oldmanfan

Your feelings get bruised rather easily

I'd have to say Reggie. Both were ridiculous pass rushers of course, but I feel Reggie was better against the run.

I see your point. The third was just ridiculous all the way around. No team should ever be embarrassed like that in a championship game.

It was an amazing run. I'd also be happy to talk to you about the two AFL championships - that was even better!

Shaw, it's like talking to a brick wall. The guy you're arguing with claims Allen can't throw short, then claims he should only throw long. And I am willing to bet if we went back to look at posts after games from last year he criticized Allen for NOT throwing short. There are some here who, for whatever reason, think it's somehow fun to reflexively criticize each and every decision made by the Bills front office and coaching staff. I have no idea why. They have this bizarre, misguided idea that every single decision made by a leader of an organization has to be correct, every single time, or you're a failure. There has never been any organization in the history of mankind that can match that standard, yet some here think it should be so for the BIlls.

Or not. As I said I wish we would have kept him, and we'll see how he does this season. However, your response pretty much summarizes some of the back and forth going on in this thread. It seems you want Sammy to succeed this year because that will give you an opportunity to criticize the current regime. Much like in many of your posts you blast the current ownership for sins committed under Ralph's ownership.

I wish we'd have kept Sammy. That said he's not exactly setting the league on fire since the trade.

Everyone who has ever succeeded at something new had never done it before.

If the criteria being used to judge include either : 1. Never making a mistake on a player move; i. e. every draft pick or FA has to work out; or 2. every decision made has to align with the desires of a specific fan or small group of fans, then no management team will ever be considered successful nor has ever been successful.

In looking back through this thread and all the stuff going back and forth, I thought it worth mentioning that you can be impressed by the job Beane and McD are doing even though you may not agree with every move, or even if every move doesn't pan out. To me, I'm impressed because they have a plan they feel will make the team a contender for years to come, and they are working in tandem to bring that dream to fruition. Unlike some organizations I've seen inside and outside of sports, where decisions sometimes are haphazard and/or there seems to be a new 5 year plan every year, these guys are at least consistent in their approach. They believe in a certain type of culture that promotes success, they preach that, they look for players and I assume front office and coaching staff that fit that, they set consistent expectations not only for players and staff but themselves, and believe in accountability. They know they need a potential franchise QB; they do what they have to in order to be in position to draft one. Then they focus on putting things around him to succeed. And so on. I don't agree with all they've done; I'd still like to have Sammy here for example. But that's OK. I don't have a crystal ball, they may be very successful and they may flame out. But I have to say I'm impressed thus far with how they go about what they do. There's a focus and consistency in purpose that is appealing.

I recall seeing pictures of McD on the field one on one with Dareus, talking with him and (I guess) trying to get through to him. I think he really tried to get Dareus to understand the level of commitment he wanted and Dareus just refused. Turned out to be a good decision.

I was going to approach Warren Buffett about investing advice. But I guess he's too old. Good thing I read through this thread.

It is probably blasphemy around here but I don't see how Marv got into the Hall, at least as quickly as he did. I think coaching lost the first and fourth SBs.

To me it all started with Tom Donahoe. Ralph reached outside the organization for him, and when he didn't succeed Ralph (or maybe Litman; I think the great untold story in the 17 year failure was Litman's influence on an aging owner) was not going to go outside again. So that begat Marv, who had no business being a GM, who hired Jauron, who proved the point that a great coordinator doesn't make a great HC, which begat Nix, and so on, and so on. That's why I divorce anything that has happened since the Pegulas took over from done under Ralph. They've made their share of mistakes (Rex???), but it's comparing apples and oranges.

Absolutely. For the record I thought Edwards was the answer.

How about this: I could care less about such instances, because it doesn't matter a hill of beans what other teams do, and because I was not the one making such a big deal about it. I think having guys that have been through it talking to younger guys coming up in generally a good idea, whether it's football or business or whatever. Maybe they share what worked in terms of leadership and, perhaps even more importantly, share things they messed up. Sorry you're getting so upset. Are you going to send your dad to beat me up after school now? I see this point. If I'm Allen I'd take whatever time Jim wanted to give me.

And I'll comment on them. As you can comment on mine. Agreed. I'm grouchy this morning for some reason. Gunner gets it. Ultimately they have their plan, and it will succeed or not. My gripe is the assumption by some that it won't succeed. Time will tell.

Next time don't make declarative statement that you then have to retract. From a football perspective I see your point. But Kelly also led a team that had its share of interesting personalities, and insight into how he approached leadership could certainly be helpful to a young guy that has to now shoulder that responsibility.

But,but but but - you have to show me the baby!!!!! You can think and post what you want. I can comment on them. Quit being ridiculous.

Of course not. Don't you know that the Bills organization doesn't think about things? They just come up with ideas in a dream and then put them into action with no forethought at all. And that stands regardless of the GM, owner, etc. etc. Because Beane is Whaley is Nix is Brandon is Marv is Donahoe is Butler is Polian, and on down the line. Much like Pegula is Ralph. And how McD ultimately is the same as Buster Ramsay. Because the faults of any previous Bills coach, GM, owner, etc. are to be blamed on whomever occupies the positions currently. It's why the naysayers continue to evoke memories of the past to curse the guys there now.

Thanks. Joeinwinslow asked for ONE team (his capitals, not mine) that had a former great QB come in to help mentor a younger guy. Game, set, match.

Exactly. They are no different than any other team. They have a plan and we'll see if they're right or wrong.

Whatever. Kelly has leadership skills, Allen will be the leader of this team. Pick his brain about that. Questions I'd ask Jim if I were Allen: 1. How did hosting parties after every home game help bring the team together? 2. As a young QB what's the best way to call out veterans if I need to? Just a couple of many leadership type questions one could ask. Effective leadership skills don't have an expiration date.

It's good to see logic on this board. McD and Beane have a plan on how to build a consistently successful championship football team. They are implementing their plan. Their plan involved getting rid of players they didn't think fit and taking a cap hit quickly to do so, then using their dollars to get guys they want. If their plan works they'll be heros. If it doesn't they'll get fired. That is reality. The other reality is if they had done what some wanted and just retooled a bit, worked around the edges, etc. the naysayers would be on here moaning about how they should have stripped everything down, taken the cap hit all at once, etc. Because the agenda is to argue against whatever the Bills do to look cute on a message board.

Because you are completely off base. If you had a company with a young CEO learning the ropes, would you not think it would be good to have a former retired successful CEO maybe talk with him about what he learned in his career?