows EXACTLY how much each coach makes. If not, he needs to fire his CFO and not just TD. I put this in the same territory as "quit or fired". This is NOT the kind of thing that any competant CEO (or owner) gets into with reporters. That's an inside business thing that is just not discussed in public by most CEO/owners.

 

None of those things leads me to think any differently that I already do of RW.

 

He's a nice old man that wants to win, within a budget that makes sense to him, and wants to feel like he is on top of what's going omn in the organization. He's willing to deligate authority (to TD, for example) but, will snap back and grab control if he thinks that authority is being misused or he is being deceived/mislead by those he appointed.

 

I'm not sure I'd be much different as an owner.

[Kultarr]

Of course, I'm sure there were many variables involved in the head coac hiring process. TD did admit once that the fans didn't know everything, didn't know who wanted the job, etc.

 

On TD having nothing to fear, other than failure, because he had the title of president: the thing is that I don't think it was the failure that lead to his ouster but rather his demeanor and overall approach. He projected an attitude of being arrogant, stuck-up, condescending, secretive, untruthful, more concerned about his personal image than his company's image, etc.

 

With respect to the coaching decisions, TD would have been far better off to have hired one of the better known candidates no matter what the outcome. Hiring a Marvin Lewis or a Charlie Weis and having them fail would have been the lesser risk -- people would give TD a free pass because they were the "can't miss" choices at the time. Still, TD went with the "unexpected" choice 2 out of 2 times.

 

Why? We'll never know for sure. Was it because all the "big name" guys had bad interviews? (What's a bad interview anyway?) Because Ralph is cheap? Because Buffalo schools are bad? Because they couldn't see themselves working with TD? Because TD insisted on various preconditions of the job? Whatever the reasons, I find it disturbing that the Bills did not have a Prez/GM in charge that could have assuaged those issues and really sold his organization forcely enough to be able to pick the cream of the crop.

 

You're right that TD did not hire head coaches that he knew were going to fail a priori. That much is obvious. Still, it is curious.

[dave mcbride]

this is a really good thread! just throwing that in ...

[The Dean]

Of course, I'm sure there were many variables involved in the head coac hiring process.  TD did admit once that the fans didn't know everything, didn't know who wanted the job, etc.

 

On TD having nothing to fear, other than failure, because he had the title of president: the thing is that I don't think it was the failure that lead to his ouster but rather his demeanor and overall approach.  He projected an attitude of being arrogant, stuck-up, condescending, secretive, untruthful, more concerned about his personal image than his company's image, etc.

 

With respect to the coaching decisions, TD would have been far better off to have hired one of the better known candidates no matter what the outcome.  Hiring a Marvin Lewis or a Charlie Weis and having them fail would have been the lesser risk -- people would give TD a free pass because they were the "can't miss" choices at the time.  Still, TD went with the "unexpected" choice 2 out of 2 times. 

 

Why?  We'll never know for sure.  Was it because all the "big name" guys had bad interviews?  (What's a bad interview anyway?)  Because Ralph is cheap?  Because Buffalo schools are bad?  Because they couldn't see themselves working with TD?  Because TD insisted on various preconditions of the job?  Whatever the reasons, I find it disturbing that the Bills did not have a Prez/GM in charge that could have assuaged those issues and really sold his organization forcely enough to be able to pick the cream of the crop.

 

You're right that TD did not hire head coaches that he knew were going to fail a priori.  That much is obvious.  Still, it is curious.

567979[/snapback]

 

 

Some people just fire poorly, I've found. While not consciencely looking for a "weak" subordinate, they tend to pick people who are "lesser" rather than "greater" than them (whatever the hell that means). I'm not saying TD is that guy, necessarily, but it is possible.

[JAMIEBUF12]

well that was said even before he hired greg williams as the coach.....he wanted a yes man as his coach and its obvious that is what he wanted look who he turned down.............................john fox

marvin lewis

jim fasell

charlie weiss

romeo crennel

fact is fact td wanted a weak minded coach.........he wanted someone that would win obviously,but it had to be someone he could control and someone who wouldnt question the talent that td provided.td is a egomaniac! and i am glad he is gone....a good gm would have taken a look at our organization and kept some of the scouting staff,but no td had to run everyone off that wasnt "his"