"Internal Debate. External Unity." = We're lying to you.

[QCity]

I can't see this triumvirate working. Even Whaley himself said he's not sure what happens when there's a disagreement.

[Kelly the Dog]

So...we're finally running out of things to complain about?

Nope. i got a hundred more, and I'm an eternal optimist and Bills homer. Don't tempt me.

[Mickey]

 

Whaley said these same four words, too.

 

I totally understand it. I guess I agree with it. But I can't see how it is wise that they say those four words in public. It's basically admitting we're lying to you some or a lot of the time. Even if we know that happens, and I totally understand why they have to. It seems to me that it's not very smart to say it.

 

Now granted, sometimes the internal debate will create unity. Or since all five - let's say, between Rex, Doug, Terry, Kim and Russ - may come to a group decision this is definitely what's best for The Bills and for us, then the external unity is genuine.

 

But there is going to be a lot of times when it will not be internal unity. Terry and Kim, or Doug, or Rex, are going to have to put their foot down and say, "This is what needs to happen." And Rex won't get the draft pick he wants because Doug has the final say. Or Doug won't get the free agent he wants because Rex wants a different guy and Terry intercedes. That's inevitable.

 

But then when they say it was all of our decision they are lying to us.

 

It doesn't matter of course. It doesn't affect what's on the field.

 

Unless it does.

 

The "external unity" concept was in place last year. They all said they wanted the Watkins trade. It seems that Marrone didn't. It added to the disconnect, then the arguments, the tension, and to the players that played in the games. Maybe to wins and losses and the playoffs. And ultimately, to the opt-out. (Thank the Lord!!!)

 

So the lie of "external unity" which wasn't unity at all, did affect the team. I don't think it's a good idea to do it. How can we believe a lot of what they say about, say, top draft picks.

 

Discuss.

 

P.S. I shouldn't say "the lie" affected the team, because of course it didn't. But the internal discord did affect the team. And they lied to us about it. And now are announcing they are going to do it again.

I don't think its fair to call it "lying". We have no right to that kind of inside information and no organization could survive regularly disclosing every internal disagreement. A flat refusal to answer such questions would be met with an uproar of accusations about the franchise not being accessible or respectful to the press and fans. "Ask me no questions, I'll tell you no lies" is the old saying that comes to mind here.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how seriously people take the public comments of players and coaches. Other teams are listening. A coach simply can't run his mouth off about their draft plans, their game plans, their personnel assessments, etc. etc. What we got from Rex was his version of "coach speak" which is to use a combination of bravado, charm and more bravado while avoiding the questions everyone wants answered.

 

He committed to nothing. He gave us no inside information of any relevance. We don't know who the QB is going to be. We don't know what kind of offense he is going to run (he said we were going to ground and pound but he also said we were going to throw it). If we end up winging the ball all over the place, are we going to call Rex a liar for telling us we were going to ground and pound? We don't know if we are going to run a 3-4 or 4-3, etc.

 

I am not complaining, he did what he is supposed to do in that situation, commit to nothing, share nothing of value but get everyone excited with some tough talk and loads of charm. He is a great motivator and we saw that in his press conference but he didn't give us anything beyond that, and rightfully so. And beyond the X's and O's, there is a lot to be said about the power of inspiration. We needed it, the team needed it and we got it.

[papazoid]

Nope. i got a hundred more, and I'm an eternal optimist and Bills homer. Don't tempt me.

that's the spirit !

[NoSaint]

I think there's something to be said about reframing it from "deceit" to respecting the chain of command and working towards common goals regardless of who is driving an idea once a decision is made.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

Whaley said these same four words, too.

 

I totally understand it. I guess I agree with it. But I can't see how it is wise that they say those four words in public. It's basically admitting we're lying to you some or a lot of the time. Even if we know that happens, and I totally understand why they have to. It seems to me that it's not very smart to say it.

 

Now granted, sometimes the internal debate will create unity. Or since all five - let's say, between Rex, Doug, Terry, Kim and Russ - may come to a group decision this is definitely what's best for The Bills and for us, then the external unity is genuine.

 

But there is going to be a lot of times when it will not be internal unity. Terry and Kim, or Doug, or Rex, are going to have to put their foot down and say, "This is what needs to happen." And Rex won't get the draft pick he wants because Doug has the final say. Or Doug won't get the free agent he wants because Rex wants a different guy and Terry intercedes. That's inevitable.

 

But then when they say it was all of our decision they are lying to us.

 

Kelly the Dog, with all respect, I think this represents a very incomplete view of business or project team dynamics.

 

It's not a lie if a team decision is not a always unanimous or consensus decision. In fact, it's more common than not, and it's considered healthy so long as everyone on the team has a chance to state their arguments and make their case and everyone listens and considers. Then either the majority rules or the team leader has to step out and say "ok, I've heard everyone and this the way we're going to go." It's still a team decision because it was made after hearing and weighing everyone's input, and on healthy teams everyone then buys in to the final decision and goes forward with it and avoids second-guessing or "I told you so'ing" down the road. If they really felt that strongly before the fact, then they needed to cowboy up argue their case more cogently at the time.

[K-9]

Sounds like consensus building is still the desired M.O. And it's good they don't desire to wash dirty laundry in public while doing so.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[xsoldier54]

 

Whaley said these same four words, too.

 

I totally understand it. I guess I agree with it. But I can't see how it is wise that they say those four words in public. It's basically admitting we're lying to you some or a lot of the time. Even if we know that happens, and I totally understand why they have to. It seems to me that it's not very smart to say it.

 

Now granted, sometimes the internal debate will create unity. Or since all five - let's say, between Rex, Doug, Terry, Kim and Russ - may come to a group decision this is definitely what's best for The Bills and for us, then the external unity is genuine.

 

But there is going to be a lot of times when it will not be internal unity. Terry and Kim, or Doug, or Rex, are going to have to put their foot down and say, "This is what needs to happen." And Rex won't get the draft pick he wants because Doug has the final say. Or Doug won't get the free agent he wants because Rex wants a different guy and Terry intercedes. That's inevitable.

 

But then when they say it was all of our decision they are lying to us.

 

It doesn't matter of course. It doesn't affect what's on the field.

 

Unless it does.

 

The "external unity" concept was in place last year. They all said they wanted the Watkins trade. It seems that Marrone didn't. It added to the disconnect, then the arguments, the tension, and to the players that played in the games. Maybe to wins and losses and the playoffs. And ultimately, to the opt-out. (Thank the Lord!!!)

 

So the lie of "external unity" which wasn't unity at all, did affect the team. I don't think it's a good idea to do it. How can we believe a lot of what they say about, say, top draft picks.

 

Discuss.

 

P.S. I shouldn't say "the lie" affected the team, because of course it didn't. But the internal discord did affect the team. And they lied to us about it. And now are announcing they are going to do it again.

Who said they were lying? They have internal debates and when decision is made they get on the same page. That is called being professional.

[RuntheDamnBall]

I like pie.

 

I cannot lie.

[Kelly the Dog]

 

Kelly the Dog, with all respect, I think this represents a very incomplete view of business or project team dynamics.

 

It's not a lie if a team decision is not a always unanimous or consensus decision. In fact, it's more common than not, and it's considered healthy so long as everyone on the team has a chance to state their arguments and make their case and everyone listens and considers. Then either the majority rules or the team leader has to step out and say "ok, I've heard everyone and this the way we're going to go." It's still a team decision because it was made after hearing and weighing everyone's input, and on healthy teams everyone then buys in to the final decision and goes forward with it and avoids second-guessing or "I told you so'ing" down the road. If they really felt that strongly before the fact, then they needed to cowboy up argue their case more cogently at the time.

Again, I agree with all that. It's not as though I don't understand how these things work.

 

My issue, and it probably doesn't deserve the bandwidth because I really don't care about it, is the fact that we just found out for sure that our HC last year was not at all on board and in unity, with all kinds of things, and they said this same stuff. I even started a similar thread. And now two weeks later they say those specific four words. I'm not against the concept at all, it's those words. They didn't need to couch it that way, because it clearly isn't true. They had internal discord and external unity. They shouldn't have put it out there that way to me. Right now. Because it's not true and has been proven in the last couple weeks it was not true.

[Dibs]

I agree. And noted it. I also then said it was inevitable that there would be internal debate that did not end in unity, but dissent. And a person in power would have to make the final decision which wouldn't be unity. They may not hate each other over it but one guy would be thinking we made a mistake here and picked the wrong guy - or made the wrong move. Like the alleged storming out of the draft room rumor went.

You've made an assumption here which seems to be causing the disunity in this thread. You assume that it is inevitable that there would be internal debate that ends in disent. This would only be inevitable depending on the personalities involved. With someone like Marrone.....the statement is likely true. Most intelligent individuals realize however that deciscions need to be made....and they won't always coiincide with their specific views.

 

A person who causes disent in an organization needs to be removed.

The real problem occurs when it is the boss who does not understand this concept(fingers crossed that Pegula can listen to the wisdom of his advisors).

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Again, I agree with all that. It's not as though I don't understand how these things work.

 

My issue, and it probably doesn't deserve the bandwidth because I really don't care about it, is the fact that we just found out for sure that our HC last year was not at all on board and in unity, with all kinds of things, and they said this same stuff. I even started a similar thread. And now two weeks later they say those specific four words. I'm not against the concept at all, it's those words. They didn't need to couch it that way, because it clearly isn't true. They had internal discord and external unity. They shouldn't have put it out there that way to me. Right now. Because it's not true and has been proven in the last couple weeks it was not true.

 

Kelly,

 

I think it's an interesting point to discuss, actually.

 

I guess another way to put what I'm trying to say, is that the lieing in question took place on the part of our former head coach, who was evidently a maroon and didn't take the risk of fully arguing out concerns or salient points he still had with the team prior to finalizing the decision, then came back and second-guessed team decisions in hindsight. If he really still had issues that he's going to bring out, then the time and place to make the case is while the horse is still in the barn and not after it's galloping off towards the pasture fence.

 

It's chickenshit to be part of a team and let an important decision that materially impacts the team's chance of success (in your opinion) go by, then come back and second-guess it publically in hindsight if the decision that the team reached doesn't work out. Get over yourself and move on. There will be a lot of decisions where it's "A is my preference, but I can see the case for B and C and the weighting of the big picture leaning towards B as the decision, OK, I'm good with that."

[Kelly the Dog]

You've made an assumption here which seems to be causing the disunity in this thread. You assume that it is inevitable that there would be internal debate that ends in disent. This would only be inevitable depending on the personalities involved. With someone like Marrone.....the statement is likely true. Most intelligent individuals realize however that deciscions need to be made....and they won't always coiincide with their specific views.

 

A person who causes disent in an organization needs to be removed.

The real problem occurs when it is the boss who does not understand this concept(fingers crossed that Pegula can listen to the wisdom of his advisors).

Good point, and I agree. But actually I didn't make that assumption, nor did I first use that word. DC Tom introduced it to distinguish between debate and dissent. I wasn't really even talking about dissent at first. I was more talking about general legitimate disagreement about an unknown, even if there was no fighting or storming out of rooms at all.

 

You can be a team player if you agree to go with the consensus if you are the HC and your team wants to draft Mariotta and you vehemently believe that the pick should be Winston. And it would be external unity.

 

But it would also be a lie, and you would likely spend years getting accused of being an idiot for wanting to draft Mariotta who turns out to be a bum while Winston becomes a star. My point is you should say those words or bring it up at all, especially if it is not true. Like they did last year right after the draft.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Dear god it's going to be a long off season

[Kelly the Dog]

 

Kelly,

 

I think it's an interesting point to discuss, actually.

 

I guess another way to put what I'm trying to say, is that the lieing in question took place on the part of our former head coach, who was evidently a maroon and didn't take the risk of fully arguing out concerns or salient points he still had with the team prior to finalizing the decision, then came back and second-guessed team decisions in hindsight. If he really still had issues that he's going to bring out, then the time and place to make the case is while the horse is still in the barn and not after it's galloping off towards the pasture fence.

 

It's chickenshit to be part of a team and let an important decision that materially impacts the team's chance of success (in your opinion) go by, then come back and second-guess it publically in hindsight if the decision that the team reached doesn't work out. Get over yourself and move on. There will be a lot of decisions where it's "A is my preference, but I can see the case for B and C and the weighting of the big picture leaning towards B as the decision, OK, I'm good with that."

I assume he made his point well known before the trade and the rest of them said this is what we want to do and your job is to coach. Everyone else seemed thrilled. The "lying" if that is what it was, was as much Whaley and Brandon as Marrone, because it wasn't a group decision, it was a mostly group or majority decision with one pisspot not being a team player.

 

If we want to get technical, it's not even a lie, however much it's a disingenuous portrayal of what happened. There was "internal debate" and there was "external unity." Except it is presented as if everyone is on board when they weren't.

Dear god it's going to be a long off season

Don't join in. I think it's an interesting debate. If you're complaining about the complaining, I haven't been this happy or optimistic as a Bills fan in a long, long time.

I like pie.

 

I cannot lie.

Not all pie.

[JDHILL]

I take it you haven't worked in a large organization a lot?

exactly...and I am not sure how building consensus is lying. Organizations have to have dissenting opinions. It is healthy to do so. This is really outside the fan's circle of control and to make assumptions without being privy to the organization doesn't make sense.

[Kelly the Dog]

exactly...and I am not sure how building consensus is lying. Organizations have to have dissenting opinions. It is healthy to do so. This is really outside the fan's circle of control and to make assumptions without being privy to the organization doesn't make sense.

Building consensus is not lying at all. Saying in public it was consensus when it clearly wasn't is.

[3rdand12]

If fans can't even handle the "lie" why on earth would they give fans the truth?

It does not matter what they tell us.

we fans will digest it and the poop it back out.

the digestive system is an interesting system. as is the mind and perceptions.

 

To Kelly's point , there is no good reason to attempt any forthright statements.

Boring as it is and should be.

" we are always looking to improve the roster"

" we are always trying to put the best players on the field to win"

"We are always looking to create competition at the position."

etc.

 

What the heck can they say to satisfy the fan base? i dont know is my answer

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I assume he made his point well known before the trade and the rest of them said this is what we want to do and your job is to coach. Everyone else seemed thrilled. The "lying" if that is what it was, was as much Whaley and Brandon as Marrone, because it wasn't a group decision, it was a mostly group or majority decision with one pisspot not being a team player.

 

Ah, OK, now we're getting down to it.

 

There IS a kind of dissent where someone makes a point well known, states a cogent and compelling case, and is over-ruled.

An example would be Wilson firing Polian, where Levy made a strong case for Polian, and by Polian's autobiographer's account, Wilson told Levy he agreed with everything Levy said but he just couldn't get along with Polian so he was pulling the plug anyway. That is a case where there is not unity, it is a "buck stops here" top-down decision, and to say otherwise would be a lie.

 

There is also a dysfunctional team dynamic where someone makes a compelling case (say, shows dozens of film clips proving Manning throws a tighter spiral with higher velocity than Leaf), but the rest of the team blows it off and says "well, the scouts put their eyeballs on it and said the opposite, so we're going with Leaf anyway". The dissenter empties his budget and makes his case in the strongest possible way, and is told to sit down and shut up (as you allude) and is blown off. Then yes, you're right, to say it's a team decision and unity would be a lie.

 

I don't assume at all that was the case with the Watkins trade. We have Wawrow's comment questioning the report that Marrone was so upset at the time he stormed out. We really don't know what went down ahead of time - maybe Marrone 100% agreed Watkins was the best WR and they should get him even if they had to trade up, but wasn't really listening when they discussed what they might have to trade, or maybe he did disagree but without making a compelling case - I have heard, actually, that's a challenge for a lot of guys coming from the college ranks that they're used to running the whole show and having it be "because I say so" and not needing to put together a cogent or persuasive argument. And maybe there were counter- arguments to his disagreement, and he said "OK" and left it there, and then in hindsight revisited it and exaggerated his dissent. That's chickenshit. That's not organizational lying, that's a bad team member.

 

Someone is lying somewhere, I agree - I just don't think we can pin it on the Bills FO, even though I chuckle when I read the assessment of Brandon earlier in this thread (and I wish he were further removed from the coaching search and football decisions)

[NoSaint]

It does not matter what they tell us.

we fans will digest it and the poop it back out.

the digestive system is an interesting system. as is the mind and perceptions.

 

To Kelly's point , there is no good reason to attempt any forthright statements.

Boring as it is and should be.

" we are always looking to improve the roster"

" we are always trying to put the best players on the field to win"

"We are always looking to create competition at the position."

etc.

 

What the heck can they say to satisfy the fan base? i dont know is my answer

I'll say it again as no one else has said anything to the topic-- but I think this is geared as much towards an audience that includes players, scouts, other coaches and not just fans/media

[GG]

Building consensus is not lying at all. Saying in public it was consensus when it clearly wasn't is.

Consensus does not necessarily mean unanimity.

 

I don't find Brandon's words disingenuous. He simply wanted to reinforce that with the petulant child out on the street, the organization can go back to functioning normally without public discord.

[BillsVet]

At least Russ Brandon can't lie about claiming to have input on football.

 

Well, almost as much as him not being the big wheel at OBD or the guy who gets in front of camera. His air time is pretty much over because he's never going to be as entertaining as Rex.

[Kelly the Dog]

Consensus does not necessarily mean unanimity.

 

I don't find Brandon's words disingenuous. He simply wanted to reinforce that with the petulant child out on the street, the organization can go back to functioning normally without public discord.

That's a good point and something I could agree with.

 

I wasn't implying consensus always meant unanimity. That is surely true.

[Dibs]

Good point, and I agree. But actually I didn't make that assumption, nor did I first use that word. DC Tom introduced it to distinguish between debate and dissent. I wasn't really even talking about dissent at first. I was more talking about general legitimate disagreement about an unknown, even if there was no fighting or storming out of rooms at all.

 

You can be a team player if you agree to go with the consensus if you are the HC and your team wants to draft Mariotta and you vehemently believe that the pick should be Winston. And it would be external unity.

 

But it would also be a lie, and you would likely spend years getting accused of being an idiot for wanting to draft Mariotta who turns out to be a bum while Winston becomes a star. My point is you should say those words or bring it up at all, especially if it is not true. Like they did last year right after the draft.

But the unity is that they all agree to a concensus. There is no actual lie unless they state something akin to "We all believe that player X is the best choice". That theoretically won't be the statement.....instead it being one like "It was a concensus decision, we are all on board with this pick".

 

More pertinent perhaps is.....what should they be saying? If not up front about the process, at some point the media will ask about individual thoughts on certain issues.....which would have to prompt the same response(unless you think it wise they air their dirty laudry to the public).

[Coach Tuesday]

I have this fantasy where we'd get to see a Seinfeld skit of the "go ahead and fire me" incident, with those guys from Texas who kept calling George a bastard and then laughing ridiculously and slapping him on the back.

 

Will it ever happen?

[Rivermont Mike]

This discussion is giving me a headache. But you guys have at it.

Jeez, yeah. I came here for Bills discussion, not Organizational Behavior 201

[eball]

I don't know, I like it. If they say nothing, they're just inviting the media to come snooping around looking for juicy quotes that contradict the "company line." The media may still snoop, but they can shut it down pretty quickly.

 

By the way, I bet Overdorf is the rat.

[Sisyphean Bills]

I can't see this triumvirate working. Even Whaley himself said he's not sure what happens when there's a disagreement.

 

He said that? The answer is obvious. Pegula makes the decision.

[ddaryl]

man some of you turn over rocks just to come up with a new complaint.

 

Who the hell cares, none of those words bothers me one iota

[hondo in seattle]

 

Kelly the Dog, with all respect, I think this represents a very incomplete view of business or project team dynamics.

 

It's not a lie if a team decision is not a always unanimous or consensus decision. In fact, it's more common than not, and it's considered healthy so long as everyone on the team has a chance to state their arguments and make their case and everyone listens and considers. Then either the majority rules or the team leader has to step out and say "ok, I've heard everyone and this the way we're going to go." It's still a team decision because it was made after hearing and weighing everyone's input, and on healthy teams everyone then buys in to the final decision and goes forward with it and avoids second-guessing or "I told you so'ing" down the road. If they really felt that strongly before the fact, then they needed to cowboy up argue their case more cogently at the time.

 

Yep.

 

When I was an army officer, I was told to simply implement the decisions made by the chain of command, never add my own personal take. If my commander and I argued and I lost, I simply got done whatever he wanted me to do.

 

Likewise, I run my current business the same way. We disagree sometimes when the leadership team meets. But once the final decision has been made, we all go out and execute as if it was our idea.

 

When you share the disagreements with subordinates, they start to questions and doubt the decision and execution becomes poor. Even bad decisions can work when executed with passion. So our business leaders always present a united, enthusiastic front. We don't lie to anyone - we simply don't advertise the details of the disagreement and hit the plan hard.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

name 1 team that doesn't lie to its fans?

I like pie.

 

I cannot lie.

shouldn't that be I like cherry pie.

[TheLynchTrain]

I like Doug Whaley. I think he does have an eye for talent, particularly when you compare him to some of the bozos we've had making decisions in the past. Regarding his trade valuations, I think at this point in his career, he's probably given too much value away for what he's receiving, but I'm confident over time he'll get a better feel for it.

 

However, when it comes to public speaking, Whaley has come off like a buffoon - whether it was not taking ownership of the EJ pick, some earlier gaffes as Assistant GM about not understanding the cap/football administration, and now this inconvenient phrase, among others - he's said some things that have made the average fan cringe. But does it really matter what he says to the public and the fans? Probably not. As long as he keeps stacking talent on the roster and resigning our own guys, he can bumble through press conferences all he wants.

 

Now on this silliness about potential Rex/Doug friction brewing in the future (from PFT and others) - I think that's complete crap. Anyone that's followed Rex in the past will tell you Rex does not want the power that comoes with personnel or front office control. He's a coach that wants to coach, that's it. I'd imagine he'd want authority over his assistants (especially with some of the OCs forced on him in NY), but every coach wants that. A coach that just wants to coach, I know that's rare these days with the Kellys, Harbaughs, Carrolls, etc. How refreshing is that?

Edited January 16, 2015 by TheLynchTrain

[BillnutinHouston]

I can't see this triumvirate working. Even Whaley himself said he's not sure what happens when there's a disagreement.

Q, you raise a good point. It's apparent that there's uncertainty today about where all the power and final decision making authority lies. I imagine that Terry's view is, "you guys (Whaley and Ryan) figure stuff out, debate it, and if you need a tiebreaker, come see me."

 

I think that approach can work in the honeymoon stage and before anything fails, but as time goes on Terry will have to formalize the process and roles further.

Edited January 16, 2015 by BillnutinHouston

[John from Riverside]

I dont consider it lying

 

- If you have strong minds you are going to have differing opinions.....in the military we called it "think tank" where ALL opinions/actions were considered and debated........and in the end the leader of our group made the final decision.....and regardless of our opinion we were all unanimously behind him to any outside entitiy.....right or wrong.

 

The problem here is that Marrone is one of those black sheep that wanted to go behind everyone's back and say that he was the voice of reason and every one else was wrong.

 

Bad form....and frankly I think he is paying for it right now.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

...I think it's an interesting debate. If you're complaining about the complaining, I haven't been this happy or optimistic as a Bills fan in a long, long time.

 

Not all pie.

I was hoping for more. What's so interesting about the revelation that public facing organizations align external communications?

 

It's not a real debate, it's merely pitting an ignorant viewpoint versus reality. And typically it doesn't get this desperate for topics until March

[Dibs]

I can't see this triumvirate working. Even Whaley himself said he's not sure what happens when there's a disagreement.

 

They each have their areas of control and would obviously have final say in their own areas. Whaley has final say on which FAs to get and who to draft, Rex has final say on game strategy and who suits up and Brandon has final say in all other areas.

 

How do you imaging other teams functioning.....and why do you imagine it working for most other teams but not the Bills?

[QCity]

 

He said that? The answer is obvious. Pegula makes the decision.

 

Well, the problems start to arise when two parties start vying for Pegula's ear. This probably won't happen in the early honeymoon phase, but with careers on the line and type-A personalities, it's safe to say it will at some point (you want to succeed or fail on your own terms - not someone else's mistake). Also -- and this may sound like school playground politics -- if one party is perceived as "schmoozing the boss," it gives the impression of a power grab and could foster resentment between the two.

 

They each have their areas of control and would obviously have final say in their own areas. Whaley has final say on which FAs to get and who to draft, Rex has final say on game strategy and who suits up and Brandon has final say in all other areas.

 

How do you imaging other teams functioning.....and why do you imagine it working for most other teams but not the Bills?

 

 

 

The Bills' new approach keeps Whaley in charge of the 53-man roster while Ryan -- who coaches the players that Whaley selects -- doesn't answer to Whaley, but Pegula.

 

What happens, then, when Whaley and Ryan disagree on a football matter? After Wednesday's news conference, Whaley admitted that he isn't quite sure.

 

"That's an interesting question," Whaley told the Toronto Sun's John Kryk. "I think the way we look at it is there's going to be disagreements, and you want that. You want internal debate, external unity.

 

"Does it go to Terry? Does it go to Kim? Does it go to Russ? Wherever it goes, as long as it's the best decision for the Buffalo Bills."

 

File that one away.

 

 

That was my take on it too Dibs, until I read the above quote. Maybe Whaley just doesn't understand everyone's exact roles? Why would he think it would ever go to Russ??

 

​Most teams outline a specific hierarchy such as Owner -> GM -> Coach to define a clear chain of command. I don't think our triumvirate will work for the reasons I mentioned above. Then again, if we go 12-4. none of this will matter. However if we slip back to 6-10, it's a recipe for a front office meltdown.

[Sisyphean Bills]

They each have their areas of control and would obviously have final say in their own areas. Whaley has final say on which FAs to get and who to draft, Rex has final say on game strategy and who suits up and Brandon has final say in all other areas.

 

How do you imaging other teams functioning.....and why do you imagine it working for most other teams but not the Bills?

 

I hope it doesn't work in a way where people are off building their fiefdoms.

 

When Whaley built a roster and Marrone, for whatever reason, was unable (or unwilling) to use the parts he packaged up for him on offense, we got an anemic product. That's no way to Build a Bully.

 

If you use Parcells' analogy, it is important that Whaley shops for the right ingredients for his chef. If Rex sets the menu to serve steaks, then Whaley can't go off, see a sale price on chicken, call the CPA to see how much money the restaurant will save with chicken, and show up with a flock of frozen chicken. Everyone has to face the same goal post. If Rex wants steak, I expect Whaley to put each steak off the butcher's table through his fancy little microscope and know exactly which one will work for Rex and make the customers smile their butts off.

[Haven Moses]

I have a hard time seeing Rex get overruled.

 

If it ever were to happen, I have a harder time seeing Rex get overruled and keeping his mouth shut about it.

[eball]

 

I hope it doesn't work in a way where people are off building their fiefdoms.

 

When Whaley built a roster and Marrone, for whatever reason, was unable (or unwilling) to use the parts he packaged up for him on offense, we got an anemic product. That's no way to Build a Bully.

 

If you use Parcells' analogy, it is important that Whaley shops for the right ingredients for his chef. If Rex sets the menu to serve steaks, then Whaley can't go off, see a sale price on chicken, call the CPA to see how much money the restaurant will save with chicken, and show up with a flock of frozen chicken. Everyone has to face the same goal post. If Rex wants steak, I expect Whaley to put each steak off the butcher's table through his fancy little microscope and know exactly which one will work for Rex and make the customers smile their butts off.

 

Is anyone else hungry?