eball Posted May 2, 2006 Author Share Posted May 2, 2006 perhaps you could just read this thread as I already pointed it out. 681107[/snapback] With all due respect, I think you're mischaracterizing the phrase "straw man." The purpose of a straw man argument is to attack a weak but unrelated aspect of your opponent's position, in the hopes of deflecting attention away from the real argument. In this instance, Leo may have overstated his point by writing "years of neglect" but that statement was not the basis of his article -- that being a response to critics of the draft who believe the Bills should have gone after the glamour QB pick or that Marv and Ralph "don't want to win" because their picks didn't fall in line with the draft experts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted May 2, 2006 Share Posted May 2, 2006 Yes, because you know me so well. Hey, maybe you enjoy 8-8, 4-12, 8-8, 6-10, 9-7, 5-11. That's cool with me, you enjoy watching a losing team that has a few fundamental and glaring flaws. And maybe, just maybe, you enjoy watching that team ignore said flaws. That's fine by me too, but it doesn't mean that everyone around you has to agree with it. Now, I realize that response was a little complex for someone of your simple mind, so let me paraphrase for you: This team has stunk on ice for a loooong time. I want to see it get better. You apparently don't. Have a great day. 681064[/snapback] To debate your logic, I want to see it get better to, that is why I am not dooming the new regime just because of what the previous regime (which the new one had no part of) did previously. 6 years of ineptitude, yeah that sucked, but that was TD, there is a new guy running the team so I am willing to throw that out and not blame them for it. No one knows weither this team will be a huge improvement over last years or if it will be worse, but until they step on the field and actually play, no one knows what will happen. Thats maybe why some of us actually look at this years team with some optimisum rather then just dooming them from the start because TD couldn't be successful. if you think you could do so much better as an NFL GM, why don't you send in a resume? Every year atleast one job usually comes up. And it can't be that hard of a job, I mean, its just like playing fantasy football isn't it? Trades and FA signings are easy, I do them all the time while playing Madden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted May 2, 2006 Share Posted May 2, 2006 the only problem i have with the article is where in regard to Losman, he says; His development was stunted last year by a silly, impatient head coach, (Mike Mularkey). I don't buy that. I think the strings for pulling Losman came from Ralph Wilson. I was not a fan of Mularkey, but there is no reason to blame him for Losman's failures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted May 2, 2006 Share Posted May 2, 2006 Really? 2001: Aaron Schobel, Ron Edwards, Tyrone Robertson 2002: Ryan Denney, Coy Wire, Justin Bannan 2003: Chris Kelsay, Lauvale Sape 2004: Tim Anderson Not to mention FA's Lawyer Milloy, Troy Vincent, Sam Adams... and we had Pat Williams. I see a lot of 1st day picks there and big FA signings. This is considered "years of neglect"??? 680978[/snapback] I think he should really have mentioned the neglect in the last 2 years of drafting, when we went Offense much more. Considering that we had the #1 and #2 defenses in succession, a GM is going to try to shore up the offense, and I have no problems with it. I am sure Marv is going to do the same next year when he will have a much better defense, but with holes in the offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted May 2, 2006 Share Posted May 2, 2006 the only problem i have with the article is where in regard to Losman, he says; I don't buy that. I think the strings for pulling Losman came from Ralph Wilson. I was not a fan of Mularkey, but there is no reason to blame him for Losman's failures. 681140[/snapback] It may not have been 100% Mularky's idea (I think later in the year he went Holcomb to save his job though) but I doubt Ralph had any involvement, I think TD was the one wanting Holcomb to come in and try to salvage the season and squeak into the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 2, 2006 Share Posted May 2, 2006 To debate your logic, I want to see it get better to, that is why I am not dooming the new regime just because of what the previous regime (which the new one had no part of) did previously. 6 years of ineptitude, yeah that sucked, but that was TD, there is a new guy running the team so I am willing to throw that out and not blame them for it. No one knows weither this team will be a huge improvement over last years or if it will be worse, but until they step on the field and actually play, no one knows what will happen. Thats maybe why some of us actually look at this years team with some optimisum rather then just dooming them from the start because TD couldn't be successful. if you think you could do so much better as an NFL GM, why don't you send in a resume? Every year atleast one job usually comes up. And it can't be that hard of a job, I mean, its just like playing fantasy football isn't it? Trades and FA signings are easy, I do them all the time while playing Madden 681138[/snapback] "that has a few fundamental and glaring flaws. And maybe, just maybe, you enjoy watching that team ignore said flaws." you must have missed this part Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooldudeav Posted May 2, 2006 Share Posted May 2, 2006 They had to pull JP if they wanted to have a chance last season. Keeping him in would have been declaring the rest of the year mere practice for JP. Giving up half way through the season kills the moral of the team. Then again going 5 and 11 also kills the moral.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted May 2, 2006 Share Posted May 2, 2006 "that has a few fundamental and glaring flaws. And maybe, just maybe, you enjoy watching that team ignore said flaws." you must have missed this part 681178[/snapback] How are they ignoring said Flaws? The new regime has come in and started to try and correct the previous regimes mistakes. They aren't going to be able to come in and turn this team into next years SB champions in one offseason (although everyone thought we only need Hutch and Bentley to do that) I will give Marv and Dick a couple years before I deem them not capable of running a franchise. If TD or Mularky was still her, I would be right there with you complaing about the current direction of the team, But until I see what Marv and Dick's team does on the field, I won't deem this team doomed just yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 2, 2006 Share Posted May 2, 2006 How are they ignoring said Flaws? The new regime has come in and started to try and correct the previous regimes mistakes. They aren't going to be able to come in and turn this team into next years SB champions in one offseason (although everyone thought we only need Hutch and Bentley to do that) I will give Marv and Dick a couple years before I deem them not capable of running a franchise. If TD or Mularky was still her, I would be right there with you complaing about the current direction of the team, But until I see what Marv and Dick's team does on the field, I won't deem this team doomed just yet 681212[/snapback] And i'm not either, really. Reyes COULD be the answer. So could Fowler. They COULD be. WILL they be is the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted May 2, 2006 Share Posted May 2, 2006 Really? 2001: Aaron Schobel, Ron Edwards, Tyrone Robertson 2002: Ryan Denney, Coy Wire, Justin Bannan 2003: Chris Kelsay, Lauvale Sape 2004: Tim Anderson Not to mention FA's Lawyer Milloy, Troy Vincent, Sam Adams... and we had Pat Williams. I see a lot of 1st day picks there and big FA signings. This is considered "years of neglect"??? 680978[/snapback] When you consider the contributions (or lack thereof) by some of those first-day picks, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted May 2, 2006 Share Posted May 2, 2006 Nobody wants to consider the possiblity that Hollywood-boy Leinart would rather shoot himself than have to play for the Bills. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 2, 2006 Share Posted May 2, 2006 Nobody wants to consider the possiblity that Hollywood-boy Leinart would rather shoot himself than have to play for the Bills. PTR 681480[/snapback] I wouldn't have wanted him anyway. he may be less mobile than the Drewster was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixxxer Posted May 2, 2006 Share Posted May 2, 2006 Let's face it. Not every writer is capable of being on the top of his game all the time. Like any other profession. So you're never going to agree with all of his columns. But it's a simply fact that when the writer writes something you agree with he is very good, and when he writes something you don't, he sucks. Pretty much every time. 681030[/snapback] I agree with you, hence your post is excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis in NC Posted May 2, 2006 Share Posted May 2, 2006 Great article. "How many more years do you paint the house and not fix the foundation?" This quote is the difference between marv and td 680821[/snapback] Perfect! I love that quote. Leo, indeed, hit the nail on the head this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 I wouldn't have wanted him anyway. he may be less mobile than the Drewster was. 681482[/snapback] so Joe tell us who you would have picked cuz you seem to think you have the answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts