Griswold Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 I hear what he's saying. But he ignores the aspect that it's a two way relationship between the team and player. Yes, as a team you cannot let being miffed interfere with your personnel decisions. On the other hand, if you're a GM you can't let players who are miffed at the team, have their way either. Even if you are miffed, that doesn't mean you are wrong. You just have to be careful that you miff-ism doesn't cloud your decision process. Also.. Common thread I see in Felser's examples of Bills being miffed at players: The Bills weren't miffed, they were UNCERTAIN. The players had uncertain futures. In the future: they may be good, or they may suck. These are all players entering the second phase (or maybe final) of their career and their future success is uncertain in relation to the high dollars they negotiate. Jason Peters.. he "might" be successful in Philly, but given bucks he wanted, not sure he would have produced in Bflo Angelo Crowell.. surprise surgery: was it disloyalty, or just poor mgmt of personal life. Either way = unreliable. Pat Williams.. OK, maybe the Bills dropped this one Antoine Winfield.. Reliable or mercenary? He's holding out in the final year of Vikes contract Jim Leonhard.. his future success was hardly a slam dunk; but good for him that he was Roscoe Parrish.. actually, I think RP is victim of roster excess in this position The Bills were not miffed. They offered, or didn't offer, contracts that accounted for their confidence in the players future production.
Orton's Arm Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 I hear what he's saying. But he ignores the aspect that it's a two way relationship between the team and player. Yes, as a team you cannot let being miffed interfere with your personnel decisions. On the other hand, if you're a GM you can't let players who are miffed at the team, have their way either. Even if you are miffed, that doesn't mean you are wrong. You just have to be careful that you miff-ism doesn't cloud your decision process. Also.. Common thread I see in Felser's examples of Bills being miffed at players: The Bills weren't miffed, they were UNCERTAIN. The players had uncertain futures. In the future: they may be good, or they may suck. These are all players entering the second phase (or maybe final) of their career and their future success is uncertain in relation to the high dollars they negotiate. Jason Peters.. he "might" be successful in Philly, but given bucks he wanted, not sure he would have produced in Bflo Angelo Crowell.. surprise surgery: was it disloyalty, or just poor mgmt of personal life. Either way = unreliable. Pat Williams.. OK, maybe the Bills dropped this one Antoine Winfield.. Reliable or mercenary? He's holding out in the final year of Vikes contract Jim Leonhard.. his future success was hardly a slam dunk; but good for him that he was Roscoe Parrish.. actually, I think RP is victim of roster excess in this position The Bills were not miffed. They offered, or didn't offer, contracts that accounted for their confidence in the players future production. I agree with most of your post, but strongly disagree with the part relating to Winfield. The Bills used a first round pick on him. He worked out very well. Instead of re-signing him, they let him walk in free agency. Then used a first round pick on his replacement, whom they also let walk after his first contract. There's no excuse for any of that. The fact that Antoine Winfield wants to maximize his salary does not make him any more mercenary than most other NFL players.
Jeffery Lester Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 Larry Felser sure sounds like an un-informed hack with this article. Peters held out of the whole training camp last year not part of it. He was offered a contract similar to the one he signed in Philly but refused to accept it. Buffalo had no choice but to trade him. Angelo Crowell made a terrible professional decision last year. Probably a good personal decison in regards to his long term health. Not a good professional decision. Roscoe Parrish is still a member of the Bills and will be this season, I have not heard one bad word from management or the coaches about him being a negative. In regards to Antoine Winfield, he has been replace twice already. Greer and now Leodis, Antoine is good maybe the best tackling CB in the league, but easily replaced. Pat Williams is a seperate story all together, a huge huge huge mistake by the Donahoe regime. He has not been replaced yet.
vincec Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 The Bills have consistently lost their best players, for one reason or another, over the last 10 years. You can't always be rebuilding and expect to win and the Bills haven't. Some of this is the result of the Bills being "miffed", some due to cheapness and some to incompetence. Whatever the reason, the Bills are basically becoming a farm team for the rest of the league.
spartacus Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 I hear what he's saying. But he ignores the aspect that it's a two way relationship between the team and player. Yes, as a team you cannot let being miffed interfere with your personnel decisions. On the other hand, if you're a GM you can't let players who are miffed at the team, have their way either. Even if you are miffed, that doesn't mean you are wrong. You just have to be careful that you miff-ism doesn't cloud your decision process. Also.. Common thread I see in Felser's examples of Bills being miffed at players: The Bills weren't miffed, they were UNCERTAIN. The players had uncertain futures. In the future: they may be good, or they may suck. These are all players entering the second phase (or maybe final) of their career and their future success is uncertain in relation to the high dollars they negotiate. Jason Peters.. he "might" be successful in Philly, but given bucks he wanted, not sure he would have produced in Bflo Angelo Crowell.. surprise surgery: was it disloyalty, or just poor mgmt of personal life. Either way = unreliable. Pat Williams.. OK, maybe the Bills dropped this one Antoine Winfield.. Reliable or mercenary? He's holding out in the final year of Vikes contract Jim Leonhard.. his future success was hardly a slam dunk; but good for him that he was Roscoe Parrish.. actually, I think RP is victim of roster excess in this position The Bills were not miffed. They offered, or didn't offer, contracts that accounted for their confidence in the players future production. Felser is right When the Bills get a bug up their butt because a player does not toe the company line, they ship him out almost always for far less than fair market value in return - (if they get anything at all) and that is the crux of the problem - the Bills lose elite talent and continuously spending premium picks and big free agent money to just get back to even. they are not ADDING talent to improve the team The whole Peters mess was caused by Brandon absolutely refusing to re-do Peters contract in 2008. IF Brandon had even offered the possiblity of a new deal in Jan 2008 to Peters, the situation likely would not escalated as it did to no win one for the Bills.
BillsVet Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 Larry Felser sure sounds like an un-informed hack with this article. Larry Felser, because you don't know, has covered the Bills since Day 1. His opinion is extremely valuable, and here his examples demonstrate a growing trend at OBD: uncertainty and knee-jerk reactions. There is no rhyme nor reason to Buffalo's personnel management and direction of the franchise. Because there is no bona-fide GM holding things together, transactions are made which seem random and unorthodox. Felser is simply pointing out that when Buffalo is faced with a difficult situation, they aren't clear on how to handle it and go with the nuclear option. I would agree.
Original Byrd Man Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 Felser is right When the Bills get a bug up their butt because a player does not toe the company line, they ship him out almost always for far less than fair market value in return - (if they get anything at all) and that is the crux of the problem - the Bills lose elite talent and continuously spending premium picks and big free agent money to just get back to even. they are not ADDING talent to improve the team The whole Peters mess was caused by Brandon absolutely refusing to re-do Peters contract in 2008. IF Brandon had even offered the possiblity of a new deal in Jan 2008 to Peters, the situation likely would not escalated as it did to no win one for the Bills. Not overspending is a classic mode of operation for the Pats. The big difference is they are able to acquire more in trades due to their success. "Players that play for them must be very good for them to be so successful" is the logic of the trading partners. I still wish Crow were on the field on opening day and I don't want RP to go anywhere. That being said as for the rest of the departed, with the exception of PW I can't say I truly miss any of them. Although the jury is out on JP. This one may come back to haunt us for years to come I'm afraid.
The Dean Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 I have always like Felser, but I don't agree with everything he writes. In this case, I think he's mostly right about some of the Bills past mistakes. I have a question and a comment. What makes Felser think the Bills are miffed at Parrish? It's the crux of the article, really, but he doesn't get to why he believes Parrish is in the dog house. And, to Griswold, Winfield missing VOLUNTARY workouts does not constitute a holdout.
toddgurley Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 I agree with most of your post, but strongly disagree with the part relating to Winfield. The Bills used a first round pick on him. He worked out very well. Instead of re-signing him, they let him walk in free agency. Then used a first round pick on his replacement, whom they also let walk after his first contract. There's no excuse for any of that. The fact that Antoine Winfield wants to maximize his salary does not make him any more mercenary than most other NFL players. who was winfields repalcement? You said we used a 1st rd pick on his replacement, and then let him walk? Who, because Nate clements was not winfields replacment-so who was?
ganesh Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 Interestingly, Felser picked the players in the current team who have had disputes with the team....This is a way too one-sided editorial. Sure the Bills could have re-signed Peters if they chose to. The question was if Peters wanted to really sign a contract and be aware of the small-market nature of buffalo. Crowell showed a lack of respect for his team when he suddenly chose to opt for the surgery. Sure, everyone needs to do what is in their best interest, but football is the ultimate team game and requires everyone on the team to be aware of it. By doing what he did, he put the Bills suddenly in a huge hole in its LB corps. What do you expect the Bills to do ? Larry is way off the target...Teams release players for different reasons...Even the big Belichek let go of Lawyer Milloy only to see him and the Bills beat up the Pats 31-0....However the Pats had their last laugh when they went on to win the SB. Also including Pat Williams or Winfield in the equation is stupid....It had nothing to do with this regime.
ganesh Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 What makes Felser think the Bills are miffed at Parrish? It's the crux of the article, really, but he doesn't get to why he believes Parrish is in the dog house. You nailed it....I thought Larry was going to say something interesting about Parrish.....Yawn
BADOLBILZ Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 Kudos to Felser for writing an article that dumbs down this blatantly obvious point so the average talk-show-calling fan can at least try to understand it. Which, sadly, is the level that about 90% of the people who post here are at. If you are somehow trying to defend the Bills front office on this, you are probably in that group because the numbers don't lie. Bad personnel moves = losing. And personnel does include coaches. But what nobody has pointed out is the last part of the article, the adage about hanging on to a player until someone better comes along. That is a big part of personnel management at most SUCCESSFUL companies, not just a football team. Sometimes you have to stick with a pain-in-the-asss employee, and even overpay them or coddle them if you have to in order to ensure the success of your company. I would venture a guess that some of you are that type of employee. You might not even realize it. Maybe you spend half your time online surfing at work or you complain about the people you have to work with or the equipment you have to use, but the company puts up with you because you provide some service that they have a hard time replacing or takes a lot of training to do. Then, out of the blue one day you are surprisingly fired when the company feels they have a replacement or no longer need that service. That's how it has to be done sometimes to ensure success. The Bills..........hell, they would just fire you, let the company take big losses and then try to rationalize it to stockholders. Something tells me if wins were dollars, and fans were stockholders, things might be different. I have a small company with about 20 full time people and half of them think the company can't go on without them and are utter pains in the asss like Jason Peters and don't seem to realize it, but it is mostly tolerated because the goal is company success(winning?), not employee domination. If you want to succeed, you learn to handle people like that and minimize the damage they do. If I had a nickel for everytime some outsider asked me why I put up with such and such employee seeming totally oblivious to the fact that it's working. The Bills aren't truly a win-first organization, and ultimately that keeps setting them back. I mean, seriously, in the long run who cares if you have to swallow your pride once in a while or be "miffed". Winning makes you forget less important things. Hopefully, one day the Bills will learn that. On a related note, perhaps Russ would be better served if he did just two things, final "yes and no" on personnel moves and dealing with season ticket holders, suite holders etc.. Then, he would understand what it's really like to run a business and perhaps show a little more common sense and restraint when dealing with players. Customer relations is high maintenance work and might give him more perspective on the business of dealing with people and their different personalities. Simplistic, but that's the point.
Lurker Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 I agree with most of your post, but strongly disagree with the part relating to Winfield. The Bills used a first round pick on him. He worked out very well. Instead of re-signing him, they let him walk in free agency. Then used a first round pick on his replacement, whom they also let walk after his first contract. There's no excuse for any of that. The fact that Antoine Winfield wants to maximize his salary does not make him any more mercenary than most other NFL players. Nor does the fact the Bills didn't want to pay the 'going rate' for free agent CB mean they were miffed. Felser didn't eat his wheaties on this column, I'm afraid.
offde-fence Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 Whatever the reason, the Bills are basically becoming a farm team for the rest of the league. That's a good one. Well, I'd say it goes both ways. He didn't mention players we got rid of and gained in so doing: McGahee comes to mind. There're probably more. In the instances he mentioned, I would've done the same thing on those occasions except Crowell, Pat Williams, and Winfield. I'd also keep Roscoe around until I could be certain - through game experience - that he's not a better weapon on offense than we see him as in his past limited role. On a whole, it looks to me like there is a certain culture a H.C. or G.M. brings to a team, that includes winning and losing, and building strong rosters. If a player is on a team that year in and out brings in upgrades at various positions, so that every players security is based on achievement through competition, then there isn't a lot of room for holding out, because they know they can be replaced; and, if that team is consistently good, the overall talent on a team can make one player seem better than he is, on account of the talent around him. Such teams, I think, while they remain strong, can keep players around a lot easier on account of the players knowing their value to other teams is higher for them being where they are. On the Bills, good talent can go overlooked, and a guy who is exceptional can look at the management and feel he holds a superior position, because they've got no one to take his place. So, it's either pay me, or pay the consequences. In that scenerio, the player wins because the team will lose talent, but the player stands the chance to go to a better team and maybe win a SB, or gain much more name recognition - and then there's post season pay. So, a team that builds good rosters and plays good consistently has less to lose from these type situations. That's how I see it. Next year we can look at the Patriots and see how they deal with their many up and coming contract situations. Do they continue to find a way to be solid?
BillsWatch Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 Now you see why Felser does editorials not articles now - he is not willing to go through the effort he would make earlier in his career to do actual journalism.
2003Contenders Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 Larry Felser, because you don't know, has covered the Bills since Day 1. His opinion is extremely valuable, and here his examples demonstrate a growing trend at OBD: uncertainty and knee-jerk reactions. There is no rhyme nor reason to Buffalo's personnel management and direction of the franchise. Because there is no bona-fide GM holding things together, transactions are made which seem random and unorthodox. Felser is simply pointing out that when Buffalo is faced with a difficult situation, they aren't clear on how to handle it and go with the nuclear option. I would agree. There was a time when Felser was indeed the most informed and best writer in town. Alas, since he more or less retired several years ago, he no long has the cred he did when he was a real practicing journalist. I like that he writes these columns for the Buffalo News for old times sake, but it is more about the nostalgia for those who grew up reading his columns that actually trying to get his take on the team's present situation. Unfortunately, this column reads too much like the ill-informed national bits we get from ESPN and their ilk. In all honesty, I think the team has done a pretty good job over the years of keeping who they should and waving goodbye to those they shouldn't. Pat Williams is the most notable exception -- and maybe the absolute biggest mistake that Donahoe made in his tenure as GM. The problem with both Winfield and Clements is that they wanted ridiculous paydays -- and got them. I NEVER faulted the Bills for not signing them to the kind of lucrative contracts that they found in Minny and SF. The Parrish thing is something entirely different. My great fear with him is that he winds up in the hands of a team with a quality coaching staff (Like NE) that knows how to make the best use f his unique skills.
BillsVet Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 I'm miffed on how any knowledgeable fan can defend an organization that hasn't made the playoffs in nine seasons during the salary cap era. Most of all, I'm miffed at the structure of the organization. There is no one individual managing the football side of the house like most successful franchises feature. Instead, the arrangement is a triumvirate of Wilson, Littman, and to a much lesser extent, Brandon controlling things they have no business or training in handling. And through it all, a respected writer authors something questioning the direction of a moribund team that has proven nothing on the field since the 20th century, and he's instantly discredited. That's mystifying.
Lurker Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 And through it all, a respected writer authors something questioning the direction of a moribund team that has proven nothing on the field since the 20th century, and he's instantly discredited. That's mystifying. Since it feeds into your world view, regardless of validity, not so mystifying...
VOR Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 Felser reached badly trying to justify his premise that the Bills have been "miffed" with players they've let-go. They weren't miffed at anyone except Crowell and Peters, because of what they pulled . And they weren't miffed at Winfield, Clements, Pat Williams, or Ted Washington, and aren't miffed at Parrish at all, although he's probably miffed at them. Personally I think Winfield is a decent but not great CB and didn't have a problem with letting him go, especially since the Vikes gave him a $10M roster bonus and a huge contract for that time. And Clements was sorely overpaid. Letting Pat Williams go was a mistake, as was letting Ted Washington go, but neither was a case of the Bills being miffed, although Pat Williams had some choice words for Donahoe and Washington had some for Greggo. In Peters' case, he was miffed that the Bills didn't outright give him a huge contract raise after another 2 years in the league (after getting a huge contract raise after his first 2 years in the league). And the Bills were rightfully miffed at him and his pathetic performance last year. Crowell's situation isn't fully known, but since he needed major surgery on his knee, I can't believe for 1 second that the Bills advised him not to get surgery at all after the 2007 season. I think what happened is that he delayed having it because he knew it would knock him out for a long time (like it has so far) and damage his contract year 2008 season. But the pain was too much and he decided to have something done at the last second. And as I said in my other post, the Bills did him a favor at that point, putting him on IR, paying him his 2008 salary, and letting him have the surgery he really needed, so he could get that $3M contract from the Bucs.
BillsVet Posted June 7, 2009 Posted June 7, 2009 Since it feeds into your world view, regardless of validity, not so mystifying... What's completely mystifying is how, out of 31 teams that played the past 10 years, that only two have failed to make the playoffs. Worse yet, the other woeful franchise, Detroit, finally made changes at GM and HC in 08-09. I've got no issue if fans want to hope the team's on the right track. Just provide some evidence suggesting that this is so.
Recommended Posts