Doug Whaley joined L.A. Bills Backers to watch games this morning

[Kelly the Dog]

That's easy - every one of those guys is better than what we have, except the ones who are retired.

'

Nonsense and you know it. I know you're proving a point and it is clearly a major, major problem.

 

But you also have to waive Cyril Richardson if you want to sign another vet, and you may lose him. If they think he has a lot of potential, that factors heavily into who they sign in the middle of the season.

 

They decided on a guy (Williams) who may or may not have been serviceable. Most of his bad play came as an OT and not an OG and he played against tough DLs in his year as a guard.

[26CornerBlitz]

The Spikes thing was a lot more of what Spikes will ask for versus whether they want him. He sounded like he would love to have Spikes back, but that Spikes wanted to play three downs, and was likely to ask for a lot of money, which will have to be weighed against paying Dareus and Hughes, plus what to do with Brown, who they love, when Kiko and Bradham are there. I'm sure he would love Spikes back.

 

They brought in Kolb to be the vet to EJ but he got hurt. The problem with that was that it was entirely predictable.

 

IMO it wouldn't make any sense to give in to Spikes' demands from either a contract or playing time perspective. As advertised he's very good against the run, but with Kiko expected to return in 2015 and the emergence of Preston Brown as an every down LB it would make any sense to pay Spikes big money with any promises of significant playing time beyond this season.

[GG]

I agree with most of that. But the disaster was that Kolb got hurt, EJ got hurt three times, then Thad got hurt, then Hackett had to prepare an undrafted RFA to play in a regular season game. That is what Whaley was referring to I think. That is not at all a 50-50 chance.

 

Again, I don't think Kolb ever had a season without serious injuries, and in the previous year, Bills took him out for the year with a vicious hit. It wasn't a wild goose theory in the 2013 spring and summer that Kolb wouldn't last the full season. That's why I don't classify it as a disaster, as it should have been half anticipated. It's not like they were dealing with a QB who never got injured.

[Coach Tuesday]

'

Nonsense and you know it. I know you're proving a point and it is clearly a major, major problem.

 

But you also have to waive Cyril Richardson if you want to sign another vet, and you may lose him. If they think he has a lot of potential, that factors heavily into who they sign in the middle of the season.

 

They decided on a guy (Williams) who may or may not have been serviceable. Most of his bad play came as an OT and not an OG and he played against tough DLs in his year as a guard.

 

Again, he had a major red flag due to his injury history. That is what stands out to me about him, as compared with most of the other signees on that list. If you're going to increase your risk like that, then sign TWO guards. Heck, sign THREE of them... the other guys on that list were not, by and large, major injury risks.

[NoSaint]

 

I agree with most of that. But the disaster was that Kolb got hurt, EJ got hurt three times, then Thad got hurt, then Hackett had to prepare an undrafted RFA to play in a regular season game. That is what Whaley was referring to I think. That is not at all a 50-50 chance.

 

also agree with this sentiment. no one expected it to be THAT bad. but they certainly did their part in allowing it to get there. 50-50 was them having to have the 3rd guy ready to backup (ie ready to potentially start on a moments notice).

[Kelly the Dog]

But did they really learn from their (admitted) mistake? The very next offseason, they brought in Chris Williams to be the solution at LG. He had a history of back issues, and predictably is now shelved with back issues. They also failed to draft a QB and lucked out when Orton was sitting there a week or two before the season. These guys need to learn how to spread out their bets...

That is unfair analysis, IMO, although again I know what you are getting at. You can't say look at the fact, the results of a move that didn't work out in hindsight, and then turn around and not give them credit for the fact, the results of a move that worked fabulously in hindsight. That's just cherry picking.

 

IMO, as I said before, Marrone is a bigger problem than Whaley on the OL. Marrone made the Pears move. He's the one that decides continuity doesn't mean anything. And I think fans don't realize that Seantrel, while he has been a surprise and may be a great pickup, also caused a huge problem, by making them keep three rookies (two of which are clearly not ready).

[Coach Tuesday]

That is unfair analysis, IMO, although again I know what you are getting at. You can't say look at the fact, the results of a move that didn't work out in hindsight, and then turn around and not give them credit for the fact, the results of a move that worked fabulously in hindsight. That's just cherry picking.

 

IMO, as I said before, Marrone is a bigger problem than Whaley on the OL. Marrone made the Pears move. He's the one that decides continuity doesn't mean anything. And I think fans don't realize that Seantrel, while he has been a surprise and may be a great pickup, also caused a huge problem, by making them keep three rookies (two of which are clearly not ready).

 

But I don't think it's unfair. It's basic strategic modeling. You have two critical positions - QB and guard (esp. for a "running team"). Instead of putting all of your chips on high-risk squares, why not spread out your bets? It's by and large the same mistake, repeated.

[Kelly the Dog]

Again, he had a major red flag due to his injury history. That is what stands out to me about him, as compared with most of the other signees on that list. If you're going to increase your risk like that, then sign TWO guards. Heck, sign THREE of them... the other guys on that list were not, by and large, major injury risks.

Then you cut Seantrel and Richardson and keep Kujo? Or you cut your second round pick without him playing one game? look at the whole picture.

 

Believe me, I think the OL sucks and has been a disaster. But be reasonable. As I said just above, Henderson being good prevents them from having one or two extra vets.

 

But I don't think it's unfair. It's basic strategic modeling. You have two critical positions - QB and guard (esp. for a "running team"). Instead of putting all of your chips on high-risk squares, why not spread out your bets? It's by and large the same mistake, repeated.

They got the best backup QB in the league. That's a fact. Before the season started. By waiting, they got a MUCH better guy than they would have had (there was virtually no one available in the off-season outside of Mike Vick. McCown would only go to a team where he was given the starting position. They didn't know it would turn out like this but it's a fact based system. It's not unreasonable to say they lucked out by getting Orton. But it's unfair to argue two different philosophies when one of them clearly worked.

 

also agree with this sentiment. no one expected it to be THAT bad. but they certainly did their part in allowing it to get there. 50-50 was them having to have the 3rd guy ready to backup (ie ready to potentially start on a moments notice).

Right. Kolb getting hurt was entirely predictable if not inevitable. That was a big mistake, too. Although there were not a lot of good options. He wasn't any good when he was healthy. I ragged on Whaley for a year and a half about the backup QB position.

[Coach Tuesday]

Then you cut Seantrel and Richardson and keep Kujo? Or you cut your second round pick without him playing one game? look at the whole picture.

 

Believe me, I think the OL sucks and has been a disaster. But be reasonable. As I said just above, Henderson being good prevents them from having one or two extra vets.

 

 

They got the best backup QB in the league. That's a fact. Before the season started. By waiting, they got a MUCH better guy than they would have had (there was virtually no one available in the off-season outside of Mike Vick. McCown would only go to a team where he was given the starting position. They didn't know it would turn out like this but it's a fact based system. It's not unreasonable to say they lucked out by getting Orton. But it's unfair to argue two different philosophies when one of them clearly worked.

 

 

Right. Kolb getting hurt was entirely predictable if not inevitable. That was a big mistake, too. Although there were not a lot of good options. He wasn't any good when he was healthy. I ragged on Whaley for a year and a half about the backup QB position.

 

I don't think, respectfully, that luck is a strategy.

 

As for the linemen, I'm not following you completely. Seantral is good enough to make Pears expendable. Pears should be off of the roster given Seantral's ascendence, and in his place, a competent FA or rookie should be playing RG. This would have been the proper strategy whether or not they signed Chris Williams; it's double the case now that Chris Williams is shelved. Put another way: they had an adequate RT in Pears, at least compared to the two inadequate guard positions. So why draft two RTs? Why not draft two RGs, instead?

[BillsVet]

I wonder how Whaley feels now that the Pegulas have made him report to them alone. I doubt you'd get a straight answer, but the reality is that move needed to happen for years.

 

That move illustrates to me that the new owners acknowledge the previous organizational structure was dysfunctional.

[Deranged Rhino]

I don't think, respectfully, that luck is a strategy.

 

As for the linemen, I'm not following you completely. Seantral is good enough to make Pears expendable. Pears should be off of the roster given Seantral's ascendence, and in his place, a competent FA or rookie should be playing RG. This would have been the proper strategy whether or not they signed Chris Williams; it's double the case now that Chris Williams is shelved. Put another way: they had an adequate RT in Pears, at least compared to the two inadequate guard positions. So why draft two RTs? Why not draft two RGs, instead?

 

Nooooo!!!!!!!! The Myth of Pears is grossly exaggerated. He was never an adequate RT, he's been a walking abortion for the past two seasons.

[Coach Tuesday]

Nooooo!!!!!!!! The Myth of Pears is grossly exaggerated. He was never an adequate RT, he's been a walking abortion for the past two seasons.

 

No. Colin Brown and Doug Legursky were walking abortions. Pears was just an early-stage miscarriage.

[Deranged Rhino]

No. Colin Brown and Doug Legursky were walking abortions. Pears was just an early-stage miscarriage.

 

:lol:

[Kelly the Dog]

I don't think, respectfully, that luck is a strategy.

 

As for the linemen, I'm not following you completely. Seantral is good enough to make Pears expendable. Pears should be off of the roster given Seantral's ascendence, and in his place, a competent FA or rookie should be playing RG. This would have been the proper strategy whether or not they signed Chris Williams; it's double the case now that Chris Williams is shelved. Put another way: they had an adequate RT in Pears, at least compared to the two inadequate guard positions. So why draft two RTs? Why not draft two RGs, instead?

You don't draft for position like that, you draft the best player, especially because you move OT to OG and not the other way around. I was harping on them to get another OG in here, too. I wanted them to sign Brandon Moore in a big way. They were not going to cut Pears. Glenn was hurt the whole preseason. Pears started every game at RT and did pretty well.

[stevewin]

I agree with most of that. But the disaster was that Kolb got hurt, EJ got hurt three times, then Thad got hurt, then Hackett had to prepare an undrafted RFA to play in a regular season game. That is what Whaley was referring to I think. That is not at all a 50-50 chance.

 

Still makes it all the more incredible that after the QB disaster last year, more wasn't done this year to make certain they would be covered. There were reports they were planning on Thad Lewis' progression at the position, and were in a tight spot after he came in and shat the bed. Thad Lewis? That was your plan? To go all through camp and preseason with Lewis and Tuel as your Plan B is incredible, especially when taking into account the lessons that should have been learned the year before.

 

If Orton keeps playing decent, and keeps contributing with his leadership and intangibles, he will arguably be the single biggest factor in a 'successful' season this year (and possibly them keeping their jobs). And we were lucky to get him just before the season started. The whole way the QB position was managed this season after what happened last season is crazy.

 

BTW - did the OL or Hackett in general come up at all in the conversation

[Kelly the Dog]

I wonder how Whaley feels now that the Pegulas have made him report to them alone. I doubt you'd get a straight answer, but the reality is that move needed to happen for years.

 

That move illustrates to me that the new owners acknowledge the previous organizational structure was dysfunctional.

I'm sure he thinks that is the way it should be, too. But it's no different than it was before since Whaley took the job. Whaley had to report to one guy, the active owner. Russ. Now he reports to one guy, too. the active owner (and maybe two, with Kim). If anything, he will have less authority, because Pegula (or any owner) has the authority to order him to make changes, when Brandon was less likely to do that.

 

No. Colin Brown and Doug Legursky were walking abortions. Pears was just an early-stage miscarriage.

:lol:

 

Still makes it all the more incredible that after the QB disaster last year, more wasn't done this year to make certain they would be covered. There were reports they were planning on Thad Lewis' progression at the position, and were in a tight spot after he came in and shat the bed. Thad Lewis? That was your plan? To go all through camp and preseason with Lewis and Tuel as your Plan B is incredible, especially when taking into account the lessons that should have been learned the year before.

 

If Orton keeps playing decent, and keeps contributing with his leadership and intangibles, he will arguably be the single biggest factor in a 'successful' season this year (and possibly them keeping their jobs). And we were lucky to get him just before the season started. The whole way the QB position was managed this season after what happened last season is crazy.

 

BTW - did the OL or Hackett in general come up at all in the conversation

Agreed. I couldn't believe that Tuel was in the plans, although it was not easy to predict that Thad would regress so much. he actually played pretty well under the circumstances, and again, you have to consider who was available. Your choices were basically Luke McCown and Michael Vick, both of whom chose places where they thought they could start easier. Neither were good or obvious choices. There was no way McCown would have signed here, they handed him the starting job to sign.

[No Cease Fires]

Kelly the Dog, I never realized you were a LA Bills Backer. I'm there most weekends. Sad I skipped out on this one. Didn't know Doug's brother was a regular either.

 

And thanks for all the details.

[Deranged Rhino]

Kelly the Dog, I never realized you were a LA Bills Backer. I'm there most weekends. Sad I skipped out on this one. Didn't know Doug's brother was a regular either.

 

And thanks for all the details.

 

There are lots of us lurking.

[Kelly the Dog]

Kelly the Dog, I never realized you were a LA Bills Backer. I'm there most weekends. Sad I skipped out on this one. Didn't know Doug's brother was a regular either.

 

And thanks for all the details.

Cool. Next time you are there ask Truly the bartender for Pete.

[Dan]

Firstly, the insight provided in the OP is precisely why this place is the only place to be if you want the best in all things Buffalo Bills. Thank you KTD. I'm also grateful that it was you that had an afternoon to chat with Doug and not some of the other posters around here.

 

Second, I find it interesting insight into the psyche of the Bills' fan. With all the good (and positive) stuff presented, the primary point of conversation has been the one glaring negative on the team; and perhaps more importantly, the one thing that was not chit chatted about with Whaley.

 

And C, I'll add to the second point with my opinion... Our line was pretty good and by no means the weakest unit on the team just a short time ago. What has changed? Coaching and the offensive philosophy that comes with that coaching. Maybe Marrone's mantra that O line chemistry isn't as important as having your 5 best players on the field is bunk? Maybe your line play suffers when the defense knows exactly what play is coming and even which gap the runner will hit? Maybe NFL game plans require more than just lining up and beating the guy in front of you?

 

Lastly, I especially found the comment regarding EJ being too nice and trying to please everyone, as interesting. It seems the more I read about EJ after his benching, the more it sounds like he needs to work on the mental aspects of his game far more than the physical aspects. Which, if true, seems like there's every reasonable expectation that the FO won't look to draft another rookie any time soon.

 

P.S. I also found the thoughts ln Spikes/Williams interesting. It seems Whaley would like Spikes to stay but if he's got a young capable replacement (Brown), he's not going to overy pay. Similar to having Williams ready to go and not doing everything possible to keep Byrd.