todd Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 "We've looked; we've had workouts," Brandon said of the inability to find veteran line help. "Those were the decisions we made and we stand by them." How the hell can you stand by those decisions? Does he smoke crack? Look, if the d-bag can't admit that the personnel decisions made regarding the o-line are a complete abortion, he's the first (but not the last) that should go. The guy obviously isn't qualified to even wipe my butt, let alone manage a roster. And I'm not talking about Peters or drafting 2 rookies to start. Those are issues, as well. 1. Inserting Walker at LT 2. Taking all of training camp to decide Walker wasn't the man. 3. Promoting a guy who had never played. 4. Refusing to get some talent to back up our new LT. 5. Refusing to get veteran talent to back up our injured RT. Think Runyon or L. Walker would have been schooled like that at RT? 6. Refusing to get veteran talent at LB. 7. Depending on a rookie to magically generate pass rush. 8. Depending on a rookie to magically generate talent at TE. 9. Carrying a FB on the roster that doesn't get used in this O.
May Day 10 Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 Ive been in the camp all along. Jauron shouldnt simply be fired. Nothing gets fixed. That front office MUST be nuked. No more Brandon, Modrak, or Guy for starters
VJ91 Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 How the hell can you stand by those decisions? Does he smoke crack? Look, if the d-bag can't admit that the personnel decisions made regarding the o-line are a complete abortion, he's the first (but not the last) that should go. The guy obviously isn't qualified to even wipe my butt, let alone manage a roster. And I'm not talking about Peters or drafting 2 rookies to start. Those are issues, as well. 1. Inserting Walker at LT 2. Taking all of training camp to decide Walker wasn't the man. 3. Promoting a guy who had never played. 4. Refusing to get some talent to back up our new LT. 5. Refusing to get veteran talent to back up our injured RT. Think Runyon or L. Walker would have been schooled like that at RT? 6. Refusing to get veteran talent at LB. 7. Depending on a rookie to magically generate pass rush. 8. Depending on a rookie to magically generate talent at TE. 9. Carrying a FB on the roster that doesn't get used in this O. I'll answer every question for you on behalf of Russ "The Marketing Guru" Brandon: 1. Inserting Walker at LT - IT WAS THE CHEAPEST SOLUTION AFTER NOT PAYING PETERS. 2. Taking all of training camp to decide Walker wasn't the man. IT WAS CHEAPER TO PROMOTE BELL. 3. Promoting a guy who had never played. IT WAS CHEAPER THEN SIGNING A VETERAN TACKLE. 4. Refusing to get some talent to back up our new LT. IT WAS CHEAPER THEN SIGNING A LT WITH TALENT. 5. Refusing to get veteran talent to back up our injured RT. Think Runyon or L. Walker would have been schooled like that at RT? IT WAS CHEAPER THEN SIGNING RUNYAN OR KEEPING LANGSTON ON THE ROSTER ALL YEAR. 6. Refusing to get veteran talent at LB. IT WAS CHEAPER THEN SIGNING A VETERAN LB. 7. Depending on a rookie to magically generate pass rush. IT WAS EXPENSIVE TO SIGN THAT ROOKIE DE. 8. Depending on a rookie to magically generate talent at TE. IT WAS CHEAPER THEN SIGNING A VETERAN TE.9. Carrying a FB on the roster that doesn't get used in this O. YOU GOT ME ON THAT ONE. I LIKE UNUSED FB'S??
MURTR Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 How the hell can you stand by those decisions? Does he smoke crack? Look, if the d-bag can't admit that the personnel decisions made regarding the o-line are a complete abortion, he's the first (but not the last) that should go. The guy obviously isn't qualified to even wipe my butt, let alone manage a roster. And I'm not talking about Peters or drafting 2 rookies to start. Those are issues, as well. 1. Inserting Walker at LT 2. Taking all of training camp to decide Walker wasn't the man. 3. Promoting a guy who had never played. 4. Refusing to get some talent to back up our new LT. 5. Refusing to get veteran talent to back up our injured RT. Think Runyon or L. Walker would have been schooled like that at RT? 6. Refusing to get veteran talent at LB. 7. Depending on a rookie to magically generate pass rush. 8. Depending on a rookie to magically generate talent at TE. 9. Carrying a FB on the roster that doesn't get used in this O. could not agree more. I love Bobby April but there is no reason to have so many Special Team Specialists who literally cannot contribute on offense or defense (See Corto, Jenkins, Wendling, McIntyre). If the bottom line is such an issue, I would have preffered to carry a 50-man roster and had at least Derrick Brooks (Greatest Cover 2 LB of all-time who at least could teach these scrubs how to make plays) or some veteran OT help. I also find it kind of illogical to even have Hamdan on the roster. Sure him and Trent have some bromance brewing, but the coaching staff proved last year they have no desire to let him hit the field and see what he's got....if that is the case, then they should have brought in a developmental QB who we can groom to be Trent's replacement or at least a serviceable backup in the future.
BillsVet Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 Re: Brandon, I think he actually thinks he's good enough in the landscape of the NFL. I mean, his owner expressed confidence in him. Then again, we all know Brandon is outclassed in managing personnel by guys like Belichick, Parcells, Polian, Jerry Reese et al. He can't make a significant decision, and he has never worked as a scout. The man is NOT qualified to be a NFL GM, and if he doesn't have the authority to fire coaches, he's not a GM. Ralph remains the GM, and he's in a state of, well, I don't know what.
drnykterstein Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 Given attendance, perhaps the decision was a good one in that it puts asses in the seats without regard for team quality? If that was his goal, then he should stand by it proudly.
GG Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 Yeah, like Russ Brandon has the final say on the personnel issues.
BillsGuyInMalta Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 Yeah, like Russ Brandon has the final say on the personnel issues. Damn, beat me to it GG.
AF88Bills Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 How the hell can you stand by those decisions? Does he smoke crack? Look, if the d-bag can't admit that the personnel decisions made regarding the o-line are a complete abortion, he's the first (but not the last) that should go. The guy obviously isn't qualified to even wipe my butt, let alone manage a roster. And I'm not talking about Peters or drafting 2 rookies to start. Those are issues, as well. 1. Inserting Walker at LT 2. Taking all of training camp to decide Walker wasn't the man. 3. Promoting a guy who had never played. 4. Refusing to get some talent to back up our new LT. 5. Refusing to get veteran talent to back up our injured RT. Think Runyon or L. Walker would have been schooled like that at RT? 6. Refusing to get veteran talent at LB. 7. Depending on a rookie to magically generate pass rush. 8. Depending on a rookie to magically generate talent at TE. 9. Carrying a FB on the roster that doesn't get used in this O. But according to Jauron, "we really like our players, they are really smart, and they really work hard." As usual, most of us drank the cool aid. All of the prognosticators said the Bills didn't address their LT needs during the draft, and said the O-line was going to struggle. We saw hope....usually the hope lasts a little bit longer than 4 games.
Sisyphean Bills Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 Yeah, like Russ Brandon has the final say on the personnel issues. Still, that doesn't mean he knows what he is doing or that he's doing a fantastic job. Defending the indefensible decisions of the brainless trust just makes him look like a goofball.
KOKBILLS Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 How the hell can you stand by those decisions? Does he smoke crack? Look, if the d-bag can't admit that the personnel decisions made regarding the o-line are a complete abortion, he's the first (but not the last) that should go. The guy obviously isn't qualified to even wipe my butt, let alone manage a roster. And I'm not talking about Peters or drafting 2 rookies to start. Those are issues, as well. 1. Inserting Walker at LT 2. Taking all of training camp to decide Walker wasn't the man. 3. Promoting a guy who had never played. 4. Refusing to get some talent to back up our new LT. 5. Refusing to get veteran talent to back up our injured RT. Think Runyon or L. Walker would have been schooled like that at RT? 6. Refusing to get veteran talent at LB. 7. Depending on a rookie to magically generate pass rush. 8. Depending on a rookie to magically generate talent at TE. 9. Carrying a FB on the roster that doesn't get used in this O. We agree here Todd...Thing is, the way The Bills have been run since the day Levy came back, it's a collective effort...Jauron, Modrak, Brandon, and Guy all share in the blame...As do many of the Players who have done nothing but coast for the HC they love so very much...And they all need to go...If Ralph wants to keep Brandon as a Marketing Guy no biggie...But he's got no business making Football decisions...The Bills have been half-assing this thing for so long the only way to fix it is to blow the entire thing up and start from scratch...
BobDVA Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 You are right, Brandon is an idiot, Ralph is cheap, by not signing Runyon, Jones, or moving Walker back to the right side or bringing Brooks in at LB proves Brandon is not qualified, and Ralph is cheap. That is why all the other Genius Gm's in the league signed those same people, you know the ones watching the game on TV at home just like us.
KOKBILLS Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 You are right, Brandon is an idiot, Ralph is cheap, by not signing Runyon, Jones, or moving Walker back to the right side or bringing Brooks in at LB proves Brandon is not qualified, and Ralph is cheap. That is why all the other Genius Gm's in the league signed those same people, you know the ones watching the game on TV at home just like us. Point taken...But can you honestly say that Walker would have been worse than Chambers was yesterday?...I can assure you after watching Walker for a couple years he was no where near THAT bad...Especially at RT...Thing is, not only is the Bills FO and Coaching Staff clueless, but they seem to be trying to cover up the fact that letting Walker go was a mistake by not even considering bringing him back...Despite the fact that they have a Back-Up RT Starting at LT, and a RT Starting that was cut before the Season started... Just because these Guys are Home does not mean they are worse than what The Bills are Fielding...How exactly do you get worse anyway?
Sisyphean Bills Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 You are right, Brandon is an idiot, Ralph is cheap, by not signing Runyon, Jones, or moving Walker back to the right side or bringing Brooks in at LB proves Brandon is not qualified, and Ralph is cheap. That is why all the other Genius Gm's in the league signed those same people, you know the ones watching the game on TV at home just like us. First, this argument may be right that in some of these cases, the tank is just empty. OTOH, it could be completely incorrect to infer that nobody has any interest whatsoever in some of these guys. The poor economy is having an effect on the NFL. Many teams are cutting costs. And part of that equation is that a team can pay a young player much less money to sit on the bench or be a marginal starter than they would have to pay an experienced veteran to do the same. And, from the other side, a player that was once a star in this league and paid a premium may not want to go back into the meat grinder for a veteran minimum contract anyway, especially for a team that is just playing through its 16 game schedule to get to the next off-season.
Red Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 How the hell can you stand by those decisions? Does he smoke crack? Look, if the d-bag can't admit that the personnel decisions made regarding the o-line are a complete abortion, he's the first (but not the last) that should go. The guy obviously isn't qualified to even wipe my butt, let alone manage a roster. And I'm not talking about Peters or drafting 2 rookies to start. Those are issues, as well. 1. Inserting Walker at LT 2. Taking all of training camp to decide Walker wasn't the man. 3. Promoting a guy who had never played. 4. Refusing to get some talent to back up our new LT. 5. Refusing to get veteran talent to back up our injured RT. Think Runyon or L. Walker would have been schooled like that at RT? 6. Refusing to get veteran talent at LB. 7. Depending on a rookie to magically generate pass rush. 8. Depending on a rookie to magically generate talent at TE. 9. Carrying a FB on the roster that doesn't get used in this O. It's funny, but the whole Langston Walker situation suddenly reminds me of John McCargo being traded and then brought back.
Red Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 Point taken...But can you honestly say that Walker would have been worse than Chambers was yesterday?...I can assure you after watching Walker for a couple years he was no where near THAT bad...Especially at RT...Thing is, not only is the Bills FO and Coaching Staff clueless, but they seem to be trying to cover up the fact that letting Walker go was a mistake by not even considering bringing him back...Despite the fact that they have a Back-Up RT Starting at LT, and a RT Starting that was cut before the Season started... Just because these Guys are Home does not mean they are worse than what The Bills are Fielding...How exactly do you get worse anyway? Sad to say, but bringing back Walker at RT might be a sensible option at this point. Chambers is BAD...really, really bad! Walker is the most familiar free agent Tackle familiar with the, uh...ahem, "offense" and could probably walk right into playing.
GG Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 Still, that doesn't mean he knows what he is doing or that he's doing a fantastic job. Defending the indefensible decisions of the brainless trust just makes him look like a goofball. Who hired him? I frankly don't see the big infatuation with the "marketing guy" label. Brandon has been around football for well over a decade, and I'm sure that he could run the team if he had the resources and power. But since he doesn't, he's a convenient whipping boy. Also not saying that he would be a success if he were employed by a real NFL program, but it's tough to judge anyone's qualifications under the cluster that Wilson has created. Said another way, I believe that Brandon has as much if not more NFL experience as Mangini, McDaniels, & Raheem Morris. I know there's the unspoken rule in the fraternity how you must hire "true football people" to run the operation, but it's funny how that logic doesn't always work in the real world. If you have a good manager, it's not rocket science to switch industries and still be a success. But when your GM doesn't have the power over personnel decisions, coaching decisions, or basically anything else that is needed to build a successful team, than it doesn't really matter whether he spent 40 years in football or 40 years running a candy store.
Beerball Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 could not agree more. I love Bobby April but there is no reason to have so many Special Team Specialists who literally cannot contribute on offense or defense (See Corto, Jenkins, Wendling, McIntyre). If the bottom line is such an issue, I would have preffered to carry a 50-man roster and had at least Derrick Brooks (Greatest Cover 2 LB of all-time who at least could teach these scrubs how to make plays) or some veteran OT help. most penalized ST units in the league!
manbeast Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 How the hell can you stand by those decisions? Does he smoke crack? Look, if the d-bag can't admit that the personnel decisions made regarding the o-line are a complete abortion, he's the first (but not the last) that should go. The guy obviously isn't qualified to even wipe my butt, let alone manage a roster. And I'm not talking about Peters or drafting 2 rookies to start. Those are issues, as well. 1. Inserting Walker at LT 2. Taking all of training camp to decide Walker wasn't the man. 3. Promoting a guy who had never played. 4. Refusing to get some talent to back up our new LT. 5. Refusing to get veteran talent to back up our injured RT. Think Runyon or L. Walker would have been schooled like that at RT? 6. Refusing to get veteran talent at LB. 7. Depending on a rookie to magically generate pass rush. 8. Depending on a rookie to magically generate talent at TE. 9. Carrying a FB on the roster that doesn't get used in this O. Those two rookies have been fine I am exstremely pissed my self but after a night to think it over Dick and the front office can't control injuries. However from what I saw when we blitzed the couldn't handle it why didn't we blitz more when a QB was making his first start. Thats Dick
Trader Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 How the hell can you stand by those decisions? Does he smoke crack? Look, if the d-bag can't admit that the personnel decisions made regarding the o-line are a complete abortion, he's the first (but not the last) that should go. The guy obviously isn't qualified to even wipe my butt, let alone manage a roster. And I'm not talking about Peters or drafting 2 rookies to start. Those are issues, as well. 1. Inserting Walker at LT 2. Taking all of training camp to decide Walker wasn't the man. 3. Promoting a guy who had never played. 4. Refusing to get some talent to back up our new LT. 5. Refusing to get veteran talent to back up our injured RT. Think Runyon or L. Walker would have been schooled like that at RT? 6. Refusing to get veteran talent at LB. 7. Depending on a rookie to magically generate pass rush. 8. Depending on a rookie to magically generate talent at TE. 9. Carrying a FB on the roster that doesn't get used in this O. It appears it really does start at the top.
Recommended Posts