How many seasons does TD have left to turn the team around?

[Mr. Cynical]

How many seasons does TD have left to turn the team around?

Yes, I'm bored today so... ;)

[One Bills Drive]

Dear Fans,

I realize that you are all a bit anxious to regain the glory days from a decade ago. To make things a little better, please send me your addresses so I can send you some nice Terrible Towels with the Bus's signature on them. That has to count for something, no?

Sincerely,

TD

[Mr. Cynical]

Sure thing TD. It's

Mr. Cynical
123 Gofuhkurself Lane
Eetme, FU 48402

;)

[saviorbledsoe]

cute

[chernobylwraiths]

I can't believe three people already said this year. The worst decision he made was hiring Gregg Williams, that decision has cost ball games. I think he deserves at least 3 more years with his new coach. That's just how long I think he deserves, but I think he will actually get more.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by chernobylwraiths
I can't believe three people already said this year. The worst decision he made was hiring Gregg Williams, that decision has cost ball games. I think he deserves at least 3 more years with his new coach. That's just how long I think he deserves, but I think he will actually get more.

Personally I would give him *maybe* 2 years, but if they really stink it up this year he should go at the end of the season. Unless we have built a major foundation and are showing solid improvement, 4 years without a winning season is long enough IMO.

[mypoorfriendme]

Originally posted by chernobylwraiths
I can't believe three people already said this year. The worst decision he made was hiring Gregg Williams, that decision has cost ball games. I think he deserves at least 3 more years with his new coach. That's just how long I think he deserves, but I think he will actually get more.

greag AND mike williams :up:

[chernobylwraiths]

Mike Williams is FAR from a terrible player. He might not be Hall of Fame material right now, but he is far from a complete bust.

Some of you look at a player's salary as for how good he should be. Some people are just overpaid, it doens't make them suck though.

[The Spaz]

Guaranteed TD has done way more good than bad.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The Spaz
Guaranteed TD has done way more good than bad.

What???

17-31. That's 14 more bad than good.

His first day of drafting was above average (actually one of the better days in the NFL in the last few years), the other 7 have all been below average. (that's 6 more bad than good).

As far as his free agents ... well, during his tenure, there haven't been many free agents worth re-signing, so the fact he brings in more talent then lets leave isn't an accomplishment. Even then, I think that in hindsight he'd probably like to redo some of those contracts (Teague, Bledsoe, and Milloy all made more last year than they were worth IMO). It always comes up that we are paying for Teague's versatility ... well we're not f'n using it, so who cares if he's versatile. If he's only playing C for us, then we're only paying him to be our C.

What has TD done that is so good?

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by HenryRules
What???

17-31. That's 14 more bad than good.

His first day of drafting was above average (actually one of the better days in the NFL in the last few years), the other 7 have all been below average. (that's 6 more bad than good).

As far as his free agents ... well, during his tenure, there haven't been many free agents worth re-signing, so the fact he brings in more talent then lets leave isn't an accomplishment. Even then, I think that in hindsight he'd probably like to redo some of those contracts (Teague, Bledsoe, and Milloy all made more last year than they were worth IMO). It always comes up that we are paying for Teague's versatility ... well we're not f'n using it, so who cares if he's versatile. If he's only playing C for us, then we're only paying him to be our C.

What has TD done that is so good?


This post is good for 1 thing :rofl:

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by HenryRules
What???

17-31. That's 14 more bad than good.

His first day of drafting was above average (actually one of the better days in the NFL in the last few years), the other 7 have all been below average. (that's 6 more bad than good).

As far as his free agents ... well, during his tenure, there haven't been many free agents worth re-signing, so the fact he brings in more talent then lets leave isn't an accomplishment. Even then, I think that in hindsight he'd probably like to redo some of those contracts (Teague, Bledsoe, and Milloy all made more last year than they were worth IMO). It always comes up that we are paying for Teague's versatility ... well we're not f'n using it, so who cares if he's versatile. If he's only playing C for us, then we're only paying him to be our C.

What has TD done that is so good?


How can you not give TD credit for bringing in FA's that is just plain ******ed.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The Spaz
How can you not give TD credit for bringing in FA's that is just plain ******ed.

As I said ... during TD's era, we have not had many decent players become free agents and those that do, we have chosen not to resign (I believe that Moulds was an exception to this, but am not certain). When you don't have anyone decent becoming a free agent, it's very, very easy to have net gains in free agency.

Finally, free agents are a means to an end, not an end in themselves - TD's best offseason as far as free agents was last offseason (I mean the 2003 offseason) and that resulted in a worse record than the year before (with the coaching staff remaining the same). So what was the benefit of those FA signings?

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by chernobylwraiths
I can't believe three people already said this year. The worst decision he made was hiring Gregg Williams, that decision has cost ball games. I think he deserves at least 3 more years with his new coach. That's just how long I think he deserves, but I think he will actually get more.

I said this year and here's why.

1 - He has not made the playoffs in 3 years, if we miss this season, that will be a 4th. <b>No</b> successful front office in the NFL missed the playoffs their first 4 seasons in charge.

2 - Assuming that we don't make the playoffs (I would not be in favour of firing TD if we make the playoffs), we have a very key offseason coming up. Williams, Schoebel, and Jennings are free agents; a decision needs to be made regarding Henry and McGahee; a decision possibly needs to be made regarding Losman and Bledsoe. TD will have had all the time necessary to put his plan into place ... if he doesn't pan out this year, then its time for someone else to put a plan into effect.

3 more years?? So you think it's perfectly acceptable for a president to take over a team and not make the playoffs in his first 5 seasons? That is absolutely ridiculous.

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by HenryRules
<b>No</b> successful front office in the NFL missed the playoffs their first 4 seasons in charge.

No front office in the NFL ever had a moron like Gregg Williams as the head coach for the first three years before, either. GMs frequently are saddled with incompetent coaches their first year on the job but it's usually a coach that's a holdover from the last GM.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by The_Philster
No front office in the NFL ever had a moron like Gregg Williams as the head coach for the first three years before, either. GMs frequently are saddled with incompetent coaches their first year on the job but it's usually a coach that's a holdover from the last GM.

But Phil, that's exactly the point. Who hired that moron? TD. That's as colossal a screw up as there ever was, just above the second biggest - letting him hire Kildrive.

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
But Phil, that's exactly the point. Who hired that moron? TD.

so you fire him for the one bad hire...gotcha ;)

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster
No front office in the NFL ever had a moron like Gregg Williams as the head coach for the first three years before, either. GMs frequently are saddled with incompetent coaches their first year on the job but it's usually a coach that's a holdover from the last GM.

Sorry, but I'm missing your point here.

If no successful front office ever started with a coach as incompetent as Williams for 3 years ... how is that a solid statement about our front office? Especially, as you remind us, since it wasn't a holdover coach from a previous regime, but a stupid choice by the current regime.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by The_Philster
so you fire him for the one bad hire...gotcha ;)

Two actually. I edited my post above.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster
so you fire him for the one bad hire...gotcha ;)

2 bad moves by TD related to coaching.

1 - hiring him
2 - the indecision before last season. Almost everyone was saying that having GW as a lame duck coach was going to cause problems. It did.

And by the way, you don't fire him for one bad hire ... you fire him for missing the playoffs his first 4 seasons (as I said, if he makes the playoffs, I don't see a reason to fire TD).

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
Two actually. I edited my post above.
:laughter:
assistant coaches are technically hired by the head coach. I don't think there's a coach stupid enough, not even Williams, to go into a head coaching job without control over his own staff

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster
:laughter:
assistant coaches are technically hired by the head coach. I don't think there's a coach stupid enough, not even Williams, to go into a head coaching job without control over his own staff

Nor do I think that a GM is stupid enough to interview someone for a head coaching position without discussing their coaching staff.

Considering almost the entire initial staff was replaced ... what does that say?

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by The_Philster
:laughter:
assistant coaches are technically hired by the head coach. I don't think there's a coach stupid enough, not even Williams, to go into a head coaching job without control over his own staff

You don't think GMs "influence" head coaches as to who they hire? That's being completely naive. :rolleyes:

Why do you think head coaches try to get the GM role as well? You guessed it. Total control over personnel decisions.

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by HenryRules
2 bad moves by TD related to coaching.

1 - hiring him
2 - the indecision before last season. Almost everyone was saying that having GW as a lame duck coach was going to cause problems. It did.

And by the way, you don't fire him for one bad hire ... you fire him for missing the playoffs his first 4 seasons (as I said, if he makes the playoffs, I don't see a reason to fire TD).

so if Mularkey doesn't guide the team to the playoffs his first year as a head coach, his boss is out of a job?
I take it doesn't matter if, perish the thought :pray: , the team is decimated by injuries or we miss a playoff spot because of a stupid call by the officials (98 against the Pats was a loss almost completely due to bad officiating)
You can't put a number on how long a GM or coach has. You have to evaluate on a game-by-game (in the case of a player or coach) or season-by-season basis. Things ain't as simple as a computer game or anything in the NFL.

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by HenryRules
Nor do I think that a GM is stupid enough to interview someone for a head coaching position without discussing their coaching staff. Gilbride was hired in Williams' second year as head coach. I'm sure TD was thinking that Williams would bring in Sheppard to fail his first year though, right?


Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
You don't think GMs "influence" head coaches as to who they hire? That's being completely naive. :rolleyes: influence yes, but head coaches have the final say unless it's a case like Ronnie Jones and a coach is told to fire someone who is shown to be blatantly incompetent.


Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
Why do you think head coaches try to get the GM role as well? You guessed it. Total control over personnel decisions. yeah...but what do player decisions (the biggest thing GMs are responsible for) have to do with hiring assistant coaches? :huh:

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster
so if Mularkey doesn't guide the team to the playoffs his first year as a head coach, his boss is out of a job?
I take it doesn't matter if, perish the thought :pray: , the team is decimated by injuries or we miss a playoff spot because of a stupid call by the officials (98 against the Pats was a loss almost completely due to bad officiating)
You can't put a number on how long a GM or coach has. You have to evaluate on a game-by-game (in the case of a player or coach) or season-by-season basis. Things ain't as simple as a computer game or anything in the NFL.

If injuries cause us to miss the playoffs ... then the team isn't deep enough. The president puts the team together, so that's whose head it falls on.

And if one or two calls can completely ruin the season, then the team wasn't that good either. I can see that as an excuse for not advancing within the playoffs, where it's one-and-out, but if a team is not good enough to recover from a bad call in an entire season, then I don't think that team is good.

Regarding Mularkey having his boss fired after his first season ... I think he'd prefer a competent boss to an incompetent boss, regardless of how many years he's been on the job. If TD goes 6 seasons without making the playoffs (2 in Pitt, 4 in Buffalo), do you think Mularkey would look forward to working with him? That's starting to get into Bengals territory.

So you're saying that we have to evaluate Donahoe on a season-by-season basis ... so, which of our 3 seasons have been successful on a season-by-season basis? 1 of 3? If this one isn't, then we're at 1 in 4. Is that a good ratio?

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by The_Philster
influence yes, but head coaches have the final say unless it's a case like Ronnie Jones and a coach is told to fire someone who is shown to be blatantly incompetent.

If Kildrive isn't blatantly incompetent, I don't know who is.


Originally posted by The_Philster
yeah...but what do player decisions (the biggest thing GMs are responsible for) have to do with hiring assistant coaches? :huh:

GMs get involved in *all* team personnel, not just players. You just don't hear about it in the news because that stuff is behind closed doors.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster
Gilbride was hired in Williams' second year as head coach. I'm sure TD was thinking that Williams would bring in Sheppard to fail his first year though, right?


I don't know what your point is with this statement.

I was saying that TD was (should have been) aware that Williams was going to hire Sheppard. That's implying that Sheppard's failure is partially on TD's hands because TD knew who was going to comprise the staff.

I don't think anyone brought in Sheppard with the idea that he would fail ... but that's also irrelevant. People get evaluated based on how their decisions pan out, not on how they thought their decisions would pan out.

Also, I do not think that Sheppard was the only failure in that first staff - almost every member of the staff was a bad choice.

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by HenryRules
So you're saying that we have to evaluate Donahoe on a season-by-season basis ... so, which of our 3 seasons have been successful on a season-by-season basis? 1 of 3? If this wasn't isn't, then we're at 1 in 4. Is that a good ratio?

Let's see
2001...cap hell we were going through because of Butler. Anyone who thinks we should have made the playoffs no matter the cap situation should stick to computer games
2002...still rebounding from the cap hell, still in need of defensive players
2003...all the pieces were in place...coaches screwed things up miserably
Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
If Kildrive isn't blatantly incompetent, I don't know who is. I can't believe I'm defending him but he did have a good career in Jacksonville...which is how he got the head coaching job in San Diego.


Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
GMs get involved in *all* team personnel, not just players. You just don't hear about it in the news because that stuff is behind closed doors.
am I not speaking English in the following post?

Originally posted by The_Philster
influence yes, but head coaches have the final say

Spanish perhaps?

influencie sí, pero los coches de la cabeza tienen la opinión final a menos que it's un caso como Ronnie Jones y coche se diga para encender a alguien que se demuestre para ser evidentemente incompetente.:idunno:

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster
Let's see
2001...cap hell we were going through because of Butler. Anyone who thinks we should have made the playoffs no matter the cap situation should stick to computer games
2002...still rebounding from the cap hell, still in need of defensive players
2003...all the pieces were in place...coaches screwed things up

What do computer games have to do with this? Who the hell are you talking to?

I don't think that anyone expected playoffs in 2001 ... however I don't think anyone can call 3-13 a success. Very, very, very, few teams crash that hard. 5-11 I can understand, 4-12, maybe that's ok ... but 3-13. That is a failure. I don't care what the situation is, whatever, that is a failure. You will not get me to acknowledge that 3-13 is a success. *****, last year not a single team finished 3-13 and you're willing to write that off.

2002 ... still rebounding from cap hell? What?? What was 3-13? If we had to still recover after a 3-13 season, then why not make deeper cuts the year before? What, would we have finished 1-15? Is that so much worse? I think 2002 was actually a good season as we showed improvement from the year before (that's the one successful season I'd say), but to say that we still had cap trouble is to say that 2001 was a failure.

How can you say that all the pieces were in place last year when we didn't make the playoffs and everyone says that we have major ?'s at QB, C, LG, K, KR, PR, LDE, and FS going into this season. Damn, that's like starting out a game of chess with no rooks and saying all the pieces are in place. We had the same coaching staff as the season before yet our record got 2 games worse. Our personnel last season was not at all similar to any sort of personnel that our coaching staff has had success with (GW always had at least 2 really aggressive DE's in Tenn, he didn't with us - Gilbride has always used a pass-based offense, yet we didn't have the receivers, nor RB's to make that work). If the personnel doesn't fit the coaching staff and the president puts both in place, how is that not his fault?

Damn, even in another thread you're saying that our LG doesn't belong in the league and our C isn't worth being a starter ... yet at the same time you're saying all the pieces are in place. What pieces?

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by HenryRules
What do computer games have to do with this? Who the hell are you talking to?

I'm talking to anyone :coocoo: enough to think we'd do well with all the cuts we had to make
Originally posted by HenryRules
I don't think that anyone expected playoffs in 2001 ... however I don't think anyone can call 3-13 a success. Very, very, very, few teams crash that hard. 5-11 I can understand, 4-12, maybe that's ok ... but 3-13. That is a failure. I don't care what the situation is, whatever, that is a failure. You will not get me to acknowledge that 3-13 is a success. *****, Who said it was a success? :huh: There was nothing anyone could do with all the cuts TD was forced to make.


Originally posted by HenryRules
last year not a single team finished 3-13 and you're willing to write that off.
:huh:

Originally posted by HenryRules
2002 ... still rebounding from cap hell? What?? What was 3-13? If we had to still recover after a 3-13 season, then why not make deeper cuts the year before? What, would we have finished 1-15? Is that so much worse? I think 2002 was actually a good season as we showed improvement from the year before (that's the one successful season I'd say), but to say that we still had cap trouble is to say that 2001 was a failure.
cuts made after June 1 will have the bonuses due the players that are cut spread to the following year. example: let's say Travis Henry is cut (he has 2004 and 2005 left on his deal)...his signing bonus money would be split as far as cap purposes go. Half in 2004 and half in 2005. I don't know the numbers but we still had a good amount of dead cap that we couldn't use because of player cuts the year before.

Originally posted by HenryRules
How can you say that all the pieces were in place last year when we didn't make the playoffs and everyone says that we have major ?'s at QB, C, LG, KR, PR, LDE, and FS going into this season. QB--Drew was not a question mark going into 2003;C--Who knew Teague would be that bad;LG--Ruben Brown, remember him?; KR/PR-We brought in Antonio Brown who looked, in preseason, like he'd do the job;LDE-we had a number of candidates who were possibly capable of filling the role, they didn't;FS-No ball hawk, but Prioleau and Reese were each thought to be good enough..I'm not talking about this year, you're mixing 2003 and 2004
Originally posted by HenryRules
Gilbride has always used a pass-based offense, yet we didn't have the receivers, nor RB's to make that work).
Jacksonville was more balanced and as far as RBs, we had Travis Henry and a large stable of backs going into camp in 2003

Originally posted by HenryRules
If the personnel doesn't fit the coaching staff and the president puts both in place, how is that not his fault. Who said it wasn't? It's just that there are few of you willing to fire him based on that one mistake. He has a track record of being one of the top GMs in the league but nobody's perfect.

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by HenryRules
Damn, even in another thread you're saying that our LG doesn't belong in the league and our C isn't worth being a starter ... yet at the same time you're saying all the pieces are in place. What pieces?


Originally posted by The_Philster
2003...all the pieces were in place...coaches screwed things up miserablyI can't believe I'm defending him but he did have a good career in Jacksonville...which is how he got the head coaching job in San Diego.


am I not speaking English
I'm pretty sure that reads 2003 and my calendar says 2004 right now. :idunno:

[ScottLawrence]

TD has 2 season at the most.

I think he should be gone this season if we aren't at least .500 and above or if Bledsoe sucks or gets benched he should be out as well.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster
I'm pretty sure that reads 2003 and my calendar says 2004 right now. :idunno:

Our personnel for 2004 is almost identical to our personnel for 2003 (especially for the players under consideration - Bledsoe, Pucillo, Teague, Denney, Reese/Prioleau, Lindell, Brown). All of those players are young enough that age should not be leading to a downfall, so if they are not good enough this year, how were they complete pieces last season? If TD's new head coach cannot take this team to the playoffs (and it's essentially the same team that GW had), then whose fault was last season, GW or TD?

The one thing I haven't heard you comment on ... when is enough, enough? How many times does TD get to start over?

I think he gets one shot ... and next offseason is structured as the start of another rebuilding period already with the free agents we have and big decisions at QB/RB.

If TD goes and makes a few playoffs with one or two long playoff runs, then he can get another shot at rebuilding when the next time comes ... but he has to have built something in Buffalo in order to earn that second shot.

[The_Philster]

Bledsoe...coming off a decent year in 2002-2003..now he's coming off a horrid year
Pucillo..I think a lot of us were figuring he'd actually be better than Sullivan considering he replaced him. We know he's no improvement over Ruben
Teague...answered that one
Denney/Kelsay/McKenzie..answered that as well
Reese/Prioleau..we have Wire in the mix instead of Prioleau at FS now and the position was deemed adequate last year, not an all-star position in anyone's estimation
Lindell...we brought him in last year (4 yrs, $4.2M) and thought he'd be good
Brown...going into the season, we thought he'd do the job. Did he? I don't think so

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by HenryRules
The one thing I haven't heard you comment on ... when is enough, enough? How many times does TD get to start over?
If you're looking for someone to give you a number of some sort, you're barking up the wrong tree.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster
Bledsoe...coming off a decent year in 2002-2003..now he's coming off a horrid year
Pucillo..I think a lot of us were figuring he'd actually be better than Sullivan considering he replaced him. We know he's no improvement over Ruben
Teague...answered that one
Denney/Kelsay/McKenzie..answered that as well
Reese/Prioleau..we have Wire in the mix instead of Prioleau at FS now and the position was deemed adequate last year, not an all-star position in anyone's estimation
Lindell...we brought him in last year (4 yrs, $4.2M) and thought he'd be good
Brown...going into the season, we thought he'd do the job. Did he? I don't think so

TD is paid to assemble teams for the upcoming season, not assemble teams that are filled with players that did well the year before. The fact that all the players you named did not perform well last season indicates that perhaps they were not good enough?? Or is that too big of a leap?

Maybe they were good enough, in which case a new coaching staff should be able to take them to the playoffs. But if a new coaching staff cannot take them to the playoffs, then that's a pretty strong statement that the players themselves were not good enough.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster
If you're looking for someone to give you a number of some sort, you're barking up the wrong tree.

I'm not asking for a number specifically ... I just want some sort of criteria so that I can understand how you evaluate TD.

What constitutes "enough" to you? What would it take for you to say, "Ok, TD isn't a good president for the Bills"?

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by HenryRules
TD is paid to assemble teams for the upcoming season, not assemble teams that are filled with players that did well the year before. The fact that all the players you named did not perform well last season indicates that perhaps they were not good enough?? Or is that too big of a leap?

Maybe they were good enough, in which case a new coaching staff should be able to take them to the playoffs. But if a new coaching staff cannot take them to the playoffs, then that's a pretty strong statement that the players themselves were not good enough.
First of all, I expect to make the playoffs this year because, as far as the Bills go, I'm optimistic.
Secondly, first year coaches don't normally make the playoffs right off..players take time to acclimate to new systems, chemistry. And there are some holes we have that we didn't see last year. TD isn't a psychic anymore than I am.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster
First of all, I expect to make the playoffs this year because, as far as the Bills go, I'm optimistic.
Secondly, first year coaches don't normally make the playoffs right off..players take time to acclimate to new systems, chemistry. And there are some holes we have that we didn't see last year. TD isn't a psychic anymore than I am.

I'm confused ... you expect this team to make the playoffs, but whatever happens, it's not TD's fault if we don't because he's not psychic?

Sorry, psychic ability is not a requirement for TD. TD is a talent evaluator. If there were holes in last year's team, it was his job to see that beforehand. The fact that there were significant holes indicates that he did not do a good enough job building the team.

I don't know, perhaps I'm asking to much for the president of a football team to be able to put together a winning team?

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by The_Philster
am I not speaking English in the following post?

Originally posted by The_Philster
influence yes, but head coaches have the final say

Spanish perhaps?
:idunno:

No, not Spanish. Foolish.

If you honestly think that the head coach truly has the final say and can completely override the GM's wishes, I don't know what else to say. :idunno:

It starts and ends with the GM. That's reality.

[lordofgun]

I think TD gets one more season of grace from the fans. If we fail miserably this year, the grumbling will begin en masse.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by HenryRules
I'm not asking for a number specifically ... I just want some sort of criteria so that I can understand how you evaluate TD.

What constitutes "enough" to you? What would it take for you to say, "Ok, TD isn't a good president for the Bills"?


I've asked this of TD supporters before and none have given me a straight answer of any kind. I assume the 3 people who voted "no time limit" have their reasons but I can't understand why you would keep a GM on indefinitely without being accountable at some point. I mean, if the Bills don't get to the playoffs for say 5 more years, would those 3 people still say "no time limit"?


Originally posted by The_Philster
Who said it wasn't? It's just that there are few of you willing to fire him based on that one mistake. He has a track record of being one of the top GMs in the league but nobody's perfect.


You keep saying "that one mistake". Phil, he has made more than one mistake. Can you honestly sit there and say he has only made one? Seriously? Yes, nobody's perfect, but that's not the point. This is a business and results are what matters. May sound harsh but it is what it is. 17-31 in 3 seasons and heading into the 4th still with big question marks on offense.

As for being a top GM in the league...as the saying goes, what has he done lately? The last time he produced a playoff team was in 1997. I'll admit I thought he was a great acquisition when he came here but the bottom line is results. He is responsible for the team's success. So if the team goes another year without the playoffs, that is 4 in a row. The only way that would be acceptable (to me) is if the team makes significant strides in overcoming the problems. But if the record stinks and the team stinks, he should be kicked to the curb.

[The Natrix]

I'd say TD, along with MM, gets two seasons. You don't deserve three when the talent is already there.

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by The Natrix
I'd say TD, along with MM, gets two seasons. You don't deserve three when the talent is already there.

Exactly TD brings in the talent it's up to the coaches to use it and properly.

[Hemlepp53]

Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
Sure thing TD. It's

Mr. Cynical
123 Gofuhkurself Lane
Eetme, FU 48402

;)

Funny...

[Jan Reimers]

This season, or we are in danger of being in a perennial rebuilding mode.

[Hemlepp53]

Originally posted by The Natrix
I'd say TD, along with MM, gets two seasons. You don't deserve three when the talent is already there.

Point MAde. The Talent Is There. but I Think TD will be gone before MM. even though MM is the Head Coach he is a Rookie coach and if we see some improvement in actual game play this season he will make a better case for himself.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by Hemlepp53
Point MAde. The Talent Is There. but I Think TD will be gone before MM. even though MM is the Head Coach he is a Rookie coach and if we see some improvement in actual game play this season he will make a better case for himself.

If TD is gets the boot, most GMs will bring in/hire their own HC. It's possible the new GM would keep MM, but I don't think it is the norm. Off the top of my head I can't really think of a recent case where the new GM kept the HC, at least past the first season.

But more importantly, if there is improvement in actual game play this season, that would be good for TD as well, so he wouldn't get the boot at that point. Basically their fates are intertwined.

[G. Host]

I do not think Ralph will cut Donahoe as long as he is alive so you are asking "How long will Ralph last".

Ralph understands football more than any poster on a chat boiard anyways.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by G. Host
I do not think Ralph will cut Donahoe as long as he is alive so you are asking "How long will Ralph last".

Ralph understands football more than any poster on a chat boiard anyways.

That's probably true, given his age. How old is he again? 85? He is probably thinking this is his last shot before he leaves this league and goes to a higher one, so his appetite for breaking in a new GM is probably pretty small. That kinda sucks tho, since he may not be thinking 100% clearly very soon. Who takes over ownership when Ralph signs off?

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by G. Host
I do not think Ralph will cut Donahoe as long as he is alive so you are asking "How long will Ralph last".

Ralph understands football more than any poster on a chat boiard anyways.

I dunno ... Ralph also understands the impact that another sub-.500 team will have on attendance. I don't think he's rich enough to keep an empty stadium around for long.

One interesting thing ... as of right now, none of TD's last 4 first rounders are working with the first team (Williams, McGahee, Evans, and Losman). Again with the financial thing ... Ralph can't enjoy having shelled out a $12 mil signing bonus for a backup RT.

[Earthquake Enyart]

It depends on how far tehy miss the playoffs by. If they roll out a 5-11, TD has to be toast. This puts Ralph in a tough spot having MM under contract for 2 more years. If they are 9-7 and just miss, TD gets another year.

I still think TD was behind the Gilbride BS.

[Dozerdog]

Everybody thinks in black & white around here. Draw a line in the sand, and if we cross it we fire/keep TD.


It all depends what happens - there could be a million injuries and they go 3-13 - but if they fought hard jobs are safe.


They could go 10-6, but if the team literally implodes with power struggles in the front office, team mutiny, and boneheaded decisions like what happens in Miami- then no one is safe.

If you fire someone, you need to get someone else who's better- not just "different".

TD has done pretty well with putting htis franchise into a stable mode for many years to come. No Cap roller coaster like Dallas, Jacksonville, or the Ravens

[Earthquake Enyart]

Isn't Ron Wolfe still floating around out there? I'd hire him and can TD in a heartbeat.

[Dozerdog]

Originally posted by Earthquake Enyart
Isn't Ron Wolfe still floating around out there? I'd hire him and can TD in a heartbeat.

Didn't he turn down Miami? I thought he was cherrypicking his next "consulting" job- somewhere where he can golf.

He is a candidate I'd definatly consider- but there aren't many- and you better have him as a lock before dumping what you got.

[G. Host]

Ralph gave to Tom Donahoe the President position not just the GM position. He could have held it in check but he trusted Donahoe to take care of all aspects.

I do not think Ralph is senile at all. Maybe others yes who think they know more but not Ralph.


Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
That's probably true, given his age. How old is he again? 85? He is probably thinking this is his last shot before he leaves this league and goes to a higher one, so his appetite for breaking in a new GM is probably pretty small. That kinda sucks tho, since he may not be thinking 100% clearly very soon. Who takes over ownership when Ralph signs off?

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by G. Host
Ralph gave to Tom Donahoe the President position not just the GM position. He could have held it in check but he trusted Donahoe to take care of all aspects.

I do not think Ralph is senile at all. Maybe others yes who think they know more but not Ralph.

Well, just because he gave him all the power and trusted him 3 years ago doesn't mean that he didn't make a mistake by doing so. I'm not saying Ralph is a basket case but I do think there comes a time when begin to lose your ability to evaluate what's good and what's not so good.

In the end, results are what cut through all the subjectivity. Wins are wins, losses are losses no matter how you slice it. We'll see what happens at the end of the season.

[The Spaz]

You want TD out of town then you better get Modrak out too then because they both are doing the evaluating.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The Spaz
You want TD out of town then you better get Modrak out too then because they both are doing the evaluating.

Agreed.

[Mr. Cynical]

Modrak will be gone soon anyway to GM another team.

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
Modrak will be gone soon anyway to GM another team.

Well that's funny he's already turned down ike 3 offers must be something about TD he likes.

[The Spaz]

It's amazing that we have not 1 but too very well respected GM's on our team yet were *****ing at them. I still think the only bad decision TD has made is the Gregg Williams hiring. If Mularkey fails then yeah I can see him possibly being on the outs but I am very optimistic anbout Mularkey and his staff.

[THATHURMANATOR]

I say if we tank again this year his time is running thin.

[Earthquake Enyart]

Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
Modrak will be gone soon anyway to GM another team.


Originally posted by The Spaz
Well that's funny he's already turned down ike 3 offers must be something about TD he likes.


Modrak must be a horrible interview. I don't think he turned jobs down, I think he interviewed and didn't get the offer.

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by Earthquake Enyart
Modrak must be a horrible interview. I don't think he turned jobs down, I think he interviewed and didn't get the offer.

I distintly remember ESPN saying he has turned down Atlanta, Tampa Bay and Miami since he's been with the Bills.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by The Spaz
Well that's funny he's already turned down ike 3 offers must be something about TD he likes.

TD :love: TM

:snicker:

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
TD :love: TM

:snicker:

Hey as long as they work good together it's a good thing.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by The Spaz
Hey as long as they work good together it's a good thing.

True but only as long as they are successful together as well. If the team isn't seriously in the playoffs next year, IMO they should take their lovefest elsewhere. ;)

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The Spaz
Hey as long as they work good together it's a good thing.

Yeah, if they keep bringing these 6-10 teams, I see us being the envy of the league.

Is it their drafting (Williams, McGahee, Evans, and Losman as backups - 4 first rounders), their free agents (Teague and Milloy being two of the better bargains) or their great coaching hirings (which seem to take the blame for everything else) that make them the envy of everyone else?

I'm sick and tired of this "well- someone-else-is-going-to-hire-them-so-they-must-be-good" logic ... by that definition, Gregg Williams must have been great, because he didnt' last too long before Joe Gibbs picked him up ... and I have way more respect for Gibbs' talent evaluation than I do for Wilson's.

Spaz, you're posting like TD and Modrak have got a record to be proud of.

[The_Philster]

Gibbs brought in Williams as a defensive coordinator..not a head coach.

[helmetguy]

What are you basing Gibbs' talent evaluation on? This is his first season back with Washington, and Dan Snyder spent another fortune to bring guys in. When Gibbs last worked for the 'Skins, Charley Casserly was running the show.

[Ed]

So when are you guys all going to start calling for Ralph Wilsons head? Last time I checked the Bills haven't won a championship since the 60's. Isn't Ralph ultimately responsible for everything?

Seriously though, as long as Ralph owns the team, Donahoe isn't going anywhere. I don't think Ralph has ever been happier with any other employee he's ever had. He loves the guy.

Personally, I like TD, I like what he has done and I hope he continues to be our GM for a long time. I don't look at 2001-2003 as three failures. Given our devastating cap situation, it would have been wrong to expect playoffs or winning seasons, and Ralp Wilson was the first one to admit that before those seasons were even played. Winning in the NFL is hard enough, when you're only working with 60% of your cap it's pretty much impossible. He said being highly competetive again would be a long process and we'd have to be patient, and he was right.

I think TD did everyting he could to build a winning team, but the coaching staff proved to be inadequate, which ultimately falls on TD's shoulders, but I only look at that as one strike against him. I think it's fair to say though, that when TD hired GW, he was also new to the team, the orginization and the players, which made the whole process that much harder. I don't think it's fair to expect any GM to be able to come into a new situation, be responsible for everything and just immediately take the team right to the top.

I'd also like to say that I think Moulds' injury had a bigger impact on 2003 then anything else. If he stays healthy, along with Henry that year, I think our 2003 season would have been better then 2002.

Also, to HenryRules, using the drafting of M. Williams, McGahee, Evans and Losman as criticism towards Donahoe is incredibly weak. I think your problem is you look at the Bills and Donahoe's draft record with tunnel vision. If you took a step back from putting the Bills under so much scrutiny and looked at the league as a whole, you'd see that the vast majority of early draft picks don't make significant impacts for their teams in their first couple years. Some do, and that's great, but it's certainly not the norm. Yeah, the M. Williams situation is a concern, but we're talking about guys that are 22-24 years old. Everyone needs time to learn and adjust. I say it every year around draft time, but if you expect or need your first round picks to come in and make significant impacts or be starters, you're teams already in trouble.

I think the only draft of Donahoe's that we can legitimately evaluate is 2001, and it was probably the best draft of any team that year.

[justasportsfan]

TD has done a great job players and cap wise. His biggest mistake is GW. His mistake however outweighs the the positive things he's done because it prevents the positive (players) things he's done from being succesful. Players wise, we have one of the best teams assembled since the Kelly era. Hopefully he picked the right coach to bring the talent to it's full potential.

BTW, Drew could be another mistake but jury is out on that.

[elltrain22]

It better be happening soon...

[HenryRules]

Ed, I'm not saying that those drafts are busts yet (or even time to start thinking of that). However, playoff teams almost always get good production from their rookies or second year players. So if you want to make the playoffs, then your young players better produce.

Looking at last year divisions champs and only their first rounders from the last two years:

St. Louis - Robert Thomas looked pretty solid in the middle for their D. Not pro bowl calibre, but solid starter.

Carolina - Do you think they go to the Super Bowl without Gross and Peppers?

Green Bay - Nick Barnett was a playmaker in the middle of the Packers D

Eagles - the exception that proves the rule

KC - Sims was a regular starter

Indy - Freeney's probably had 20-25 sacks in his 2 years in the league.

Ravens - Ed Reed and Suggs are two of the biggest playmakers on a D filled with playmakers.

Pats - Ty Warren got a lot of duty and Dan Graham started about half the time - not the greatest of contributions, but the Pats also had guys like Wilson, Koppen, and Branch in the last 2 drafts to make up for it.

That's 7 out of 8 division winners having a rookie or 2nd year first rounder as a solid starter - I'd say that number is rather significant. Not turning our 1st rounders into starters handicaps our coaches right off the bat.


Originally posted by Ed
I say it every year around draft time, but if you expect or need your first round picks to come in and make significant impacts or be starters, you're teams already in trouble

Which of the above teams would you say were in trouble?

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by Ed
I think TD did everyting he could to build a winning team, but the coaching staff proved to be inadequate, which ultimately falls on TD's shoulders, but I only look at that as one strike against him. I think it's fair to say though, that when TD hired GW, he was also new to the team, the orginization and the players, which made the whole process that much harder. I don't think it's fair to expect any GM to be able to come into a new situation, be responsible for everything and just immediately take the team right to the top.

* see 1989 Dallas Cowboys.

1988 3-13
1989 1-15 First year with new Owner-GM, Jerry Jones.
1990 7-9
1991 11-5
1992 13-3
1993 12-4
1994 12-4
1995 12-4
1996 10-6

Not only did he bring in the right coach, he also got the right talent, since the team continued to win even when Jimmy left. Granted the team slid from '97-'02, but that's after 3 SB wins and 6 straight winning seasons. And then what did he do to stop the slide? Got Parcells and in the first year with him they go 10-6.

TD has yet to prove himself as a Bills GM, plain and simple. I don't care about how the players look on paper, etc. You can see from above that it is not impossible to turn a team around in a short amount of time if you make the right moves. And I'm not even asking for 1 or 2 year turnarounds. It's already been 3. But if we go 4 or 5 years, it is simply time to make a change.

I just can't understand why some people blindly support a GM who has a record of 17-31 and say that he should stay on for many years to come. I want a WINNING team, and if it hasn't happened after 4 years, it ain't ever gonna happen. Change is needed.

[Mr. Cynical]

Yet another example of an effective GM...Bill Polian.

1984 2-14
1985 2-14
1986 4-12 Polian is promoted to GM.
1987 7-8
1988 12-4
1989 9-7
1990 13-3
1991 13-3
1992 11-5
1993 12-4

In neither case do we see 17-31 with tons of excuses.

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
Yet another example of an effective GM...Bill Polian.

1984 2-14
1985 2-14
1986 4-12 Polian is promoted to GM.
1987 7-8
1988 12-4
1989 9-7
1990 13-3
1991 13-3
1992 11-5
1993 12-4

In neither case do we see 17-31 with tons of excuses.

In neither case do we see Greg Willaims and Kevin Gilbride either.:rolleyes:
You want Donahoe gone? Who do you replace him with?

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by The_Philster
In neither case do we see Greg Willaims and Kevin Gilbride either.:rolleyes:
You want Donahoe gone? Who do you replace him with?

He wants Rick Spielman.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster
In neither case do we see Greg Willaims and Kevin Gilbride either

Exactly!

How can you use that statement as an endorsement of Donahoe? He hired Williams and kept him on for 3 years.

People on this board blame so many different things for our record the last 3 years (our coaching, our OL, our lack of depth to deal with injuries, Lindell, Bledsoe, etc.), yet the person who assembled all these items is considered to have done a good job by a significant number of people.

You want a name for who I want in?

How about anyone else? Donahoe has been around and established himself - he's not a young guy that's learning on the job. If this is how well he does, then we need to move on.

I can't give an exact name right now because we don't know who will be available at the end of this season. However, if we have another dissapointing season (6-10 or so), then I would much rather us go forward with a young GM who is bound to improve (James Harris would have been the best choice, but he was taken by Jax) than to stick with TD.

For some specific names - someone mentioned Ron Wolf earlier. Mike Holmgren is always right around the corner from being fired it seems, although I like the way he has built Seattle (he was 31-33 after 4 seasons for commparison - if we go 14-2 this year, Donahoe has definitely earned a return as far as I'm concerned). As far as young people that fit the mould I was just talking about ... someone like Tony Softli might have learned something in Carolina and might be worth bringing in - other than that, I don't know enough about the assistants to the GM's for most of the teams in the league to say who the up-and-comers are.

[helmetguy]

I'm sticking with coaching and our salary cap nightmare as the reasons for that 17-31 record. I'll even give GW the benefit of the diubt for the first season; we had NOTHING but a lot of payroll without names beside the dollars (dead cap). Going 8-8 in his second year was encouraging. How do you can a guy if his team improves by five wins? I called for his head after the "bye" week last year, because his decision making had not changed one iota from the second half of his second year (i.e. officials' challenges, game planning, clock management). However, practicality dictated that we keep the bum until the end, so as not to disrupt what little we had left. We could have just as easily finished 4-12 the way things were going.

[Mr. Cynical]

All I know is that I gave two very specific examples of a new GM turning around a crap team in 1-2 years. It's been 3 with TD and given the problems with the oline and Drew, odds are it will be 4 bad years.

If you say it was the coaching, then you are saying it was TD. He hired them. He blew the bank and bet the future on Drew. Another mistake. He left the oline as is except for one addition. Another mistake. The only thing IMO he has done well is the defense, although you could argue that he has missed with the DE position with 2 wasted picks.

Who would I replace him with? I have no idea. I don't know who is available currently but you won't find him unless you are looking for him. Right now I agree, Ralph doesn't seem to want change and is therefore not looking.

Bottom line is that IMHO, TD has the same "mystique" about him that Drew has. Smoke and mirrors. It's beyond me how they pull it off but I'll give them credit - they do it well.

[helmetguy]

Bledsoe was actually cap friendly to us when we got him. If you want to look at Dallas as the example, isn't it odd that, once cap management became the way of doing business, the Cowboys reeled off three impressive 5-11 campaigns (15-33 isn't THAT much better than 17-31, is it?)? All under the direction of the once esteemed Dave Campo, might I add. If you have no alternative to TD as a GM, how can you fault TD for the work he's done here?

As far as the so called TD "mystique," how is it that, since his departure from Pittsburgh, the Steelers went from perennial AFC powerhouse to also-ran? When TD was there, they had the cap room to replace "irreplaceable" starters, with little or no diminution to their competitiveness. They were still in the hunt every year. Now, the're an afterthough in their own division, let alone the conference.

Granted, TD hired Williams, who, in turn, hired a bunch of stiffs. We only know that because GW and Co. showed us their appreciation by delivering an average of slightly better than four wins a season. TD also corrected this by sending GW packing after three years, and openly admitted his mistake. John Butler, in stark contrast, chose to blame Ralph Wilson for his departure, rather than own up to his own salary cap mismanagement. It took Butler about six years to live down to his level of expertise. TD undid most of that in three years.

[The_Philster]

Vilified for one bad coaching decision :shakeno:
Originally posted by HenryRules
Mike Holmgren is always right around the corner from being fired it seems, although I like the way he has built Seattle (he was 31-33 after 4 seasons for commparison - Holmgren sucks as a GM. The Seahawks forced him to give up that role to Bob Ferguson or be fired as both GM and Coach.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by helmetguy
Bledsoe was actually cap friendly to us when we got him.

I have no idea how it was friendly given he made base salaries of $5 million in 2002, $5.5 million in 2003 and $6 million in 2004, and bonuses were over and above these figures. Sounds pretty expensive for what we got IMO.



Originally posted by helmetguy
If you want to look at Dallas as the example, isn't it odd that, once cap management became the way of doing business, the Cowboys reeled off three impressive 5-11 campaigns (15-33 isn't THAT much better than 17-31, is it?)? All under the direction of the once esteemed Dave Campo, might I add. If you have no alternative to TD as a GM, how can you fault TD for the work he's done here?

To comment on your resoning for the 3 losing seasons....
as I mentioned, the Cowboys had only 1 losing seasons in 9 years (6-10 in 97), along with 3 SB wins and 6 straight winning seasons. You can't keep up that pace forever. Players get old. People get lazy. It was time for things to be rebuilt.

So, what did Jerry do? Fired Gailey, brought in the Tuna and WAM, a winning season in his first year at bat with 10-6. That's the second time he has turned the team around in 1 year. That's results.


Originally posted by helmetguy
As far as the so called TD "mystique," how is it that, since his departure from Pittsburgh, the Steelers went from perennial AFC powerhouse to also-ran? When TD was there, they had the cap room to replace "irreplaceable" starters, with little or no diminution to their competitiveness. They were still in the hunt every year. Now, the're an afterthough in their own division, let alone the conference.

TD left Pitt after the 1999 season, so after their 97 playoff appearance, they went:

1998 7-9
1999 6-10

SO, if you really want to do the math on his record since he had the Steelers in the playoffs in 97, it is:

1998 7-9
1999 6-10
2001 3-13
2002 8-8
2003 6-10

Grand Total: 30-50. Still looks crappy to me. :idunno:

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster
Vilified for one bad coaching decision

Holmgren sucks as a GM. The Seahawks forced him to give up that role to Bob Ferguson or be fired as both GM and Coach.

First, as Cynical and I have pointed out repeatedly, it's not just one decision.

Second, I disagree that Holmgrem sucks as a GM.

His record there while he had GM duties was:
9-7 (first playoffs in 8 or 9 years - preceeding years were 8-8, so he didn't have to do as much)
6-10
9-7
7-9

Not flashy, but he was building the team towards the success they are starting to have now (and still had 2 winning seasons in the interim - 2 more than Donahoe). Almost every key player on last years team was brought in by Holmgrem (Hasselbeck, Alexander, Hutchinson, Jackson, Robinson, Simmons, to name a few) with a few notable exceptions (Mack Strong and Walter Jones are two that come to mind).

I think he did a better job rebuilding Seattle than Donahoe has done building Buffalo. Why do you say Holgrem sucks as a GM?

Third, even if we disagree on Holmgrem, there were still two more names that I listed and if I knew more about the front office assistants for other teams I'd be able to list a bunch more.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by helmetguy
As far as the so called TD "mystique," how is it that, since his departure from Pittsburgh, the Steelers went from perennial AFC powerhouse to also-ran? When TD was there, they had the cap room to replace "irreplaceable" starters, with little or no diminution to their competitiveness. They were still in the hunt every year. Now, the're an afterthough in their own division, let alone the conference.

In 2001 and 2002 (post-Donahoe years) Pitt won their division. In '98 and '99 (Donahoe's last years), they had sub-.500 records.

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by HenryRules
First, as Cynical and I have pointed out repeatedly, it's not just one decision.

Yeah, that's right. The GM hires the assistants to the head coach. I've been lied to all these years. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by HenryRules
Second, I disagree that Holmgrem sucks as a GM. and Paul Allen disagrees with you. maybe he'd be good as just a GM, but that's something we can't know. He's not able to combine the two roles as evidenced by the fact he was forced to give up the GM role.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster
Yeah, that's right. The GM hires the assistants to the head coach. I've been lied to all these years.

And it's not just the assistant coaches either.

Our OL does not suit our QB (I believe <i>you</i> have stated before that having bad players such as Pucillo and Teague up the middle does not suit Bledsoe's style. Who assembled our OL?

We have used 2 1st round picks and a 2nd on the QB position during TD's time here ... unfortunately only one can be on the field at a time. That's not a wise use of draft choices.

We have used a 1st and a 2nd round pick during TD's era on RB's - that's not a wise use of picks on another position where primarily only one player is on the field at a time.

Depth has always been an issue with this team during TD's time here ... an injury to Moulds completely destroyed our receiving corps.

We have had constant turnover during most of his era as well, a fact that I think has also impacted our record.

And, oh yeah, we haven't finished better than tied for last in our division.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster
and Paul Allen disagrees with you. maybe he'd be good as just a GM, but that's something we can't know. He's not able to combine the two roles as evidenced by the fact he was forced to give up the GM role.

I'm not saying Holmgren as just a GM. I think teams work better where the coach has the final say and not the GM (Parcells, Belichick, Billick, and Vermeil all work under this model I believe). That said, there's only a few that are qualified for that and I think Holmgren is one of them.

Also, just because Paul Allen doesn't think that Holmgren did a good job as GM doesn't mean he wouldn't be an improvement here. First, as I said, I think he did a good job as GM. Second, that was his first experience as GM, I think that there are probably a fair amount of things that he learned in that time (conversely, TD has been a GM for what 15 years now?, I don't think he's learning as much right now). Third, even though Holmgren's teams outperformed TD's (and Holmgren took over an aged team that had peaked and had to be rebuilt pretty much entirely), you're saying that he's not good enough to be a GM ... well, what does that say about TD?

And again, Holmgren was only one of 3 names that I listed as replacements for Donahoe.

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by HenryRules
well, what does that say about TD?
It says that the Mike Holmgren, with Bob Ferguson as GM for the last few years, combo is better than the Gregg Williams-TD combo. Not that hard to figure out.
Point is, is TD perfect? No...and no one is saying he is and it does appear he may have lost a step in the past few years (a good part of that can be said due to the Williams hire alone) but he's hardly a rotten GM. He's kept us under the cap and, except for a few holes (LG and C, IMO are the big ones), he's kept the talent stocked in the player positions. We just need a head coach who can get that talent to produce and many people feel Mularkey is that man.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster
It says that the Mike Holmgren, with Bob Ferguson as GM for the last few years, combo is better than the Gregg Williams-TD combo. Not that hard to figure out.
Point is, is TD perfect? No...and no one is saying he is and it does appear he may have lost a step in the past few years (a good part of that can be said due to the Williams hire alone) but he's hardly a rotten GM. He's kept us under the cap and, except for a few holes (LG and C, IMO are the big ones), he's kept the talent stocked in the player positions. We just need a head coach who can get that talent to produce and many people feel Mularkey is that man.

First, last year was Ferguson's first (it's a minor point, but the only reason that I give Holmgren credit for last year's Seahawk's success - this year the GM credit goes entirely to Ferguson, especially since he did such a makeover on D).

Second ... how many combos does TD get to be a part of before he needs to show success?

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by HenryRules
First, last year was Ferguson's first (it's a minor point, but the only reason that I give Holmgren credit for last year's Seahawk's success - this year the GM credit goes entirely to Ferguson, especially since he did such a makeover on D).

Second ... how many combos does TD get to be a part of before he needs to show success?


He hasn't had too many. He has hired Bill Cowher not too bad and Gregg Williams and that one sucked so he's 50-50. TD also had a team go to the SB with Neil O'Donnell as QB. TD was also instrumental in helping the Steelers make six consecutive playoff appearances in the 1990s. Pittsburgh played in three AFC championship games and reached the Super Bowl in 1996.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by The_Philster
Point is, is TD perfect? No...and no one is saying he is and it does appear he may have lost a step in the past few years (a good part of that can be said due to the Williams hire alone) but he's hardly a rotten GM. He's kept us under the cap and, except for a few holes (LG and C, IMO are the big ones), he's kept the talent stocked in the player positions. We just need a head coach who can get that talent to produce and many people feel Mularkey is that man.

I don't think anyone is going to say there is a "perfect" GM..anywhere. Yes, Jones and Polian are far better than TD, but not everyone can be that successful.

I guess the point HR and I are trying to make is that TD should be viewed as a GM who is out of credits and needs to make it happen this year (happen meaning record wise and/or major progress) As I posted, his last playoff team was '97 and since then it's been:

1998 7-9
1999 6-10
2001 3-13
2002 8-8
2003 6-10

Grand Total: 30-50.

That takes more than just hiring GW. That takes a series of mistakes, even dating back to his days with Cowher. IMO, he doesn't have any more excuses, e.g., cap cleanups, injuries, etc. He is ultimately responsible for the success of the team. May not sound fair but that's the job of GM.

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
I don't think anyone is going to say there is a "perfect" GM..anywhere. Yes, Jones and Polian are far better than TD, but not everyone can be that successful.

I guess the point HR and I are trying to make is that TD should be viewed as a GM who is out of credits and needs to make it happen this year (happen meaning record wise and/or major progress) As I posted, his last playoff team was '97 and since then it's been:

1998 7-9
1999 6-10
2001 3-13
2002 8-8
2003 6-10

Grand Total: 30-50.

That takes more than just hiring GW. That takes a series of mistakes, even dating back to his days with Cowher. IMO, he doesn't have any more excuses, e.g., cap cleanups, injuries, etc. He is ultimately responsible for the success of the team. May not sound fair but that's the job of GM.


It's interesting why you only show from 98 to now why is that?

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The Spaz
It's interesting why you only show from 98 to now why is that?

Recent history.

No one is claiming that he wasn't good about 10 years ago, but that's not the time that we're talking right now.

It's like saying Glen Sather is a good GM in NY because he built all those great Oiler teams.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by The Spaz
It's interesting why you only show from 98 to now why is that?

Beacause that is the start of his decline and it goes back 6 years. If it were 2 or 3 years of decline I'd say I was picking and choosing. But 5 consecutive seasons leading up to today defines a trend.

[Charlieguide]

Originally posted by helmetguy
. . . I'll even give GW the benefit of the diubt for the first season; we had NOTHING but a lot of payroll without names beside the dollars (dead cap). Going 8-8 in his second year was encouraging. How do you can a guy if his team improves by five wins? I called for his head after the "bye" week last year, because his decision making had not changed . . .

I agree 100% GW had a strong start in Buffalo. He and his staff began with a strong system, but they failed to adapt. GW didn't learn from his mistakes or improve on his downfalls. KG didn't keep one step ahead of defenses, and stubbornly refused to change even after defenses exposed weaknesses. Worse, they became predictable, and made poor decisions under pressure.

I have no major problems with TD's coaching decisions. GW looked like a good choice on day 1, you can't blame TD for being impressed in an interview (although he could have at least talked to M. Lewis or J. Fox). GW walked in well-prepared, and with a strong resume to back it up, so he was hired. And when GW failed, then failed to correct, TD took matters into his own hands, and acted accordingly by letting him go.

I do, however, have a problem with TD's view on personnel. When he came in, we knew he had to clean house, but the manner in which he cleaned it bothered me. Key vets like Bruce were released without being asked to stay at less $$. In interviews soon after, I got the impression some of them would have stayed if asked. Then -- who was it, Holecek? -- was kept on board just long enough to force the loss of another player -- Wiley or Ted? -- then was cut, and the money saved in the cut would have allowed the other player to stay.

TD sees his players as replaceable, and while some may be, he doesn't always have the pieces in place before he makes the change. Case in point: Peerless Price and Jay Reimersma. Also, he doesn't always try to keep the first player to begin with. Were Winfield's contract demands really that much higher than Vincent's 6 year, $20M??

I'm getting too wound up . . . gotta cool off for now. I'll wrap it up by saying that I want to see TD learn from his mistakes, as well. He needs to improve talent evaluation, player retention, and feedback to his coaches. If he does these things -- and I believe he is capable -- he has shown growth from a strong base, so he should be given a few more years, at which point, similar questions need to be asked.

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
Beacause that is the start of his decline and it goes back 6 years. If it were 2 or 3 years of decline I'd say I was picking and choosing. But 5 consecutive seasons leading up to today defines a trend.

It's still pickign and choosing give me his total record you go by total success.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by The Spaz
It's still pickign and choosing give me his total record you go by total success.

That only makes sense if you are talking about a few down years. 5 consecutive seasons leading into this one is not picking and choosing. It is a trend that reflects his current ability to GM teams. Looking back 7+ plus years as a basis for a decision as to who should run your team does not make sense.

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
That only makes sense if you are talking about a few down years. 5 consecutive seasons leading into this one is not picking and choosing. It is a trend that reflects his current ability to GM teams. Looking back 7+ plus years as a basis for a decision as to who should run your team does not make sense.

Total does make sense. Just keep keep living up to your username.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The Spaz
Total does make sense. Just keep keep living up to your username.

Total can make sense if there is a steady rate and the performance is consistently around the average.

However, in Donahoe's case, there are two distinct segments to his career. Up until 1998, I believe the worst record a team of his ever had was 9-7. From 1998 forward, his best record is 8-8. That's a very, very solid line right there and because of that, I think the current trend is more indicative of his current abilities.

No segment of Donahoe's career comes close to resembling what his career's totals would indicate would be an average season. As such, I don't think using his career total to evaluate him is accurate.

[The Spaz]

I woudl say TD's 1st 2 years here he was in a rebuildin gmode now look at th etalent we have on this team there is no denyingthat. Hopefully this coachign staff can get the most talent out of them.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by The Spaz
Total does make sense. Just keep keep living up to your username.

And you keep living up to yours....it makes no sense. :rolleyes:

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by HenryRules
Total can make sense if there is a steady rate and the performance is consistently around the average.

However, in Donahoe's case, there are two distinct segments to his career. Up until 1998, I believe the worst record a team of his ever had was 9-7. From 1998 forward, his best record is 8-8. That's a very, very solid line right there and because of that, I think the current trend is more indicative of his current abilities.

No segment of Donahoe's career comes close to resembling what his career's totals would indicate would be an average season. As such, I don't think using his career total to evaluate him is accurate.

:bf1:

Bingo.

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
And you keep living up to yours....it makes no sense. :rolleyes:

:up:

[Mr. Cynical]

And for those who want more specific details on his perfect career in Pittsburgh, I suggest taking a look at this:

Link (http://www.mcmillenandwife.com/donahoe.html)

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
And for those who need more specific details on his perfect career in Pittsburgh, I suggest taking a look at this:

Link (http://www.mcmillenandwife.com/cowher_conspiracy.html)

Now that's an objective view.:rolleyes: Not only that but a quite a few of replies in there don't agree with the article that are Steeler fans.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by The Spaz
Now that's an objective view.:rolleyes:

Yes, he is obviously a Cowher fan. But disprove what he says about the transactions TD made. They are not subjective.

[Mr. Cynical]

I still don't understand your undying defense of TD. :huh:

Put it this way, even though it doesn't make sense to use this stat, his TOTAL record is 94-88. So, if we go 4-12 this year, he will be a CAREER LOSING GM at 98-100.

Yeah, that's a GM I want on my team. :up:

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
I still don't understand your undying defense of TD. :huh:

Put it this way, even though it doesn't make sense to use this stat, his TOTAL record is 94-88. So, if we go 4-12 this year, he will be a CAREER LOSING GM at 98-100.

Yeah, that's a GM I want on my team. :up:

IF IF IF...:rofl::lol: What is Modrak's record now?:snicker:

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
I still don't understand your undying defense of TD. :huh:

Put it this way, even though it doesn't make sense to use this stat, his TOTAL record is 94-88. So, if we go 4-12 this year, he will be a CAREER LOSING GM at 98-100.

Yeah, that's a GM I want on my team. :up:


Tell me Cynical what do you cheer for in games?

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The Spaz
IF IF IF...:rofl::lol: What is Modrak's record now?:snicker:

You want to talk IF IF IF ... how about, <b>if</b> this coaching staff can perform like seasoned vets and <b>if</b> TD's decisions have been as good as he says they have been, and <b>if</b> the last 5 years have been a fluke, then we have a good GM on our hands.

Conversely, we have ... TD's record here is 17-31. His record at the end of his Pitt years was 13-19. 30-50 is not a good record.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The Spaz
Tell me Cynical what do you cheer for in games?

I think it should be pretty obvious that Cynical and I both cheer for the Bills ... I think the difference between us and you is that Cynical and I would like to be able to cheer at the end of games as well instead of just cheering during the games. Nothing ruins my weekend like a Bills loss and we've had too many of those during the Donahoe era.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by HenryRules
I think it should be pretty obvious that Cynical and I both cheer for the Bills ... I think the difference between us and you is that Cynical and I would like to be able to cheer at the end of games as well instead of just cheering during the games. Nothing ruins my weekend like a Bills loss and we've had too many of those during the Donahoe era.

That was so well put.

[The Spaz]

If you don't think I can about wins and losses then your sadly mistaken I'm just saying more is to blame on the coaching than td himself.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The Spaz
If you don't think I can about wins and losses then your sadly mistaken I'm just saying more is to blame on the coaching than td himself.

If our problems the last 3 years were only due to coaching, then shouldn't we be able to win this year or next with a new coaching staff?

If the change in coaching staff does not resolve our W/L record, then the problem is definitely TD's and that's pretty much all that Cynical and I are saying (not meaning to put words in Cynical's mouth, but I think that's what he's saying). TD is out of excuses now, he needs to put up soon.

[Mr. Cynical]

Originally posted by HenryRules
If our problems the last 3 years were only due to coaching, then shouldn't we be able to win this year or next with a new coaching staff?

If the change in coaching staff does not resolve our W/L record, then the problem is definitely TD's and that's pretty much all that Cynical and I are saying (not meaning to put words in Cynical's mouth, but I think that's what he's saying). TD is out of excuses now, he needs to put up soon.

Exactly. The only thing I would add is that regardless of the reasons, e.g., coaching, players, cap room, etc., the GM is ultimately responsible for the success of the team no matter what. So, given that fact, if the team does not rebound significantly this year, TD should go. He has had more than enough chances since '97 to produce a winning team in one way or another and so far he has not gotten that done. As HR pointed out he is not a rookie GM and is well seasoned enough to be accountable for his teams' successes and failures.

And to put a final point on this whole thing....I HOPE it works out and we have a run here like he did with Pitt from 92-97. That would be phenominal. Why wouldn't I want that? All we're saying is that we've been wallowing in mediocrity for long enough and *whatever* it takes to get back to the top we want done. That means nobody is untouchable. We just want what is ultimately going to get the Bills a Super Bowl win. :up:

[BillyT92679]

All I know is, the Bills haven't been to the playoffs since the '99 season, haven't hosted a playoff game since I was a senior in high school (January of 1997) and haven't won a playoff game or a division title since 1995. Every other team in the AFC East, including the Colts, have won at least one division title since then. I don't know if its Donahoe's fault or whomever's fault, but four AFC Championships, and 6 division titles in 8 years is sadly becoming a distant memory. I just pray for better days ahead.