So we all seemed willing to give TD 3 years

[Dan]

I think you give Marv and Co. as long as it takes. I agree you don't want to get into the routine of tearing apart and starting over every few years. But, but, you have to see something - some sort of improvement.

 

The problem with TD and Co. was that we weren't seeing anything. In fact, I would say it was kind of like smoke and mirrors. Everything looked ok and seemed good. But last season the wheels really fell off the wagon. And suddenly, a team that looked ok was a team in complete disarray.

 

Now take Cowart and the Steelers for example. Cowart has been there for quite a while and they're not always in the Championship game. However, they always show something. They're a good competitive team each year. So although they may not be in the Superbowl, you don't dimantle it and try something new. They stuck with it, and eventually it paid off.

 

So that's what I say. You stick with Marv as long as he's fielding good teams and we look competitve. Playoffs and Superbowls shouldn't be the final measure of success. Having a good team that plays well and palys competitively week in and out, should be the measure. If you do that, the playoffs will come. And if you really get lucky so will the Superbowl.

 

Would you fire Dungy and everyone in Indy because they can't get to the Superbowl? I'd hope if the Bills ever got to the point Indy is now, that wouldn't even be thought of.

[Fastro]

I really think 2 years is a good amount of time to measure the impact of a new GM or coach. It should allow thtem 2 drafts and 2 years of FAs. I would think that would be more than enough time to implement their coaching changes, and styles and to go about finding the personal to compliment what they want to do. I know that can be a bit harsh but turn arounds happen all of the time. The key is to have the GM, the head coach, and the staff on the same page. I think in the past TD would get players he liked without consulting the coaches or taking into account the things they wanted to do. It really didn't help changing horses midstream. I think there ended up being a mix of different types of players that really didn't mesh anywhere except on special teams.

[Nick in RaChaCha]

It is hard to be patient when you get the feeling there is some clock with a quick alarm ready to buzz again in the near future...

644890[/snapback]

 

That sums it up very well!

[Bill from NYC]

When you lose your 2 best defensive players, plug in a rookie QB, and suffer a rash of injuries to your OLine, that's to be expected. I hardly think it's a legitimate reason to tear up a stable organization and lose a bunch of front office people who are highly regarded around the league.

This is probably going to get worse before it ends badly.......

645123[/snapback]

 

I agree that TD inherited a total mess. When he arrived in Buffalo, the Bills were in horrible cap shape, and void of almost any talent.

 

The thing is, when TD did make mistakes, they were huge.

He brought in poor blockers, questionable at best DTs, and I remind you that it was HIS idea to plug in an untested rookie, let alone give up draft picks for him. To make things worse, he abandoned his pattern set at Pittsburgh of continuously drafting strong linemen, and with his first 2 picks of 05, drafted the likes of Everett and Parrish to a notably weak team in terms of muscle up front.

I am still trying to figure this one out.

 

After all this, the Bills are weak and or thin at virtually every single position except perhaps Defensive End. This includes the "skill positions" that TD seemed to hold so dearly (in Buffalo).

 

Marv does take over a team which is in better shape than when TD arrived, but he has cap space to work with, and a pretty good draft slot.

 

I am wondering however if ALL of the above was the fault of TD. I am thinkig that Ralph and Modrak must shoulder at least some blame as well. To his credit, Ralph admitted this.

[The Senator]

Let's also not forget TD's biggest mistake(s) - Gregg Williams, Mike Mularkey. It is those two absolute disasters at head coach that the Bills are paying for in so many ways - lack mof clear direction, disgruntled players, inability to attract free agents, etc. If you accept the argument the head coach is a GM's most important hire, then it's obvious how the franchise got to this point under TD.

[Coach Tuesday]

I just do not understand the paranoia around here. All this talk about "jettisoning a great football man" confounds me. Yes Donahoe is a good evaluator of talent. However, that was far from his only role as GM and PRESIDENT. He was responsible for running all aspects of the organization, not just evaluating personnel - in fact, most of the people who were charged with evaluating talent under Donahoe ARE STILL HERE. I'm not saying that's good or bad, I'm just saying that we're not likely to see major changes in that area.

 

It's the organizational decision making that is most affected by Donahoe leaving and Levy coming in. And, although I'll come right out and say I HAVE NO SOURCE WHATSOEVER, NOTHING BUT PURE SPECULATION, I got the sense over the last several years that something was wrong with the Bills as an organization - there was something about Donahoe's management style that rubbed people the wrong way, and cast a shadow of fear and paranoia over his employees. From someone who works in a team-like office setting, I can tell you that it makes a big difference when your "head guy" is a micromanaging egomaniac (not saying Donahoe is/was, but that is a perception some have). I am hopeful that Levy's managment style allows the rest of the organization to "breathe" a bit and gives it the freedom to function a bit more smoothly and cohesively. I'm not sure how that will translate to on the field performance, but I'm hopeful it will improve the overall product.

[Kelly the Dog]

Marv might not have four years.

 

Actually, there is a big difference between declaring Marv a bust, which is of course, stupid, and having no confidence until he proves it. We don't have a record of him as a GM. Donohoe had an inherent trust built in upon his hiring following a damn decent track record. He quickly or eventually lost all of that trust but he deserved it when he came in. Marv has no such track record as a GM and has been out of the league a long time.

 

To me, at least, he has lost a LOT of his ability to talk and think and articulate his thoughts in the last ten years. And while he may be extremely sharp for an 80 year old, he is not extremely sharp for an NFL GM.

 

He hired a suspect coaching staff, and it's not only because they are not big names. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I have my reservations about Jauron. I think Fairchild could be a very good hire.

 

Marv has further alienated this fan by his very public stances against dealing with the realities of the salary cap, and I believe it showed in the free agency period. He released several aging players, and while they were past their prime they were the best we had at the positions and the players he signed seemed to fill those holes that Marv created and not the holes that he inherited. He has made a few decent moves IMO but zero has stood out.

 

He mucked up an already muddled QB situation. There is not a lot of history of three quarterbacks competing for one job and succeeding, especially when two are very green and need the time.

 

There simply isn't much to be excited about and I am as big an optimist as almost anyone here.

[Coach Tuesday]

He mucked up an already muddled QB situation. There is not a lot of history of three quarterbacks competing for one job and succeeding, especially when two are very green and need the time.

645402[/snapback]

 

You had me until this. How on earth did Marv "muck up" the QB situation? By bringing in Nall, who has some potential (we can all agree on that, can't we?), to compete? What should Marv do/have done differently? Annointing either JP or Holcomb the starter would be a disaster, in my opinion, and would do nothing but alienate the team (JP) or the fanbase (Holcomb).

[Kelly the Dog]

You had me until this.  How on earth did Marv "muck up" the QB situation?  By bringing in Nall, who has some potential (we can all agree on that, can't we?), to compete?  What should Marv do/have done differently?  Annointing either JP or Holcomb the starter would be a disaster, in my opinion, and would do nothing but alienate the team (JP) or the fanbase (Holcomb).

645409[/snapback]

It's possible that it will work out. I find it difficult to believe that installing a completely new offense and dividing up the reps between three guys that we will find out who is the right guy, and that the team will be its most proficient. It's difficult enough for an NFL to learn a new offense and be on the same page with one quarterback, let alone two, let alone three. I like the Nall signing. I don't think he should be given equal reps until either Holcomb or Losman looks like they cannot do the job.

[Steven in MD]

TD was an ice salesman to the Eskimos. Marv is a rationale, take it slow, build character type guy. TD snowed us all, and we bought what he sold. Marv is a known winning commodity in Bills Land, we expect a winning season!

[todd]

I don't know. I was a great TD supporter, but you can't tell me that the horrible offensive display last year was a fluke. It represented a pattern of mediocrity and poor decisions.

 

They get a pass on the defense because of the injuries, but it also had to do with underutilizing Adams, not replacing Pat Williams, and a clear lack of depth.

 

The reason I thing we should be in the playoffs in two years is because I think the Bills can. When Donahoe inherited the team, there was no way given our horrible cap situation that would be competitive in a 2 year time period. But hey, he had 5 years, and success didn't exist.

 

If you start tearing apart your organization every couple years that you aren't among the league's elite, you will never be able maintain any type of continuity. I think that continuity is a key factor in becoming a succesful club and staying that way.

Good personnel people have bad years occasionally and when you start dumping good people every time they run into a bad stretch, you're never going to be able to keep anything together long enough to let it reach its potential.

For an example look at the Bills recent decision to cave to their whiny fanbase and lose highly regarded football people like Donahoe, Wyche and Mularkey because a team that had been showing improvement took a single step backwards when they lost their two best defensive players and plugged in a rookie QB.

The Bills have a nice base of young talent to work with in a cap friendly situation, but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that Ralph's idiotic cowardly decision is the beginning of a lengthy stretch of seasons which will find us repeatedly in the basement of the AFC East and stuck in a vicious cycle of tearing it all down every few years.

If we could have held on for just one more year I think the front office's work would have manifested itself into more on-field wins and perhaps set the stage for a lengthy run of good competitive football. But instead because of our collective impatience and inability to see things through to thier fruition the Bills have now taken even more steps backwards and are now poised on the verge of becoming an NFL laughingstock for the foreseeable future.

Cya

644985[/snapback]

[Rubes]

Actually, there is a big difference between declaring Marv a bust, which is of course, stupid, and having no confidence until he proves it.

 

There simply isn't much to be excited about and I am as big an optimist as almost anyone here.

645402[/snapback]

 

Not saying there's anything wrong with not having confidence in the man's abilities. It's not like Marv's been an NFL GM in the past or anything. But here's the way I look at it:

 

- Was I excited about TD being hired as GM? Absolutely.

 

- Was I excited about TD hiring Gregggg? Yes, I was. I thought he'd be a great coach.

 

- Was I excited about TD hiring Mularkey? Not really, but after the first year I thought he would be a good coach.

 

- Was I excited about TD bringing in Drew? Hell yeah.

 

- Was I excited about a lot of the free agents TD brought in? Hell yeah.

 

Yet here we are six years later with a 5-11 team of underachievers and a long string of "I guess we were wrong about that"s. What does all this mean? I don't know. But it does show that it really doesn't matter if I agree with all the moves so far. I thought TD was the perfect hire, and I thought he was making a lot of good moves in the beginning. So what?

 

So here we are now:

 

- Am I excited about Marv being hired as GM? Not tremendously. We know what it's like to have a guy learn on the job. I think he's capable of being a good GM, but whether or not he will become one is definitely up in the air.

 

- Am I excited about Marv hiring Jauron and the rest of this staff? Of course not.

 

- Am I excited about Marv's moves in free agency (thus far)? Like you said, not much to get excited about, although I think they have been fairly solid moves for the most part.

 

People may be getting ants in their pants about Marv and Co. but it makes little sense to blast the guy for not doing what we all want him to do and what we all claim he should do. Judging the guy makes no sense until we really know how he's doing. At least three years from now.

[Kelly the Dog]

Not saying there's anything wrong with not having confidence in the man's abilities. It's not like Marv's been an NFL GM in the past or anything. But here's the way I look at it:

 

- Was I excited about TD being hired as GM? Absolutely.

 

- Was I excited about TD hiring Gregggg? Yes, I was. I thought he'd be a great coach.

 

- Was I excited about TD hiring Mularkey? Not really, but after the first year I thought he would be a good coach.

 

- Was I excited about TD bringing in Drew? Hell yeah.

 

- Was I excited about a lot of the free agents TD brought in? Hell yeah.

 

Yet here we are six years later with a 5-11 team of underachievers and a long string of "I guess we were wrong about that"s. What does all this mean? I don't know. But it does show that it really doesn't matter if I agree with all the moves so far. I thought TD was the perfect hire, and I thought he was making a lot of good moves in the beginning. So what?

 

So here we are now:

 

- Am I excited about Marv being hired as GM? Not tremendously. We know what it's like to have a guy learn on the job. I think he's capable of being a good GM, but whether or not he will become one is definitely up in the air.

 

- Am I excited about Marv hiring Jauron and the rest of this staff? Of course not.

 

- Am I excited about Marv's moves in free agency (thus far)? Like you said, not much to get excited about, although I think they have been fairly solid moves for the most part.

 

People may be getting ants in their pants about Marv and Co. but it makes little sense to blast the guy for not doing what we all want him to do and what we all claim he should do. Judging the guy makes no sense until we really know how he's doing. At least three years from now.

645496[/snapback]

 

That's almost identical to how I felt and how I feel but this is a message board. If you can't judge stuff and express opinions (which are really nothing more than predictions) based on no facts, why are we here?

 

Plus, we live in a "show me" world. Most fans trusted TD because he had already showed people. When you go and see a concert you expect certain things from the bands you know, but the unknown opening acts that you know little about you expect them to prove to you they're good. When you hire a guy with previous experience in a job where he did well you expect him to be good. When you hire someone who did well in a totally different job but has no experience in this one, you hope he does well but you don't necessarily expect him to. He has to prove it.