dave mcbride
-
Posts
24,205 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by dave mcbride
-
-
-
Darryl Talley, Nate Odomes and Henry Jones may not have been hall of famers, but they were amongst the best at their positions during those years.
Not to disagree with you Dave, because I appreciate your historical knowledge of the Bills (anyone who would have the guts to use Bullough for their avatar must be supremely confident), but I think you are giving Corey more credit than he deserves. It is true that they did well enough to win a ton of regualar season games, and playoff games, but I would argue that their success was due, in most part, to the tremendous players that they were, not because the defensive coaches put them in the best position to succeed. In those days, the Bills rarely lost, but when they did, their defenses were dominated. Once they couldn't accumualte enough turnovers to compensate for all of the yards they were giving up, they were done.
I am not normally one to trash old players and coaches in retrospect either. I know that is the norm around here. But I swear, even then, I thought Corey was a miserable DC. If Wade Phillips were here for just one of those Super Bowls, I think their chances of winning would have increased a lot...I remember the offensive co-ordinater for the '91 Redskins that walloped us (can't remember his name right now) made some comment, after that game that the Bills defense "is pretty basic, they really don't change things up a lot". Crud, getting pissed thinking about it even now!
i agree largely with what you are saying. i wasn't a huge fan of corey either. i guess my point is that he wasn't THAT bad, and there were far worse DCs at the time. the defense did have some real bright spots -- they did force TOs, they did play well at home and in the afc playoffs as a rule, and they had a consistent philosophy. perhaps it wasn't the best philosophy -- having kelso playing 40 yards off the line of scrimmage was coaching scared -- but the consistency of its application did help them. one minor point -- jones was only around for the 2 final super bowls. he was an excellent player in his prime, though. re wade, yeah, but look at denver's defense when he was the head coach and they didn't have any quality dts. they were eaten alive. having ted washington (or someone like him) would have made a huge difference. as it turns out, he was in my opinion the best player on the field in the pats-carolina super bowl a couple of years ago ...
-
Kiper was just on NFL Live. IF VY comes out:
Before yesterday, Bush & Leinart were 1-3, with Young going 6-10.
After yesterday, Young shot up to top 3 & could end up #1,
too early to tell, should be a wild race to draft day.
Kiper also said that Bush shouldn't be hurt by the perception that he went into a funk after that awful lateral.
you know, bush had 187 combined yards from scrimmage along with a spectacular td. thurman had 190 combined along with a spectacular td v. the giants in the sb. the point is that he played pretty well and put up some big numbers.
-
As has been pointed out, there is no great mystery to the salary cap. If you give a guy a signing bonus, that gets amortized over the life of the contract. Simple math.
The mystery comes in when deciding what a player's worth would be in free agency. Butler clearly messed this up by giving Fina a big contract. The next year, Fina was released, and played for someone else at close to the minimum salary. So you don't want to overestimate what someone else will pay for your players, as Butler did.
But you don't want to underestimate it either. TD's best OL draft choice was Jonas Jennings. But Jennings walked after just four years because TD let him hit free agency instead of signing him to an extension after year 2 or 3. When your GM makes this kind of mistake too often, your cap situation will be good, but your team won't be.
The key to managing your cap well is knowing which players you want to keep, and offering them just enough money to keep them from hitting free agency.
good points.
-
Ummm... that's what people mean by the CAP! Player evaluations under the cap. Ostroski was a bad player because he wasnt worth his cap figure. Because we couldnt get other players because a slob was taking up too much of our cap. That's as much a cap problem as a talent problem. How can you argue otherwise? All players are worth it or not worth it because of their cap figure.
come on, dog. the bills cap problems from the late butler era (which were overhyped in any event) had to do with the truly unique qb issue they faced. they would have been fine without it. as for, ostroski, who was probably paid more than he was worth, he had nothing to do with the bills' cap problems (he averaged around $2 mill a year, which was a pittance vis a vis the cap).
in any event, the cap is going way up this season, and the bills are in fine shape in any case. moreeover there is no cap (as of yet) for 07. so the potential problem you're raising is merely theoretical.
-
-
spare me. first of all, none of you have any response to my point. i said draft well and sign good free agents. any critic of butler that's honest with himself wouldn't resort to cap gobbledygook and would instead complain about the quality of the players he (re)signed. butler was definitely more good than bad, but john fina didn't deserve the huge amount of money he got after the 1999 season. that's player evaluation, not "caponomics" (i shudder using that word). if fina was a great player and butler resigned him, not a one of you would be complaining.
-
You acquire players through free agency, which is half of your roster, based on what they are worth to you in dollar figures, what they and their agents will accept as payment to join your team, and their talent on the field in direct relationship to those other two things. They are as integral to each other as they could possibly be.
this is my bugaboo, so i'll jump in -- knowledge of the intricacies of the cap is the most overrated thing in football. draft and sign good players, hire good coaches, and things will take care of themselves. you have to remember that the bills aren't going to have cap problems anyway, because they have virtually no money invested in the qb postion, which is the greatest cap space eater. and they won't have money invested in it for some time to come. same goes for running back. the biggest space eater, mike williams, is gone. to reiterate what i said elsewhere, the notion that there is their is this mysterious and arcane knowledge of the cap reserved for the chosen few is absolutely ridiculous. it's simple freakin' arithmetic, not theoretical physics. also, recall that the recently fired high thetan of cap management and all of its arcana had a goddamn BA in english from indiana college in PA and spent a good amount of time afterward as a high school english teacher.
-
you've got to be kidding me. who were the bills defensive tackles? their safeties? their left defensive end? come on - aside from bruce, bennett, and conlan for about 5 seasons (which were punctuated by injuries), there were no great players on that defense.
-
-
I have seen posts claiming that Marv was a GM in the Canadian League and has some experience, but I don't see it anywhere. His own website doesn't mention it. He seems to have been a coach and only a coach, excluding broadcasting.
http://www.jewsinsports.org/profile.asp?sport=football&ID=10
-
Dave, you lost me here...did the defense really improve greatly between 1991 and 1992? I think the world of Marv, but I always thought that Walt Corey was his biggest mistake...that defense had some great individual players who made great plays, but, IMO, never played well as a unit. In the end, they were underachieving. Did Walt Corey ever make a half-time adjustment that worked?
p.s. the bills d improved from 27th in 91 to 13th in 92. in 93, they were dead last in yards, but they forced a gazillion turnovers and ended up giving up the fifth fewest points as a consequence.
the bills d was not poorly coordinated in the giants super bowl; it just failed to make key tackles. in the 91 season playoffs, they blew out kc and shut out denver until there was a minute to go. they lost to the redskins on a number of levels, but the key one was turnovers and a complete inability to run the ball. in the 92 season playoffs, the d rallied mightily after being buried by houston in the first half, crushed pitt in pitt to the tune of 3 points, and obliterated miami in miami.
in the 93 season playoffs, they shut down the raiders after the first 20 minutes except for one big play to tim brown and crushed the chiefs, knocking montana out of the game after he had taken a real pounding.
like i said, the retrospective trashing of the coaches because they bills played well in most every game except the super bowl totally neglects the other 18-19 games of the season. corey certainly wasn't perfect -- he was no master tactician like belichick -- but his read and react philosophy generally meant that the bills rarely gave up long passing plays and teams were rarely off to the races against them.
-
Now, you're going in a circular argument. Are you saying that the only viable candidate for the GM spot is someone who's already had GM experience? Wouldn't that only leave people who failed at their previous GM jobs? Thus, if by hiring a former personnel director to take over GM duties, aren't you taking the same risk that the guy won't be able to handle the full responsibility of a GM?
The GM spot is an executive position. I'd venture to guess that you can take a solid senior executive out of IBM or GE and he can turn out to be a capable NFL GM.
Marv was a decent GM in Montreal. He was integrally involved in managing the team when he was coach, as he worked very closely with Polian, Butler & Adams. I don't feel that his 8 year absense from the game is going to be as big a factor as people make it out to be.
marv was also a broadcaster when he was hired in 1987.
-
I was, too.
But I thought the USC defensive front 7 and overall scheme were pretty lame for all the rep that Carroll has as a d-coordinator. And Young was never confused becuse he had the upmost confidence that he could pull the ball down on any passing play and get a guaranteed 7-10 yard gain with his legs.
you can't blame carroll or the usc defense. they were going up against a once-in-a-lifetime inhuman force of nature last night. good god.
-
ah, but you see, my negativity was directed to events that had already occurred or were in the process of occurring. i have nothing to be negative about regarding this change, since there is no evidence to be negative. my most negative post (from a couple of weeks ago), in which i said the bills were a no-talent team, was based on the fact that they had a terrible record and were mired in the bottom of every defensive and offensive statistical category.
-
I don't see why the above is at all relevant. For one, many of the above things are just plain impossible. Secondly, I don't think that Buffalo has ever quite had an angry mob on its hands like it did after this season.
Well, there's nothing on my resume that would disqualify me from being a good GM either. There's also scant little on my resume that suggests that I am the best candidate for the job.
Marv Levy has scant experience in managing a salary cap and dealing with free agency. Moreover, Marv has not been developing these skills for the past eight years. He has not spent the past eight years in any sort of position where he was evaluating either pro personnel nor college personnel for the draft. He has not spent the past eight years in any sort of position where he was negotiating contracts, structuring contracts, nor learning about any of the developments in contract writing and structuring that have occurred in the NFL over the past ten years. He does not arrive in this organization with a strong knowledge of the state of pro personnel on this team, nor around the League in this day.
Thus, to me his hiring is worse that hiring some unknown with no prior GM experience. At least an "unknown" would have some current prior Front Office Experience. But Marv's been a broadcaster for the last however-many years. And how have things turned out for the last team that hired a broadcaster as a GM?
In short, I believe that in hiring our next GM the question should have been:
1) Which GM candidate will build a team that will produce the most wins over the five years?
I find it very difficult to believe that Marv Levy is the obvious answer to that question from a football standpoint. If Marv Levy had an identical resume, only with the Pittsburgh Steelers from 1986-1997, would he have even gotten an interview? If Marv Levy had not been a successful Head Coach under Bill Polian, knowing that Coaching has notable differences from GM'ing, would he have even gotten an interview? It seems clear to me that he was not brought in for football reasons, he was brought in because he is a popular link to the team's "Golden Age" past.
As such, I unfortunately suspect that Ralph Wilson asked the following questions instead of the above question:
1) Which GM candidate will create the most buzz among our disillusioned fan base?
2) Which GM candidate will support me in intra-organization political battles?
and even:
3) Which GM candidate will not want to chose his own HC, but will instead let me avoid firing one of the lowest-paid NFL coaches with 3 years left on his contract?
Indeed, that last question points to what is further adding to my despair - namely that the moves Marv seems to be making even before he officially takes the position already seem to be the wrong ones. For one, he has already agreed to retain Mike Mularkey - whom as you know, I believe has a very strong case against him. Secondly, he appears to be facilitating a two-faced owner who tells us point-blank at 2:30 in the afternoon that he doesn't pick Asst. Coaches, the HC picks Asst. Coaches, and that we can all, quote, "go home" - and then trots back out at 5:15 the same afternoon to announce that his HC is keeping his job after having fired lots of his Assts. per his demands.
Finally, I see no hallmarks of a winning organization being built here, as I noted in a previous post. I see cosmetic brushes being applied to the top of an organization that is only increasing its disfunctionality. I don't think that the new-look Bills organization we see today is disqualified from being successful - but I find it impossible at this point to bet on them being successful in the near future.
JDG - Who is not happy about being so unhappy.....
like i said in another post, make these charges when you have some evidence and actual results to base them on.
don't worry -- be happy!
-
-
I disagree. I think that Marv was brought back as PR move - to cater to the fans who call into Sports Talk Radio.
The Buffalo area has been afflicted with "Golden Age" disease for a long time now. With six years of no playoffs, and even longer without a playoff win, the fans in Buffalo always look back upon the "Golden Age" as a time when everything was right with the world - and somehow believe that anything associated with that magical "Golden Age" is a cure-all for whatever afflicts the Bills in the depressingly realistic President.
How many times have we seen it? When the Bills' Special Teams were bad a few years ago, it was "bring back Steve Tasker as ST Coach." Whenever the offense is struggling, its "bring back the no-huddle", or my personal favorite "bring back Jim Kelly as Offensive Coordinator." And when everything is just plain going badly its "bring back Marv Levy."
I'm sorry, but in my mind, it is impossible to believe that the return of Marv Levy is a football decision. Instead, I see Marv Levy as serving two purposes:
1) Appealing to deluded "Golden Age" Buffalo Bills fans as a PR move to boost sales
2) Improving communication to a meddling owner, who despite being an 87-year-old owner, wants to be involved in some way in the day-to-day football decisions of the organization
And honestly, I am terrified that after another year of struggles under Mularkey that the Bills will finally make the right decision in letting Mularkey go, and that Marv Levy might hire himself as Head Coach.
None of this, though, has the sign of football moves designed to bring us into the future - instead it seems like a bunch of cosmetic moves designed to hang onto the past. Ugh.
JDG
did you ever think of giving levy a chance before condeming him? what has he ever done to suggest that he's not an at least solid-to-good administrator?
the doom and gloom about this is just laughable. wake up! we were 31-49 over the last 5 years!! that's 62-98 in baseball! it's horrible!
maybe, just maybe, marv will get people on the same page, some good personnel decisions will be made, and the bills will be a winning team. think positively - it'll make you feel better.
-
Geez Dave, it is awfully funny how the other team with the superior coach always managed to win that game. Didn't matter if they inferior or superior players... Yet, Marv Levy's legend lives on in your mind.
I'm sure the Giants savior THEIR victory with an inferior team... too bad we have to listen to excuses for why our "Hall of Fame" coach, with no legacy whatsoever, who was run out of town (that happens to ALL the Hall of Fame coaches right?) couldn't get it done....
marv levy's legend? do you even read my posts? man you've got an animus towards the guy. anyway, i'm talking about corey, for one thing, who by the way i never said was great. and i'm on record here many times over the years here as saying that the 1991 super bowl was the only one ever in which the less talented team one. i had to add the pats victory in 2001, but still, it's been only 2 times. as for the other bills super bowls, the bills had far less talent. i mean come on - it's obvious.
-
They were a better team, they were not a more talented team. I agree with you that the only game we should have won, when we were clearly the better team, was the Giants game. The Skins had a miracle year and the Cowboys were a better team. But I think they were simply a better coached team, and we had as many good and as many star players as they did, on both sides of the ball.
i think that kelly was not the same player after rupturing his bursar sac in his elbow about 2/3 of the way before the 92 season, and he was immobile in the playoffs that year. aikman was clearly better. the cowboys had better offensive and defensive lines, especially in 93 after wolford had left. they also had a far better secondary than the bills, a better tight end, and better receivers. the bills probably had better linebackers in 1992, but in 93 it was pretty much a wash -- the dallas lbs were so damn fast, and the bills were starting mark maddox and a slowing darryl talley.
-
good point! although emmitt was pretty damn good himself. this is all bringing back memories of jeff wright wrapping up emmitt in the back field at about the 12 only to be swatted away like a mosquito. emmitt ran in, and the cowboys went up 20-13.
in all fairness, the cowboys were a way more talented team than the bills in 92 and 93.
-
Umm.. he's on shaky ground because the owner wouldn't say he was the coach during the owner's press conference? But rather said we're talking about it? Because the coach is coming off an abysmal year that his playoff expected team finished 5-11 amidst a whirlwind of turmoil? I would say that the coach is on shaky ground, yes.
don't you think he may have said that because there was a chance marv might bail? also, it was a ridiculous press conference. he was clearly off and unclear in answering questions. i wouldn't read too much into it.
-
I think you're nuts.
Walt Corey was given arguably the best defensive end and pass rusher in history. A terror. Two Hall of Fame quality linebackers in Bennett and Talley. A tremendous end in Hansen. Tough veteran linemen and defensive backs and a roster full of solid role players. And molded them into a mediocre defense that was very often brutalized in its biggest games. I read some report about the Cowboys players laughing when they were watching film of the bills and knew they were going to walk all over us. Corey was a terrible coordinator and everyone was screaming for his head but stubborn Marv wouldn't let him go. As soon as Wade was brought in the defense immediately was noticeably better IMO. And I think we would have won 2-3 Super Bowls if Wade was there and not Corey. But Corey was Marv's buddy.
dog, look at the numbers. also think about jeff wright. and our always-lame second cornerback after odomes. i remember the pats-era parcells saying one time something to the effect of "instituting the mickey washington plan" on offense (it worked, of course).
as for the super bowls. in the giants game, corey didn't miss those tackles, and his guys were in the right position to make plays. the redskins were a flat out better team and bruce was not 100%. the cowboys offensive line dominated us the first game, and aikman was unstoppable. and the offense turned the ball over 9 freaking times! in the second cowboys super bowl, the bills d played great until the second half, when johnson instituted the phil hansen plan, in which he ran emmitt smith at him (behind erik williams) 10 out of 11 plays.
-
Everything about today is based on guesswork. But it seems pretty obvious he does not have a lot of power. First, Ralph says I am going to be more active and takes back the President's post. Second, Modrak is given more responsibility and will spend more time in Buffalo, presumably running the draft and some personel decisions. Third, the coach is retained by the owner before the GM is hired and announced. When is the last time you saw that happen (with a coach on shaky ground I mean). Add in all of the speculation of that he may not get the GM title or will be named Head of Football Operations or other such made up jobs, and frankly, I don't think Marv has a lot of power. I am not saying he would automatically fail if he was given it. I am saying that he wasn't given the power, and four guys dividing up power in a professional football team is a recipe for disaster for a team reeling in disarray.
what makes you think the coach is on shaky ground? based on what evidence? it sounds to me like he's going to get a fresh start and that both modrak and marv like him.
by the way, the structure you describe above -- not that i have any idea as to whether it will happen -- is pretty much the same structure that the seahawks have now.
Rodrique Wright had better NOT be
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
disagree, akc. texas had tons of time whether they were at the 15 or the 41, and they were simply going to score. i think carroll knew that -- sc could not stop them all night and was completely flailing at the end. on the other hand, texas could not stop sc all night, so it seemed to me like the right choice at the time. carroll couldn't win -- if he punts, texas scores; if he goes for it and loses, texas scores.