Is the decision to fire Jauron out of Wilson's hands?

[Dan]

The irony is that Levy's first move was to talk to Mike Mularkey, decide he was the right coach to go ahead with, and to talk him into staying. Hours after that agreement, Mularkey decided to quit rather than be a lame duck head coach who had just fired part of his staff. Levy's second move was to hire Jauron after he'd lost the initiative. Once the new regime was in place their first decision was to declare the Bills were going with all-new offensive and defensive systems -- the "what's new" was the Mike Martz offense and the "what's cool" was the Tony Dungy defense. They proceeded to clean house under the pretense of cash-to-cap and instilling a winning atmosphere. The winning never happened; there may be more smiles on people's faces, but that doesn't actually correlate to winning. Which circles back to the irony of it. Going in, Mularkey and the systems he ran were judged to be "what the team needed to move forward". Soon thereafter, the team was being blown up.

See, there's the beauty of being a fan. We don't really know what happened nor what was discussed. Perhaps Marv talked Mularkey and said we'd like you to stay on while we blow up the whole team, draft new players and install new these schemes. To which, he said thanks, but no thanks.

 

Of course, there's also the possibility that Marv, in an effort to allow Mularkey to save some face and said you can resign or be fired - your choice. Being the respectable guy Marv is, he talked very highly of Mularkey publicly - oh he's great, we want him to stay, yada yada - but in reality they were moving on behind the scenes.

[Dawgg]

I'm not going to go back and look for articles, but I remember hearing a lot more about his maturity last year than his youth. When I heard him next to rookie, it was more along the lines of "he sure doesn't look like a rookie."

 

What do you say Dean? You happy with his play?

 

 

You're absolutely right.

 

Willis was an absolute machine last year and he locked DROY by midseason.

[Sisyphean Bills]

See, there's the beauty of being a fan. We don't really know what happened nor what was discussed. Perhaps Marv talked Mularkey and said we'd like you to stay on while we blow up the whole team, draft new players and install new these schemes. To which, he said thanks, but no thanks.

Marv going in to a new situation and telling people exactly how to do their jobs like an egomaniac would have been completely out of character for Marv. It's possible. It's also possible I'll win the lottery today.

Of course, there's also the possibility that Marv, in an effort to allow Mularkey to save some face and said you can resign or be fired - your choice. Being the respectable guy Marv is, he talked very highly of Mularkey publicly - oh he's great, we want him to stay, yada yada - but in reality they were moving on behind the scenes.

Yes, Marv and Ralph are well regarded as liars.

 

http://www.spotlightingnews.com/article.php?news=1817

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2289987

http://buffalo.bizjournals.com/buffalo/sto...fn&brthrs=1

 

You'll find the 3rd article interesting as Levy is quoted as wanting a "straight shooter". Odd for a guy masterminding conspiracies and distorting the truth.

[Dan]

Marv going in to a new situation and telling people exactly how to do their jobs like an egomaniac would have been completely out of character for Marv. It's possible. It's also possible I'll win the lottery today.

 

Yes, Marv and Ralph are well regarded as liars.

 

http://www.spotlightingnews.com/article.php?news=1817

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2289987

http://buffalo.bizjournals.com/buffalo/sto...fn&brthrs=1

 

You'll find the 3rd article interesting as Levy is quoted as wanting a "straight shooter". Odd for a guy masterminding conspiracies and distorting the truth.

I didn't mean to imply that he told Mularkey exactly how to do his job. However, it's entirely possible that he came in and said we're going to cut alot of these guys and draft young guys that have more upside; and we'd like to install a different defense. That's not an egomaniac, that's just coming in and changing things up.

 

 

I also never called Levy a liar. I simply said he may have allowed Mularkey to save face. It's called tact. No need to call a guy out, blame the team's failure on him, then fire him.

[Dawgg]

I also never called Levy a liar. I simply said he may have allowed Mularkey to save face. It's called tact. No need to call a guy out, blame the team's failure on him, then fire him.

 

If Mularkey had a choice, he would have waited to get fired. He had 2-3 years at $1+ million per year left on his contract. If the team fired him those salaries are guaranteed.

 

That's why Ralph decided to keep him. Ralph is too cheap to eat up a contract. But Mularkey ultimately felt that the situation was a bad working environment for him and voluntarily left money on the table.

[Dan]

If Mularkey had a choice, he would have waited to get fired. He had 2-3 years at $1+ million per year left on his contract. If the team fired him those salaries are guaranteed.

 

That's why Ralph decided to keep him. Ralph is too cheap to eat up a contract. But Mularkey ultimately felt that the situation was a bad working environment for him and voluntarily left money on the table.

Exactly. So it's highly likely that Marv wanted to replace Mularkey, but Ralph wouldn't let him fire him. So, Marv decided upon plan B - put him in a situation that he knows Mularkey doesn't (or won't) like; therefore, he quits. Of course, Marv isn't going to talk bad about him publicly; he'd say nothing but good things because Marv's a class guy.

 

I'm not saying this did happen. I'm just suggesting its a possibility.

[Sisyphean Bills]

I didn't mean to imply that he told Mularkey exactly how to do his job. However, it's entirely possible that he came in and said we're going to cut alot of these guys and draft young guys that have more upside; and we'd like to install a different defense. That's not an egomaniac, that's just coming in and changing things up.

 

I also never called Levy a liar. I simply said he may have allowed Mularkey to save face. It's called tact. No need to call a guy out, blame the team's failure on him, then fire him.

Let me rephrase my response. I think your arguments are absurd. But, I didn't say they weren't possible.

[Dan]

Let me rephrase my response. I think your arguments are absurd. But, I didn't say they weren't possible.

Glad you agree.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Glad you agree.

There's a possibility the Earth could explode tomorrow, too. Glad you agree.

 

Back to the original point, Dick Jauron was hired by Levy in reaction to Mularkey bailing out. Most of us where very critical of Mularkey for quitting at the time and there was a lot of people rushing to Ralph and Marv's defense. Mort and Mularkey were both kicked repeatedly by Bills fans.

 

Now at 6-6 and a mathematical chance to make the playoffs, Bills fans are freaking out. Everyone is on the hot seat including the owner. And not just fans, but a former player and employee, Thurman Thomas came out as a critic. Maybe there is a sense out there that this team is not on the rise, that it is not better than it was under Tom Donahoe. Maybe there is a fear that Mularkey and Mort were spot on -- that the way the Bills front office was reorganized was a recipe for fuggeduptitude and undermined chances of success.

[Dan]

There's a possibility the Earth could explode tomorrow, too. Glad you agree.

 

Back to the original point, Dick Jauron was hired by Levy in reaction to Mularkey bailing out. Most of us where very critical of Mularkey for quitting at the time and there was a lot of people rushing to Ralph and Marv's defense. Mort and Mularkey were both kicked repeatedly by Bills fans.

 

Now at 6-6 and a mathematical chance to make the playoffs, Bills fans are freaking out. Everyone is on the hot seat including the owner. And not just fans, but a former player and employee, Thurman Thomas came out as a critic. Maybe there is a sense out there that this team is not on the rise, that it is not better than it was under Tom Donahoe. Maybe there is a fear that Mularkey and Mort were spot on -- that the way the Bills front office was reorganized was a recipe for fuggeduptitude and undermined chances of success.

Agree? I think not. We all know full well the earth isn't due to explode for another 4 years and 2 weeks (give or take a few hours).

 

 

Most were critical of MM quitting? That implies a majority. As I recall, the majority were upset he wasn't fired and breathed a huge sigh of relief when he quit. I think the team and fanbase had had enough of MM and the way he lost the team. Maybe I'm wrong in my recollection, but I need to see some sort of evidence that the majority of people wanted MM to stay on and continue coaching the Bills.

 

Furthermore, there may be a sense by some that this team is not on the rise, but certainly not by all. TD had 5 years to do something. It was very apparent after 5 years that the team was not moving forward, but was in fact declining. I don't recall anyone, anyone, that wanted him around any longer. Nor do I know of anyone that thinks, 3 years later, that maybe we should have stayed with him. Please, point out those opinions.

 

Jauron may not be the coach to get us to the playoffs and may very well be fired at the end of the year, but there's little doubt that the team needed a new direction 3 years ago. Perhaps you, and a few others, don't like the direction the team has taken. But, I'd contend that although not all decisions by the FO have been good, some certainly have. To imply that Marv set up a dysfunctional FO and undermined the team's chance for success is something we'll never agree on.

[BillsVet]

Now at 6-6 and a mathematical chance to make the playoffs, Bills fans are freaking out. Everyone is on the hot seat including the owner. And not just fans, but a former player and employee, Thurman Thomas came out as a critic. Maybe there is a sense out there that this team is not on the rise, that it is not better than it was under Tom Donahoe. Maybe there is a fear that Mularkey and Mort were spot on -- that the way the Bills front office was reorganized was a recipe for fuggeduptitude and undermined chances of success.

 

I remember not long ago how the buzzword around here was "progress." People were falling all over themselves to talk up the team progress from 06 to 07. We couldn't look at the final record, many fans noted, because a host of players went onto IR in 07. We now know that as a garbage excuse, particularly when Baltimore loses 16 for the season who still wins. Not to mention they're playing a rookie QB and feature a rookie NFL HC.

 

NFL IR as of Week 14

 

This is a question probably better suited for an election, but are the Bills better off today than they were in 2005? If you consider the combined record of Buffalo's opponents this season is 54-90, I don't believe they are. And despite an easy schedule, 6-6 is all they are. It's no longer progress, it's regress and there remain no legitimate excuses for not making the playoffs this season.

 

I agree SB, Buffalo blew up the team unnecessarily. Letting veterans like Clements, Fletcher, and Milloy looked good on the balance sheet, but the effect on the field wouldn't be known for years.

[Dawgg]

Jauron may not be the coach to get us to the playoffs and may very well be fired at the end of the year, but there's little doubt that the team needed a new direction 3 years ago. Perhaps you, and a few others, don't like the direction the team has taken. But, I'd contend that although not all decisions by the FO have been good, some certainly have. To imply that Marv set up a dysfunctional FO and undermined the team's chance for success is something we'll never agree on.

 

Let's take a look at Marv's bad moves as GM.

 

1. Extending Chris Kelsay to a big money deal. If you think that was a good move, stop reading here. You are hopeless.

 

2. Extending Schobel with 3 years remaining on his deal. Now we have $50M in guarantees devoted to a DE corps in need of an upgrade.

 

3. Signing Peerless Price to a multi-year deal. He was clearly washed up. He was a bust in Atlanta. He was cut midseason by Dallas. We signed him to a multi-year deal at $2M per when he was worth the vet minimum.

 

4. Signing Triplett. He received a big, multi-million dollar deal and sucked.

 

5. Drafting McCargo and trading picks to get him. It was obviously a bad move then, moreso now.

 

6. Trading up to draft Poz. Gave up a high 3rd to move up 9 slots when he could have stayed put and taken David Harris. While Poz sells jerseys in Buffalo, he hasn't done much else and the price to get him was awfully steep.

 

7. Signing Derrick Dockery and Langston Walker to $100M in combined deals. Dockery wasn't even the best guard available that year in free agency, yet he was paid like the best -- Hutchinson and Steinbach received identical contracts, but they are WAY better.

 

8. Failing to get anything in return for Clements. He franchised Clements and could have traded him and gotten something in return, probably a 1st or 2nd round pick. Marv stayed put. The 49ers approached the Bills about a trade and the Bills refused to give them permission to speak with Nate... absolutely ludicrous to allow one of your most prized assets to walk away with no compensation in return.

 

Marv drafted Trent Edwards, which I still believe was a great, great pick. He also immediately got rid of Willis McGahee, realizing he was a punk -- VERY shrewd move.

 

But the negatives far outweigh the positives... and moves like this are typically grounds for a firing. Good GMs do not make mistakes like this.

[Dan]

I remember not long ago how the buzzword around here was "progress." People were falling all over themselves to talk up the team progress from 06 to 07. We couldn't look at the final record, many fans noted, because a host of players went onto IR in 07. We now know that as a garbage excuse, particularly when Baltimore loses 16 for the season who still wins. Not to mention they're playing a rookie QB and feature a rookie NFL HC.

 

NFL IR as of Week 14

 

This is a question probably better suited for an election, but are the Bills better off today than they were in 2005? If you consider the combined record of Buffalo's opponents this season is 54-90, I don't believe they are. And despite an easy schedule, 6-6 is all they are. It's no longer progress, it's regress and there remain no legitimate excuses for not making the playoffs this season.

 

I agree SB, Buffalo blew up the team unnecessarily. Letting veterans like Clements, Fletcher, and Milloy looked good on the balance sheet, but the effect on the field wouldn't be known for years.

Some good points. But, the question is... why are we 6-6, this year? Are we really truly worse off or are we just struggling due to some young players and coaches. I think we can place the blame in many places this season. But, we can certainly attribute several losses to the poor play of our young QB, bad head coaching, poor play calling by a rookie OC, and defensive lapses.

 

Does that make us a bad team, worse off than we were 5 years ago or are we a just young team struggling to find our identity? Perhaps interesting to see a new thread with that as an initial poll.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Most were critical of MM quitting?

Yes, many called him a sackless pu5sy for quitting on his team. You conflate that with the notion that many were unimpressed with how he coached the team and wanted him gone. In fact there is no conflict at all in fans that wanted him gone and who also felt he was a pu5sy who quit on his team. A few posters, GG to name one, defended the unpopular view. Namely, that MM might have been nothing but correct to walk away from a dysfunctional situation and that he would rise again in a different, better organization.

That implies a majority. As I recall, the majority were upset he wasn't fired and breathed a huge sigh of relief when he quit. I think the team and fanbase had had enough of MM and the way he lost the team. Maybe I'm wrong in my recollection, but I need to see some sort of evidence that the majority of people wanted MM to stay on and continue coaching the Bills.

 

Furthermore, there may be a sense by some that this team is not on the rise, but certainly not by all. TD had 5 years to do something. It was very apparent after 5 years that the team was not moving forward, but was in fact declining. I don't recall anyone, anyone, that wanted him around any longer.

I do. Our fearless moderator, Simon was one who said Ralph was an idiot to get rid of Donahoe and that Donahoe was doing as good a job as he could under the circumstances. Oddly, Chris Mortensen's take on it was essentially the same.

Nor do I know of anyone that thinks, 3 years later, that maybe we should have stayed with him. Please, point out those opinions.

 

Jauron may not be the coach to get us to the playoffs and may very well be fired at the end of the year, but there's little doubt that the team needed a new direction 3 years ago. Perhaps you, and a few others, don't like the direction the team has taken.

Have you been on this board in the past 3 weeks much? I dare say there is more than a few fans that aren't happy with the direction of this team. But, it's nice to know that Thurman Thomas and Jim Kelly are in our camp of less-than-satisfied customers.

But, I'd contend that although not all decisions by the FO have been good, some certainly have. To imply that Marv set up a dysfunctional FO and undermined the team's chance for success is something we'll never agree on.

I never said Marv set up a dysfunctional front office. Wilson dumped Donahoe and in trying to figure out what to do next he called Marv. Then he asked Marv to help him out and try to get the organization back on a winning track and Marv agreed to be his "personnel GM". Yes, it would certainly be idiotic to assume that Marv masterminded a conspiracy behind the scenes with Ralph Wilson to can Donahoe and get himself established as GM so he could orchestrate Mularkey into a position where he would, according to the fortune teller's crystal ball, quit and could then proceed to blow up the team.

[Dan]

Let's take a look at Marv's bad moves as GM.

 

1. Extending Chris Kelsay to a big money deal. If you think that was a good move, stop reading here. You are hopeless.

 

2. Extending Schobel with 3 years remaining on his deal. Now we have $50M in guarantees devoted to a DE corps in need of an upgrade.

 

3. Signing Peerless Price to a multi-year deal. He was clearly washed up. He was a bust in Atlanta. He was cut midseason by Dallas. We signed him to a multi-year deal at $2M per when he was worth the vet minimum.

 

4. Signing Triplett. He received a big, multi-million dollar deal and sucked.

 

5. Drafting McCargo and trading picks to get him. It was obviously a bad move then, moreso now.

 

6. Trading up to draft Poz. Gave up a high 3rd to move up 9 slots when he could have stayed put and taken David Harris. While Poz sells jerseys in Buffalo, he hasn't done much else and the price to get him was awfully steep.

 

7. Signing Derrick Dockery and Langston Walker to $100M in combined deals. Dockery wasn't even the best guard available that year in free agency, yet he was paid like the best -- Hutchinson and Steinbach received identical contracts, but they are WAY better.

 

8. Failing to get anything in return for Clements. He franchised Clements and could have traded him and gotten something in return, probably a 1st or 2nd round pick. Marv stayed put. The 49ers approached the Bills about a trade and the Bills refused to give them permission to speak with Nate... absolutely ludicrous to allow one of your most prized assets to walk away with no compensation in return.

 

Marv drafted Trent Edwards, which I still believe was a great, great pick. He also immediately got rid of Willis McGahee, realizing he was a punk -- VERY shrewd move.

 

But the negatives far outweigh the positives... and moves like this are typically grounds for a firing. Good GMs do not make mistakes like this.

The problem with #1-4 is that none of those deals have prevented the team from signing other players. They may be bad moves in that the players themselves suck, but that should be separated from their salaries. Giving Price $2mill/yr is next to nothing and in no way hurt the team financially. Not to mention, he was critical to our offense at the time. Perhaps you wanted a different player, but that's a different arguement. The same can be said for Kelsay and Schobel. Both are good DEs. Are they worth their salaries? That's another question and largely irrelevant considering the Bills are no where near the cap limit.

 

I've mentioned this in other posts, but if you dislike the players - fine. But, show some better players that the Bills could have brought in to replace them. Forget the salaries. Ralph has shown he's willing to play for players.

 

Similarly for the offensive line. We all hear the tired line that the FO has neglected the Oline. That's complete fallacy and myth. They've spent incrdibly on the Oline over the last few years. Yes, you and others dislike their signings. But to simply suggest that Hutchinson would have been better, simply ignores the dynamics that are involved with FA acquisitions. Maybe they went after him, but he turned them down ala that TE from KC? Is it the FO's fault that Gonzalez wasn't signed this season? No. They offered exactly what his agent wanted. But, the player voided the deal. Can you be so certain that no other FAs have done the same thing? I can't.

 

So were better guards than Dockery available? Perhaps. Did Marv et al. do what it takes to get one of the best into Buffalo? Yes. Same with Stroud this season. Funny how no one mentions that as a good move by the FO.

 

Regarding Poz... are you calling him a bust after starting 15 games in his career? Lets be clear. The Bills needed a MLB, they got arguably the 2nd best one in the draft. They couldn't have drafted Willis if they wanted, he was gone. So to argue all the trade ups and downs and what not is a lessen in futility. No one knows if he would have been available had they waited.

 

McCargo appears to be a bust. I agree. No one said the FO was perfect. Similarly the situation with Clements could have been handled differently. However, we don't know the details of all the discussions. So it's hard to understand the motives behind Marv's decision. But, ok lets go with it. That's 2 mistakes. Hardly enough to say the negatives are far out weighing the positives (Edwards, Lynch, Poz, Jackson, Stroud, Whitner, Williams, Mitchell to

name a few).

 

I'm not going to say the FO has done a perfect job. But, I will contend that the team is in much better shape than it was 3 years ago. Most people, such as yourself, use anything possible to point out the negative, but readily forget all the positive that's occurred - all the while ignoring pertinent facts to help sway your cause for dislike of the FO. Not everything they've done is great, but certainly it's not all nearly as bad as you suggest.

[Dan]

Yes, many called him a sackless pu5sy for quitting on his team. You conflate that with the notion that many were unimpressed with how he coached the team and wanted him gone. In fact there is no conflict at all in fans that wanted him gone and who also felt he was a pu5sy who quit on his team. A few posters, GG to name one, defended the unpopular view. Namely, that MM might have been nothing but correct to walk away from a dysfunctional situation and that he would rise again in a different, better organization.

My point, sorry if I didn't make it clear enough, was that most people wanted MM gone. Whether he quit or was fired is largely immaterial, in my mind. Perhaps for us fans it's seen as a sackless move. But, I'd wager that in the professional world it allowed him to save face leaving on his own terms.

 

And how's that working so far? He's eventually made his way back to being a decent OC.

 

I do. Our fearless moderator, Simon was one who said Ralph was an idiot to get rid of Donahoe and that Donahoe was doing as good a job as he could under the circumstances. Oddly, Chris Mortensen's take on it was essentially the same.

I still contend that this is the minority opinion.

 

Have you been on this board in the past 3 weeks much? I dare say there is more than a few fans that aren't happy with the direction of this team. But, it's nice to know that Thurman Thomas and Jim Kelly are in our camp of less-than-satisfied customers.

For better or worse, I'm on this board daily (have been for years). Granted I think I've posted less in the last few weeks. I think a poll is in order.

 

I never said Marv set up a dysfunctional front office. Wilson dumped Donahoe and in trying to figure out what to do next he called Marv. Then he asked Marv to help him out and try to get the organization back on a winning track and Marv agreed to be his "personnel GM". Yes, it would certainly be idiotic to assume that Marv masterminded a conspiracy behind the scenes with Ralph Wilson to can Donahoe and get himself established as GM so he could orchestrate Mularkey into a position where he would, according to the fortune teller's crystal ball, quit and could then proceed to blow up the team.

Sorry, but if this is what you read in my response; then we're just not communicating properly. That's about all I can say about that.

[spartacus]

Did Willis miss his first year?

 

no - but he wasn't injury prone in college either.

[Dawgg]

The problem with #1-4 is that none of those deals have prevented the team from signing other players. They may be bad moves in that the players themselves suck, but that should be separated from their salaries. Giving Price $2mill/yr is next to nothing and in no way hurt the team financially. Not to mention, he was critical to our offense at the time. Perhaps you wanted a different player, but that's a different arguement. The same can be said for Kelsay and Schobel. Both are good DEs. Are they worth their salaries? That's another question and largely irrelevant considering the Bills are no where near the cap limit.

You are dead wrong here. The salaries given to the players is VERY relevant to the discussion. Contrary to what you say, it's the salary cap that is irrelevant. The Bills are a small market team. They have limited resources. They will never spend to the point where they're up against the cap, as the Redskins and Cowboys do year after year. Because of this, salaries are of extreme importance to a team like the Bills. If the Bills overpay someone whose production does not match that pay it absolutely prevents them from signing other players.

 

Kelsay is not a good defensive end, I'm sorry to say. If you actually think he is a good defensive end, you must not be watching the games. He is dreadful.

 

Schobel is an excellent Defensive End, but was signing him to an extension with 3 years remaining on his deal a good move? Particularly when he's pushing 30? Absolutely not. They didn't have to do it, they had all the leverage, but were forced to do it because of the ridiculous contract they awarded to high-motor Kelsay. Absolutely inexcusable.

 

Ralph has shown he's willing to play for players.

This I absolutely agree with. Ralph is willing to spend and spend big. Unfortunately, the front office staff he has entrusted with his money has made serious errors in judgement.

 

Similarly for the offensive line. We all hear the tired line that the FO has neglected the Oline. That's complete fallacy and myth. They've spent incrdibly on the Oline over the last few years. Yes, you and others dislike their signings. But to simply suggest that Hutchinson would have been better, simply ignores the dynamics that are involved with FA acquisitions. Maybe they went after him, but he turned them down ala that TE from KC?

Throwing money at a problem doesn't always make it go away. Paying Dockery like one of the top guards in football will not turn him into one of the best guards in football. He's not even a top 12 guard right now, but is paid like one. That's a big, big problem. It's kind of like being at the bar, on your fourth beer... and all of a sudden the girl sitting across from you goes from a 4 to a 9. It's the beer goggles talking, buddy And thanks, but I understand how free agency works. If they couldn't get the top guards in football, that in no way means they should overpay for an average guard. Teams like the Patriots would never do that. They assess a value on a player and if they can't get him for the value they perceive, they move on. The Pats are 9-0 against the Bills in the past 9 meetings. You do the math.

 

Instead of drafting McCargo, they could have taken Mangold or Davin Joseph, 2 great interior line prospects who already have playoff games under their belt. While the Bills traded away 3rd round picks in the 2006 draft to pacify their annual hard-on for moving up, Green Bay stayed put picked up both of their starting guards in that draft. Again, it's the difference between a front office that gets it and one that doesn't. The Jets, Packers, and Bucs have made the playoffs since then. The results speak for themselves.

 

So were better guards than Dockery available? Perhaps. Did Marv et al. do what it takes to get one of the best into Buffalo? Yes.

Again, your beer goggles are doing the talking. Dockery is not even close to Steinbach or Hutch. Yet they gave him the same contract. That's the sign of a front office that doesn't know what it is doing. And you wonder why the Bills continue to suck?

 

Same with Stroud this season. Funny how no one mentions that as a good move by the FO.

Stroud was a pretty solid move. Definite upgrade over what we have and they didn't overpay for him. But I was referring to moves while Marv was GM. This was a move made after Marv left.

 

Regarding Poz... are you calling him a bust after starting 15 games in his career? Lets be clear. The Bills needed a MLB, they got arguably the 2nd best one in the draft. They couldn't have drafted Willis if they wanted, he was gone. So to argue all the trade ups and downs and what not is a lessen in futility. No one knows if he would have been available had they waited.

Poz is not a bust. But they overpaid for him. A high 2nd and a high 3rd is a steep price to pay for a team with many needs. Had they stayed put and Poz was taken by some other team, they could have taken David Harris, who is very comparable. Again, the Bills have traded up or tried to trade up every single year for the past 4 years. Look at good front offices with a history of success and you notice that they don't exhibit this type of pattern.

 

I'm not going to say the FO has done a perfect job. But, I will contend that the team is in much better shape than it was 3 years ago. Most people, such as yourself, use anything possible to point out the negative, but readily forget all the positive that's occurred - all the while ignoring pertinent facts to help sway your cause for dislike of the FO. Not everything they've done is great, but certainly it's not all nearly as bad as you suggest.

This team is better off than it was 3 years ago because it has the QB of the future on board: Trent Edwards. That's the only positive.

Aside from that, the defense is not improved. The offense is still abysmal. Special teams have stayed the course. The team still has difficulty defeating teams with a winning record. Nothing has changed. Take off the beer goggles, Dan.

[The Dean]

I'm not going to go back and look for articles, but I remember hearing a lot more about his maturity last year than his youth. When I heard him next to rookie, it was more along the lines of "he sure doesn't look like a rookie."

 

What do you say Dean? You happy with his play?

 

 

With Poz's play? Overall, absolutely.

[Dan]

You are dead wrong here. The salaries given to the players is VERY relevant to the discussion. Contrary to what you say, it's the salary cap that is irrelevant. The Bills are a small market team. They have limited resources. They will never spend to the point where they're up against the cap, as the Redskins and Cowboys do year after year. Because of this, salaries are of extreme importance to a team like the Bills. If the Bills overpay someone whose production does not match that pay it absolutely prevents them from signing other players.

 

Kelsay is not a good defensive end, I'm sorry to say. If you actually think he is a good defensive end, you must not be watching the games. He is dreadful.

 

Schobel is an excellent Defensive End, but was signing him to an extension with 3 years remaining on his deal a good move? Particularly when he's pushing 30? Absolutely not. They didn't have to do it, they had all the leverage, but were forced to do it because of the ridiculous contract they awarded to high-motor Kelsay. Absolutely inexcusable.

 

 

 

This I absolutely agree with. Ralph is willing to spend and spend big. Unfortunately, the front office staff he has entrusted with his money has made serious errors in judgement.

 

 

 

Throwing money at a problem doesn't always make it go away. Paying Dockery like one of the top guards in football will not turn him into one of the best guards in football. He's not even a top 12 guard right now, but is paid like one. That's a big, big problem. It's kind of like being at the bar, on your fourth beer... and all of a sudden the girl sitting across from you goes from a 4 to a 9. It's the beer goggles talking, buddy And thanks, but I understand how free agency works. If they couldn't get the top guards in football, that in no way means they should overpay for an average guard. Teams like the Patriots would never do that. They assess a value on a player and if they can't get him for the value they perceive, they move on. The Pats are 9-0 against the Bills in the past 9 meetings. You do the math.

 

Instead of drafting McCargo, they could have taken Mangold or Davin Joseph, 2 great interior line prospects who already have playoff games under their belt. While the Bills traded away 3rd round picks in the 2006 draft to pacify their annual hard-on for moving up, Green Bay stayed put picked up both of their starting guards in that draft. Again, it's the difference between a front office that gets it and one that doesn't. The Jets, Packers, and Bucs have made the playoffs since then. The results speak for themselves.

 

 

 

Again, your beer goggles are doing the talking. Dockery is not even close to Steinbach or Hutch. Yet they gave him the same contract. That's the sign of a front office that doesn't know what it is doing. And you wonder why the Bills continue to suck?

 

 

 

Stroud was a pretty solid move. Definite upgrade over what we have and they didn't overpay for him. But I was referring to moves while Marv was GM. This was a move made after Marv left.

 

 

 

Poz is not a bust. But they overpaid for him. A high 2nd and a high 3rd is a steep price to pay for a team with many needs. Had they stayed put and Poz was taken by some other team, they could have taken David Harris, who is very comparable. Again, the Bills have traded up or tried to trade up every single year for the past 4 years. Look at good front offices with a history of success and you notice that they don't exhibit this type of pattern.

 

 

 

This team is better off than it was 3 years ago because it has the QB of the future on board: Trent Edwards. That's the only positive.

 

Aside from that, the defense is not improved. The offense is still abysmal. Special teams have stayed the course. The team still has difficulty defeating teams with a winning record. Nothing has changed. Take off the beer goggles, Dan.

Well, I'll certainly admit to wearing beer (or Bills) goggles. I can't help it.

 

Regarding the salaries... name one player the FO didn't sign because of money restrictions (minus Nate, perhaps). Despite all the talk of cash 2 cap, they seem to get who they go after. Granted, we can argue about who they're going after, but lack of money doesn't appear to be a deal beaker in any of their discussions.

 

Dockery, for all I remember, was one of the top 3 FA Guards that year. It was debatable what their order was (although few would argue he was the #1 FA). If the Bills hadn't' paid him top dollar, almost certainly someone else would have. I, agree, the Bills probably overpaid for him. But, not many players are coming to Buffalo at a discount. Like it or not, we're not the Pats*. They can name a price and often a lower price and players will go because they know they're playing for a Super Bowl contender. So the Bills almost certainly have to over pay a little.

 

The problem I have with so many of the knocks on Kelsay is that he gets zero credit for the good plays he makes. Is he the best DE? Is he above average? No. But, is he solid? Yes. He makes just about as many good plays as bad, IMO. But, of course, this ship has sailed. Too many people have decided he sucks ass and will never acknowledge when he has a good play or game.

 

I'll agree completely with the McCargo paragraph. I would have much rather had Mangold that year. But, like I said, the FO isn't perfect.

 

Poz, I disagree with. He seems to be the player they wanted and needed. Why not get him? I just don't buy into all this draft talk of value and such. You do realize Poz has almost twice the number of tackles as Harris this year, right? What makes shim so much better?

 

I, too, agree the team is better off now. Although, I'm not ready to sau its because of Trent. If anything, he's regressed and still has a lot to prove. I's say we're better off because we're full of young talent that's steadily improving at almost every critical position - QB, RB, LT, WR, LB, DB. Are there still problems? Yes. But, what gives me confidence is that each offseason the FO has addressed the team's needs. We needed Oline help - they signed FAs. We needed Dline help - the signed Stroud. We needed LB - they got Poz, now Mitchell. We needed a RB - Lynch. And so on. I rarely saw that with TD.