krazykat Posted July 6, 2008 Posted July 6, 2008 They said we aren't rebuilding so that the sheep will continue to buy tickets and merchandise. Anyone watching could see that we were rebuilding. When people want to see Roscoe Parrish as a bigger part of the offense, the team is hurting talent wise. Nobody ever called for Don Edwards to be a bigger part of the offense! Actually, not true. If they were rebuilding then they would have traded Clements after assuring him that they wouldn't tag him. Why run out the last year in his contract for nothing if you're really rebuilding and then watch him walk when you probably could have gotten a 2nd or high 3rd round pick for him easily. Also, wouldn't you have traded Spikes in the return year of his major injury before you knew that his value would plummet due to the inevitiable poor season post-injury in his case. Instead they played him, showed the whole football lovin' world that he wasn't what he used to be, and then all but let him walk when they could have traded him when he at least had a perceived value. Those aren't the type of things that you do if you're ackowledging a rebuilding season, at least if you're smart, which granted, our FO isn't. But you get what you can for players that you don't expect will be around, and we knew that Clements wouldn't be. They also didn't change very much else also indicative that they weren't rebuilding. Either way, you can't have it both ways, beleiving the team and its officials when it's convenient and not believing them stating that their reasons were for ulterior motives when they aren't. You either believe the crap that comes from OBD or you don't. They have no credibility left, so if you believe it then you'd be naive. And frankly, no, I don't think that it was obvious they were rebuilding. I think the facts painted the picture that they were not. Either way, to announce in year two of a new regime that you're rebuilding, it's a no-win situation for the team. If you are, then there are two choices; Either you weren't, but are, which means you're a moron and just cost your team a season which was wasted b/c you didn't know WTF you were doing. OR, you were and are basically announcing a mulligan or that what good teams do in a season during a rebuild is taking you two seasons to accomplish, still indicative that you didn't know WTF you were doing. It says little for those running this team. They don't know WTF they're doing.
Adam Posted July 6, 2008 Posted July 6, 2008 It says little for those running this team. They don't know WTF they're doing. Donahoe is the reason we are still rebuilding. Two years isn't nearly enough to recover from his disaster
Bill from NYC Posted July 6, 2008 Posted July 6, 2008 Donahoe is the reason we are still rebuilding. Two years isn't nearly enough to recover from his disaster If you think that Levy was much better, ask yourself why he couldn't get a job for about a decade.
LynchMob23 Posted July 6, 2008 Posted July 6, 2008 If you think that Levy was much better, ask yourself why he couldn't get a job for about a decade. Maybe because he was old as dirt (by his own admission) when he got the head coaching job and was 71? Same can be said for Dan Reeves and probably now Marty...
Bill from NYC Posted July 6, 2008 Posted July 6, 2008 Maybe because he was old as dirt (by his own admission) when he got the head coaching job and was 71? Same can be said for Dan Reeves and probably now Marty... Bill Parcells is soon to be 67. If you are good, you are good. When and if I have time, I want to start an in depth thread about Levy. He seems like a great guy, but.....
VOR Posted July 6, 2008 Posted July 6, 2008 Bill Parcells is soon to be 67. If you are good, you are good. When and if I have time, I want to start an in depth thread about Levy. He seems like a great guy, but..... It remains to be seen how good Parcells is as a GM. And he hasn't led a team to the SB since he was 55, or a SB win since he was 50.
Bill from NYC Posted July 6, 2008 Posted July 6, 2008 It remains to be seen how good Parcells is as a GM. And he hasn't led a team to the SB since he was 55, or a SB win since he was 50. We don't make the playoffs. We should do so before we start to critique Bill Parcells, or so I think.
VOR Posted July 6, 2008 Posted July 6, 2008 We don't make the playoffs. We should do so before we start to critique Bill Parcells, or so I think. Again the difference is between Parcells as a coach and Parcells as a GM. Until we see how Parcells fares as a GM, you can't even begin to compare him to Levy.
Bill from NYC Posted July 6, 2008 Posted July 6, 2008 Again the difference is between Parcells as a coach and Parcells as a GM. Until we see how Parcells fares as a GM, you can't even begin to compare him to Levy. Parcells is not a GM. He already was, and he brought teams to the playoffs.
VOR Posted July 6, 2008 Posted July 6, 2008 Parcells is not a GM. He already was, and he brought teams to the playoffs. The only year he was just a GM was in 2000 and the Jets didn't make the playoffs. Every other year, outside of 2001 and 2002 when he was out of the league, he's been a head coach, and one of the best. Although a lot of his major success, i.e. going deep into the playoffs and SB wins, were with Belichick as his DC. I'd be more concerned if he were coaching the Fins, but since he isn't, I'm not.
LynchMob23 Posted July 6, 2008 Posted July 6, 2008 I also think that Parcells also has gotten very far using a very, very conservative defense - something which guys like Levy (and now Jauron) have been lambasted for.
keepthefaith Posted July 7, 2008 Posted July 7, 2008 I also think that Parcells also has gotten very far using a very, very conservative defense - something which guys like Levy (and now Jauron) have been lambasted for. I wouldn't call his Giant's defenses in the '80's conservative. Big difference between Parcells and Jauron: Parcells, for every team he's coached has taken one with a losing record and turned it into a winner. That's 4 teams by my count. That's impressive.
krazykat Posted July 7, 2008 Posted July 7, 2008 I wouldn't call his Giant's defenses in the '80's conservative. Big difference between Parcells and Jauron: Parcells, for every team he's coached has taken one with a losing record and turned it into a winner. That's 4 teams by my count. That's impressive. If Parcells had been coaching the Bills during the '90s we would have Super Bowl trophies right now.
obie_wan Posted July 7, 2008 Posted July 7, 2008 If Parcells had been coaching the Bills during the '90s we would have Super Bowl trophies right now. We would have won at leawst one Super Bowl if Marv had replaced the useless Walt Corey. not sure if Marv was too loyal or just not savvy enough to know hoiw much better the D could have been using a more aggressive scheme to take advantage of the pass rushing of Bennett and Smith
krazykat Posted July 7, 2008 Posted July 7, 2008 We would have won at leawst one Super Bowl if Marv had replaced the useless Walt Corey. not sure if Marv was too loyal or just not savvy enough to know hoiw much better the D could have been using a more aggressive scheme to take advantage of the pass rushing of Bennett and Smith Marv underachieved with that collection of talent!
keepthefaith Posted July 7, 2008 Posted July 7, 2008 We would have won at leawst one Super Bowl if Marv had replaced the useless Walt Corey. not sure if Marv was too loyal or just not savvy enough to know hoiw much better the D could have been using a more aggressive scheme to take advantage of the pass rushing of Bennett and Smith So often head coaches choose the most familiar face to be a coodinator or position coach. Take Turk for example. How hard did Jauron search before finding him?
krazykat Posted July 8, 2008 Posted July 8, 2008 So often head coaches choose the most familiar face to be a coodinator or position coach. Take Turk for example. How hard did Jauron search before finding him? I think that our FO is about as FUBAR as they make 'em.
Pyrite Gal Posted July 8, 2008 Posted July 8, 2008 The FO does make some fairly questionable moves with alarming frequency, but for the most part it seems that they are making the moves to implement Mr. Wilson's strategy (whatever that may be since his goals seem to be hard to decipher at times). Overall though it is hard I think to objectively give a FUBAR judgment to an FO which has: 1. It really takes 3 years to accurately assess a draft, but the signs are so far so good on the first draft done by this FO under Marv's guidance (do you disagree? and if so what objective facts show this draft to be an abortion- it was a draft which produced significant PT by the rookies reflected in their getting a lot of starts- if one tries to argue the trueism that draftees can start on a bad team when it comes to the ultimate stat this team improved on a 5-11 record with a 7-9 record). In the first draft the FO simply oversaw a team which got better and their draft played a significant role in this result. The jury is still way out on the 2nd draft but they produced the same record with the team leading the NFL in players on the IR. Sure we all have a gosh given right to complain but given the objective facts it looks pretty irrational to complain about the first two drafts by this FO. 2. Another major responsibility of the FO is to manage the salary cap. IMHO the Bills seem to have paid beyond the what the market would have likely offered for a few players like Kelsay. However, the damage of these bad contracts in some cases simply points out that the salary cap dictated by the NFLPA as the majority partner in their operation with the team owners has simply created a cash cow which must be applied to salaries by rule, Even with the questionable contracts the Bills remain in position to resign Lee Evans to a sizable deal and to even payoff Jason Peters whose performance far outstrips what the Bills intelligently gave him to lock him up. Few would argue against the Bills have put themselves in a position where they have few prominent FAs to sign and players who show promise such as Pro Bowlers Peters, Schobel and even McGee are locked up. 3. One area which I think is open to legit complaint is the choices this FO (and most important its owner) has made in going after FAs. The Bills seem to have given an awful lot to get Dockery, Walker and journeyman Wittle and have not gone after some of the higher profile FAs at skill positions. Still rather than seeing this as beyond recognition the Bills are spending on the long neglected trenches and have forgone going after stars who would have generated bidding wars or older players who produced on the field but have questionable character issues. Overall, it seems pretty recognizable as being a team being built for an owner who throws nickels around like they are manhole covers. What are the objective reasons you have for complaining about the FO.
krazykat Posted July 8, 2008 Posted July 8, 2008 The FO does make some fairly questionable moves with alarming frequency, but for the most part it seems that they are making the moves to implement Mr. Wilson's strategy (whatever that may be since his goals seem to be hard to decipher at times). Overall though it is hard I think to objectively give a FUBAR judgment to an FO which has: 1. It really takes 3 years to accurately assess a draft, but the signs are so far so good on the first draft done by this FO under Marv's guidance (do you disagree? and if so what objective facts show this draft to be an abortion- it was a draft which produced significant PT by the rookies reflected in their getting a lot of starts- if one tries to argue the trueism that draftees can start on a bad team when it comes to the ultimate stat this team improved on a 5-11 record with a 7-9 record). In the first draft the FO simply oversaw a team which got better and their draft played a significant role in this result. The jury is still way out on the 2nd draft but they produced the same record with the team leading the NFL in players on the IR. Sure we all have a gosh given right to complain but given the objective facts it looks pretty irrational to complain about the first two drafts by this FO. 2. Another major responsibility of the FO is to manage the salary cap. IMHO the Bills seem to have paid beyond the what the market would have likely offered for a few players like Kelsay. However, the damage of these bad contracts in some cases simply points out that the salary cap dictated by the NFLPA as the majority partner in their operation with the team owners has simply created a cash cow which must be applied to salaries by rule, Even with the questionable contracts the Bills remain in position to resign Lee Evans to a sizable deal and to even payoff Jason Peters whose performance far outstrips what the Bills intelligently gave him to lock him up. Few would argue against the Bills have put themselves in a position where they have few prominent FAs to sign and players who show promise such as Pro Bowlers Peters, Schobel and even McGee are locked up. 3. One area which I think is open to legit complaint is the choices this FO (and most important its owner) has made in going after FAs. The Bills seem to have given an awful lot to get Dockery, Walker and journeyman Wittle and have not gone after some of the higher profile FAs at skill positions. Still rather than seeing this as beyond recognition the Bills are spending on the long neglected trenches and have forgone going after stars who would have generated bidding wars or older players who produced on the field but have questionable character issues. Overall, it seems pretty recognizable as being a team being built for an owner who throws nickels around like they are manhole covers. What are the objective reasons you have for complaining about the FO. 1. This FO has been conducting drafts and free agency since '01. It's the same personnel FO put there by Donahoe and no one new has changed anything significant about it. Modrak, Guy, and Majeski run the show and many of those under them have been there with them and they were put there by Donahoe. 2. That's kind of moot since the Bills don't really have many players at all worth much long term consideration. Schobel is on his back nine easily and if he doesn't rebound in a big way from last season's dip in performance, then the team will have to think about releasing him or restructuring him downward after just over a season since they gave him that enormous deal. I don't think that the Bills have done well at all w/ cap management from the angle of getting the most from their precious cap dollars. I think you're basically saying the same thing although it's unclear. They've held the team under the cap, but so what, we haven't won anything or come close, so if "cap management" is the goal in that regard, I suppose we win. I just don't view it that way. Teams have spent less than us with better results. 3. The Bills haven't gone after good value players. You're partially correct. There are FAs out there that play solid ball but just don't get the recognition. The Bills always seem to get guys with known issues. Langston Walker, regardless of what some say, is simply not good. Dockery was overrated and a "big fish in a small pond" last year and the entire league understands that we overpaid him. You need guys that play well A. together, and B. well against the better opponents. Schobel got far too much for one reason only, because the team overpaid Kelsay to more than Schobel was getting. That would have been fine if Schobel hadn't been in his back 9. Stupid otherwise and completely lacking any value. But once again, the team was caught with its pants down. Why, because of some unfortunate event? No, because they decided to drop trow. There are many people here that rant and rave over how some of our players play against teams that we should dominate but then completely ignore how they play against teams that are a challenge for us. We haven't adequately addressed the lines at all. Fowler isn't good at C and after this year we have a hole there. Where's the foresight and planning on this? This is just one more deja vu at C. Jason Peters was a fortunate outcome, not a seriously planned replacement. And interestingly he's our best lineman on either side and it can even be argued that he's our best player overall although that is arguable. Either way, when you UFAs and 7th rounders become your stars, what does that say? We haven't gotten value from most if not all of our highest draft picks under the guys picking them now for nearly a decade. What are the objective reasons you have for complaining about the FO. The above are some, but the fact that we haven't been competitive due to having a lack of talent overall and generally speaking on this team says all that anyone could want to know. If they were doing a good job than even an average coach would be doing more than has been done. If the talent is there, then the coaching is clearly an issue. It's obviously both, but at this point does it even matter. Let me swing this back your way; what are the objective reasons why you defend, if that's what you're doing, why you would defend otherwise, the FO?
eball Posted July 8, 2008 Posted July 8, 2008 1. This FO has been conducting drafts and free agency since '01. It's the same personnel FO put there by Donahoe and no one new has changed anything significant about it. Modrak, Guy, and Majeski run the show and many of those under them have been there with them and they were put there by Donahoe. 2. That's kind of moot since the Bills don't really have many players at all worth much long term consideration. Schobel is on his back nine easily and if he doesn't rebound in a big way from last season's dip in performance, then the team will have to think about releasing him or restructuring him downward after just over a season since they gave him that enormous deal. I don't think that the Bills have done well at all w/ cap management from the angle of getting the most from their precious cap dollars. I think you're basically saying the same thing although it's unclear. They've held the team under the cap, but so what, we haven't won anything or come close, so if "cap management" is the goal in that regard, I suppose we win. I just don't view it that way. Teams have spent less than us with better results. 3. The Bills haven't gone after good value players. You're partially correct. There are FAs out there that play solid ball but just don't get the recognition. The Bills always seem to get guys with known issues. Langston Walker, regardless of what some say, is simply not good. Dockery was overrated and a "big fish in a small pond" last year and the entire league understands that we overpaid him. You need guys that play well A. together, and B. well against the better opponents. Schobel got far too much for one reason only, because the team overpaid Kelsay to more than Schobel was getting. That would have been fine if Schobel hadn't been in his back 9. Stupid otherwise and completely lacking any value. But once again, the team was caught with its pants down. Why, because of some unfortunate event? No, because they decided to drop trow. There are many people here that rant and rave over how some of our players play against teams that we should dominate but then completely ignore how they play against teams that are a challenge for us. We haven't adequately addressed the lines at all. Fowler isn't good at C and after this year we have a hole there. Where's the foresight and planning on this? This is just one more deja vu at C. Jason Peters was a fortunate outcome, not a seriously planned replacement. And interestingly he's our best lineman on either side and it can even be argued that he's our best player overall although that is arguable. Either way, when you UFAs and 7th rounders become your stars, what does that say? We haven't gotten value from most if not all of our highest draft picks under the guys picking them now for nearly a decade. What are the objective reasons you have for complaining about the FO. The above are some, but the fact that we haven't been competitive due to having a lack of talent overall and generally speaking on this team says all that anyone could want to know. If they were doing a good job than even an average coach would be doing more than has been done. If the talent is there, then the coaching is clearly an issue. It's obviously both, but at this point does it even matter. Let me swing this back your way; what are the objective reasons why you defend, if that's what you're doing, why you would defend otherwise, the FO? Somebody save this post, 'cause I think krazykat is going to look pretty silly in six months or so.
Recommended Posts