Thurman#1

Ah.

I haven't bothered responding to your comments about Graham, because people dislike who they want. It's all fair enough. Not liking Graham is reasonable. But he's a terrific writer and a smart guy. The guy's story on that famous Vietnam war photo was nominated for a Pulitzer. He won a "Barney" award from the Boxing Writers of America for first place for best story of the year. He's been published in the "Best American Sports Writing" anthology series, no small achievement. He's repeatedly won writing awards from the Professional Hockey Writers' Association, including at least two first-place awards. His Bjorn Nittmo pieces have been fascinating but heart-breaking and have been mentioned in SI as some of the best journalism of 2016: https://www.si.com/tech-media/2017/01/03/best-journalism-writing-reporting-2016 It's still reasonable to disagree with him, to not like him. But Graham's a highly respected journalist. As for your contest, it looked interesting to me. I live in Japan, so I wouldn't have been able to collect my prize, so I didn't enter. Have you ever had to pay off? I'd guess not, yeah? Picking all sixteen games correctly is seriously difficult. It's always looked like a really good idea to me. I think it's way too early to say they've improved. Not too early to guess, though. Maybe they have. Let's hope so. Well, that's one guess.

Allright, that's pretty interesting, I'll keep it in mind.

2012: 6-10 May 13, 2013, Nix steps away 2013: 6-10 2014: 9-7 2015: 8-8 2016: 7-9 Start to finish, if there's improvement there, it's very marginal indeed. As for QB play, the best the Bills have had in 16 years? I'd take Bledsoe's first year, myself. But maybe. But saying that they got the best QB play that the Buffalo Bills have had in 16 years is like saying they got the most talented actor out of Rob Schneider, Adam Sandler, Dane Cook, Matthew Lillard and Ashton Kutcher. They didn't have a franchise QB going into his term and that's what it looks like going out. I'm talking specifically about the phrase "waste of time." I totally agree, again based on win-loss, the lack of a franchise QB on the roster and the overall quality of the roster he acquired vs. the roster he passed on. Who are you? How did you come across this info?

I don't know how much your word stands out either, Kirby. Are you the real Kirby? In any case, I'd be very willing to believe he was really important in decision-making. After all, he was the assistant GM and the heir apparent. But people want to say what this guy said, that Whaley was in charge and Nix had been phased out. I'm not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. Nix was clearly trying to get Whaley ready. But I've seen no evidence that he was marginalized or didn't have final yes or no say, whether or not he used it to veto anything by anybody.

As for whether Whaley's term was a waste of time, look at the win-loss record, at whether we got a QB and at the quality of the roster when he arrived and when he left. Yup. a waste of time and it's hard to look at it any other way.

That's always been a popular thing for people who liked Whaley to say. There's never been the slightest indication there's any truth to it, though. No evidence of any kind. Nobody but fans have ever said it.

That was obvious P.R. language. They were doing a complete rebuild. Of course they were going to suck and Nix knew it. But you can't say that. That's why they lost more the first two - three years under Nix. That's what happens when you rebuild. The strongest lineup this team has fielded in recent years was pretty much the one operating with mostly Nix guys. Look at the defense in Whaley's first year and which guys were brought in under Nix and not Whaley ... Alan Branch (Nix), Mario Williams, Marcell Dareus, Kyle Williams (pre-Nix, but he kept him around), Kiko Alonso, Manny Lawson (Nix), McKelvin, (pre-Nix), Gilmore, Aaron Williams, Jairus Byrd. And Hughes, and Nix pulled the trigger on that one too. The next year too the excellent defense was almost all Nix guys. Where he laid a major egg was bringing in OLs like Legursky and Colin Brown, and Cornell Green as you mentioned below. But he built the foundation of a very very fine defense indeed. The reason Nix's legacy is now tarnished is that though he drafted pretty well and put together a good group of players on defense and a few on offense, he didn't bring in a QB and he did bring in his own replacement, a guy who turned out not to be able to do the job. That's where Nix fell down and hurt his own reputation. He brought in Whaley. It's what his reputation was always likely to rest on. Come on, you can't blame Jason Peters on Nix. He was still working in San Diego when the Bills let him go. He didn't replace him well until Cordy Glenn, but he is in fact the guy who finally drafted Cordy. Same with Maybin. Nix was on the staff at the time but wasn't the GM and the word was that the guy who made that pick was Jauron. As part of a consensus of course between Russ and Marv. The Spiller pick was a bad one indeed, you're very right. He did make mistakes but if Whaley had turned out to be a good GM, Nix would have looked pretty damn good in retrospect.

Nor have you. Do you? Why is it necessary for people who disagree with you to do so, but not the people who agree with you or you yourself. And I can point out currently-working journalists who disagree with you, not least the ones working at the News. Or the ones working at the vastly bigger Newsday who tried to hire Sully, who turned them down to come to the News. Almost anytime a News writer writes anything negative about the Bills we hear a ton of nonsense about how it's bad journalism, when mostly what it is is someone writing bad things about a bad team that the poster is a fan of and doesn't want to hear bad things about. The News isn't perfect. But they're a highly respected paper. That doesn't mean I agree with them always, I don't. But they write well and generally make me think. What you refer to as insulting is essentially just your perspective. You've used the word a bunch of times now. What words specifically are insulting rather than just critical? "Shortsightedness," for instance ... isn't insulting, it's critical. And frankly true, as well. "He's a stupid man," would be insulting. And I agree 100% with Graham that his stewardship was a waste of time. The roster has gotten worse under Whaley. Their record in the last five years started at 6-9, went 6-9 again, jumped to 9-7, dipped to 8-8 and ended up at 7-9. And they still don't appear to have a QB. A classic waste of time, IMHO. If you disagree, fine, that's your prerogative, but that's not insulting it's critical and all to correct. I liked Felser too, a lot actually, but it's a different world now. If Felser were still writing, he wouldn't be writing like he did back then.

No, he wasn't. He gave a horrible interview. They called it horrible. And they certainly did specifically address what he said in the interview. More, what he said in the interview defended his actions as GM. That made it very logical and relevant to point out his mistakes. Yeah, they'd pointed some of those mistakes out before. Whaley was trying desperately to polish a turd and pointing that out made total sense.

You keep talking about access as if it's an issue. It isn't. Nobody cares that they aren't getting great access. If the Bills want to keep them out I have no problem with that. But we understand when they say bad things about a bad team. That's their job. And I have no idea what you're talking about with restaurants, but again, I just don't care. Oh, and if you think the Buffalo media are expressing themselves impolitely, you'd be well-advised not to go to Philly, or NYC, or Chicago or D.C. or pretty much anywhere else, really.

You're right, it's not the job of the Bills owner, GM or coach to help the beat reporters look good. It's their job to - Gosh, I don't know - make the playoffs occasionally, maybe? Look like they're heading that way, at least. At which Whaley sucked the whole time. The Pegulas may possibly have finally taken steps in the right direction at last but until now they have failed as well. Of course the media said mostly bad things about them. No, not 16 years, just four years in which the organization he was responsible for made almost no progress whatsoever. And he's no longer the GM but is still giving a national interview about his time with the Bills. That's newsworthy. I'm willing to believe that you get it, but you're sure not showing it in that post.

Dude, the GM gave an address about leaving the Bills. Of course they reported on it. And it was awful. They pointed out where it was good (he didn't attack the Bills) and where it was absolutely wretched (asked what you learned he said if he had to do it again he would make a plan to bring in a QB, essentially admitting that either he had no plan to bring in a QB when he was hired or he learned absolutely nothing on the job). They were dead on target.

Not making the playoffs for sixteen years isn't average, it's extremely substandard. It's the longest playoff drought not just in the NFL currently but in American major pro sports. Calling that average says a lot more about you than about how the Bills have played. They're now tied for 5th longest drought in all of NFL history. And the coverage isn't 95% negative, but yeah, probably 80% or a bit higher. As it should be. Gotten a lot more positive since they hired the new group. Why? It looks like they at least have a plan for once. People have noticed and that includes the News and the media in general.

He'll have to take a lower-level job and then he'll either work his way up to potential candidate again, or he won't. Can't see him getting a GM position right now, though. Not based on his current C.V.

Not like they had a real choice. In Seattle, he opted in and suddenly his stats improved. 2007: 4.0 YPA 2008 4.1 YPA 2009: 3.8 YPA 2010: 3.6 YPA 2011: 4.4 YPA 2012: 5.0 YPA 2013: 4.2 YPA 2014: 4.7 YPA 2015: 3.8 YPA Quick quiz: Look at those numbers and guess when he started having legal problems in Buffalo, and when he left Buffalo for Seattle. Exactly.

So he's out for like a week? But still going to practices? Jeez, this is not a big thing. Same for Zay's injury. Neither are very big unless the injuries hang around and around and around. Heh heh. We should've drafted him and had him change his name to Kyle.

Most of that dead money is dead because it's guaranteed, not because it's the unamortized remains of his signing bonus. If they traded him or waived him and someone picked up the contract, it wouldn't cost us nearly that much in dead money. But whether we would be able to do that is questionable. Maybe, maybe not. And yeah, he has established a pattern and patterns are hard to break. Hope he manages it. Yup. Let me close my eyes and imagine it. Unh hunh. Unfortunately, what's coming up is multiple Pro Bowls and a Hall of Fame career. Beckham's a jackass, but a good teammate.

You're right. Fans can bash him. But not the media. Because after all, they're the media. And giving their opinion in columns isn't their job. Oh, wait ... They pointed out that he didn't denigrate the organization. But having now listened, I'm in total agreement that the interview was a showcase of the exact qualities that caused him to fail as a GM. Now, only now after his years of tough experience he figured out he should have a plan to get a QB? Good grief. He always seemed like a good guy. But GMs will get criticized, particularly GMs who don't bring their teams toward quality. They cover a team that has sucked for how many years. At OBD, yeah, the sky is always falling. At least pretty much since Jim Kelly retired it is.

Yeah, I'm sure he wasn't referring to the spot about six words earlier where the guy said, "Dang your old." Sad about Cortez. He was a heck of a player.

It wasn't clear, but I think he meant keep the rosters at 53, but let everybody dress, not cut the roster to 48.

As a proud father I can tell you I pointed out my wife's baby bump more than once. Nothing wrong with it, though it indeed means very little. I mean, yeah, hiring an all-star team of midwives doesn't guarantee a talented baby. Doesn't hurt, either, though. And let's face it, there's a major hunger for NFL news, even when very very little is happening, as a five-page thread about the scouting staff shows.

The whole thing about "we lost x games by less than x points" is a red herring. It's just the bell curve in action. Most NFL games are won or lost by seven or less points. It's not a point of honor to lose by relatively little. It just means you lost. That's all. You can go to nearly every team in the league nearly every year and they can say the same thing.

Indeed.

Come on, John, that is really reaching. If they cared they'd have someone write a report for them. If they cared, they'd have left the team boards alone.