This Is What a Good GM Looks Like - Elway vs. Whaley

[DrDawkinstein]

You've got a point. But since I did it anyway, let me point out another key difference: Elway is not afraid to part ways with successful players when they get too expensive. Julius Thomas made some huge plays at TE with Peyton. But they didn't even consider offering him a big money deal when he hit free agency. Dominique Rogers-Cromartie had a great season at CB, but they let him walk and made a better deal for Talib. Brock Osweiler? Elway didn't see enough there to justify $16 million/year, so off he went even though they literally had no Plan B (actually I think they'll regret that one, but it showed guts). That's not what I see with the Bills. McCoy was a fine one year rental, but why extend him? Huge interior defensive lineman don't age well - off went Pot Roast Knighton from Denver (and into Haynesworth oblivion) while we gave Dareus a huge deal. Re-upping popular/successful players is always a hit with the fans, but as often as not it's a really bad idea, but it's an idea a weak GM always goes to.

 

Dareus is young. McCoy wouldn't play without a new deal.

 

He cut fan favorites Fred and Manny.

 

Keep posting, every time you do you make Whaley sound more and more like Elway Jr.

[The Frankish Reich]

 

Keep posting, every time you do you make Whaley sound more and more like Elway Jr.

You're right. I stand down. Poor put-upon Doug Whaley has assembled a Super Bowl roster. It isn't his fault that he lacks the gravitas to stand up to the Trumpian force that is the Pegulas, or to Hurricane Rex and the Rexettes. He is a leader ready to emerge as soon as he grows a pair.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

the roster analysis is questionable. its not how you get the roster put together... It's about the results and no one has evidence that the %of the final 53 that are drafted correlates to success.

 

Elway filled his most position in his winningest seasons with a free agent acquisition until this year... And even went out again to establish a back up plan until the upstart surprised everyone by taking the job.

 

Elway has been far more successful than Whaley has, but I'm not sure drafting alone is why.

Edited September 17, 2016 by over 20 years of fanhood

[Solomon Grundy]

Ok...talent doesn't seem to be the issue.

If you want to blame Whaley for not hiring a good coach, then be my guest.

Its unfortunate that the Bills couldn't maintain a consistent staff. They barely lasted a year. Its pathetic. Around and around we go.

Is it true that Whaley wanted to hire Hue Jackson, but the Pegulas wanted Rex?

[YoloinOhio]

Is it true that Whaley wanted to hire Hue Jackson, but the Pegulas wanted Rex?

i have heard that a few times. I don't know if Hue would have been a great choice. Just don't have any evidence to support that he would be.

[The Frankish Reich]

Here's the thing: why do Whaley defenders give him a pass for being bullied into decisions contrary to his desires? Isn't part of being an effective GM to have strong opinions and the persuasive skills to turn those opinions into reality? Isn't the very definition of being a weak/ineffective leader crumbling under pressure from those who know less than you do?

 

In other words, by ascribing Whaley's mistakes to others, namely ...

 

- EJ was Buddy Nix's choice. Whaley didn't have the full "GM" title until after that draft, even though everyone knew he was GM in waiting

- Rex was Pegula's choice

- Roman was also Pegula's choice; he was given the OC job as a consolation prize

- Firing Roman was Rex's (or Pegula's) decision? I'm not sure what the theory is here

 

... aren't Whaley's defenders conceding that he is a weak and ineffectual leader?

 

So what, the theory is that we need new owners? Well, that ain't gonna happen. So my solution is to find a (1) strong personality/a strong leader as a GM, (2) who also knows football inside and out, because it seems we can all agree that he isn't (1) even if he is (2).

[YoloinOhio]

Might as well put asterisks next to Von Miller and Derek Wolfe if you have one next to Dareus. Both were suspended for violations of substance abuse as long or longer than Dareus's. Elway decided to resign them both to huge contract extensions AFTER the long suspensions.

Edited September 17, 2016 by YoloinOhio

[PolishDave]

I love how the argument is Whaley sucks because the Bills didn't win the Superbowl last year.

 

Where was all this love for GM Elway before last year's Superbowl run?

 

All of a sudden he is the perfect GM. How convenient of an argument.

 

Guess what then, by that logic - then all the other team GM's suck too.

[YoloinOhio]

I love how the argument is Whaley sucks because the Bills didn't win the Superbowl last year.

 

Where was all this love for GM Elway before last year's Superbowl run?

 

All of a sudden he is the perfect GM. How convenient of an argument.

 

Guess what then, by that logic - then all the other team GM's suck too.

i give Elway a ton of credit for what he has done in Denver. However I'm not going to give him credit (yet) for starting Simian at QB this year or because his rookie FB scored 1 TD. It has been one game with both of those guys. It was a great win but Simian wasn't very good. Edited September 17, 2016 by YoloinOhio

[The Frankish Reich]

I love how the argument is Whaley sucks because the Bills didn't win the Superbowl last year.

 

Where was all this love for GM Elway before last year's Superbowl run?

 

All of a sudden he is the perfect GM. How convenient of an argument.

 

Guess what then, by that logic - then all the other team GM's suck too.

Elway came back in after the Broncos finished 4-12. Orton had been replaced by Tebow. Josh McDaniels was recognized as an unmitigated disaster. Since that time:

 

- Playoffs, 8-8 fluke with Tebow at QB, but still ... playoffs has not been a word heard in these parts for a while

- Playoffs, 13-3

- Super Bowl (loss) 13-3

- Playoffs, 12-4

- Super Bowl (win) 12-4

 

I'd say that's a pretty good track record. You can say "but they had a HOF QB," but that wasn't true except in the most literal sense last year. But the reason I use Elway as a counterpoint to Whaley is this: the Broncos were floundering with no leadership after they fired Shanahan. Brian Xanders was the GM, but kid McDaniels had been brought in as coach and everyone knew he completely dominated Xanders, who was a mere figurehead. McDaniels was young, arrogant, and his decisionmaking reflected that smartest-kid-in-the-room syndrome. Because Xanders lacked the stature to stand up to him, there was no adult leadership.

 

Now Rex is no kid, but otherwise he is McDaniels c. 2010. A blustery blowhard who dominates the room and is immune to second opinions or wise counsel. Again, there's no adult in the room - Rex is childlike in exactly the way McDaniels was (although McDaniels still has a chance to grow out of it). Elway was brought in, and he restored order. I never even liked him as a player, but I have to admit he turned the ship around. He brought in a mature, boring, coach who oozed competence and professionalism in John Fox. And that's exactly what the Bills need. I've said before that I don't know who the Bills Elway is -- maybe it is Jim Kelly if his health permits, maybe it's someone else. That's why the Polian idea was kicked around, although that seemed to be a ruse for getting Polian's kid or something involved. Someone with the stature and maturity to reset the course.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Well, they're both "the problem" but I'd attribute something like 75% to Whaley and management rather than the coaching staff. There's this myth out there that the Bills have really good player personnel but it's being held back by the coaching staff. I just don't see that.

 

Reich, I'm kind of sensing that you're on a roll here and nothing anyone says will sway you.

 

As evidence that coaching matters, I put it to you that the Pats** are playing without a top D player, 3 starting OLmen, and their starting all-star QB yet managed to make what should still be a very good Arizona team look paltry.

This is not because they have these great all-star players at every position - as a matter of fact, when they do, they tend to trade (or release) many of them the minute they feel their quality of play no longer justifies their salary. It is not because they have fantastic draft judgement. They stockpile picks, but if you look at their draft, their record is very mixed. The are good at picking up cast-off players from other teams and making them look great - I'm betting we'll be wondering why we let Hogan go by mid-season. We let "bad" players go and wonder why they have careers elsewhere.

 

What the Pats** have is a very sound, established system and high expectations for their players. You learn the playbook and you do your job, or out you go and we bring in the next guy. They wouldn't tolerate the prima-dona acting out after busted plays or slovenly effort we see from our WR and TE on a regular basis or the crap where allegedly the D didn't understand the system last year. They operate on the system that they are fielding the best team, not the best players, and a full-go effort from an average player who is all-in is better than a "meh" effort from a greater athlete who is not fully committed (remember when Belichek dumped his starting 2ndary just before the season?) They also have top-notch game and clock management and great in game adjustments. I hate them, but I see this.

 

In contrast, we have players acting up when things don't go their way, getting suspended in droves or showing up out of shape, horrible game and clock management, and no or ineffective in-game adjustments.

 

Don't you think that has something to do with coaching?

Edited September 17, 2016 by Hapless Bills Fan

[The Frankish Reich]

 

Reich, I'm kind of sensing that you're on a roll here and nothing anyone says will sway you.

 

As evidence that coaching matters, I put it to you that the Pats** are playing without a top D player, 3 starting OLmen, and their starting all-star QB yet managed to make what should still be a very good Arizona team look paltry.

This is not because they have these great all-star players at every position - as a matter of fact, when they do, they tend to trade (or release) many of them the minute they feel their quality of play no longer justifies their salary. It is not because they have fantastic draft judgement. They stockpile picks, but if you look at their draft, their record is very mixed. The are good at picking up cast-off players from other teams and making them look great - I'm betting we'll be wondering why we let Hogan go by mid-season. We let "bad" players go and wonder why they have careers elsewhere.

 

What the Pats** have is a very sound, established system and high expectations for their players. You learn the playbook and you do your job, or out you go and we bring in the next guy. They wouldn't tolerate the prima-dona acting out after busted plays or slovenly effort we see from our WR and TE on a regular basis or the crap where allegedly the D didn't understand the system last year. They also have top-notch game and clock management and great in game adjustments.

 

In contrast, we see players acting up, getting suspended in droves or showing up out of shape, horrible game and clock management, and no or ineffective in-game adjustments.

 

Don't you think that has something to do with coaching?

Well, I am persuadable, and you've done a really good job of persuading me. I guess I'll say it's 50/50 on personnel vs. coaching. I do agree that a good coach could get more out of this personnel, and that that "more" could be enough to make this a playoff-competitive team, which it really should be -- at least on the order of Baltimore or the Jets, two teams likely to be in the hunt. I guess my disagreement is more with the idea that we have excellent personnel such that we should be expected to make the playoffs. To be honest, I don't think that's been the case since the great Super Bowl teams.

[GunnerBill]

I think all sense was lost from this argument when a journeyman space eating DT in Pot Roast was compared to Marcel Dareus who is a dominating and penetrating force when allowed to be and not tasked with playing the nose in the "fully pregnant" scheme.

 

They only look the same player because of bad coaching.

Edited September 17, 2016 by GunnerBill

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Here's the thing: why do Whaley defenders give him a pass for being bullied into decisions contrary to his desires? Isn't part of being an effective GM to have strong opinions and the persuasive skills to turn those opinions into reality? Isn't the very definition of being a weak/ineffective leader crumbling under pressure from those who know less than you do?

 

In other words, by ascribing Whaley's mistakes to others, namely ...

 

- EJ was Buddy Nix's choice. Whaley didn't have the full "GM" title until after that draft, even though everyone knew he was GM in waiting

- Rex was Pegula's choice

- Roman was also Pegula's choice; he was given the OC job as a consolation prize

- Firing Roman was Rex's (or Pegula's) decision? I'm not sure what the theory is here

 

... aren't Whaley's defenders conceding that he is a weak and ineffectual leader?

 

So what, the theory is that we need new owners? Well, that ain't gonna happen. So my solution is to find a (1) strong personality/a strong leader as a GM, (2) who also knows football inside and out, because it seems we can all agree that he isn't (1) even if he is (2).

 

Frankish, why do you feel that it's Whaley's sphere of authority to chose and or hire/fire coaches and assistants?

 

Franchises differ - in some franchises, the coach reports to the GM. But on the Bills, it was made very clear that the coach reports directly to the Pegulas, and so does the GM. Whaley had input I'm sure, but he did not have fate control over the hiring and does not have fate control over the firing of the coach and/or assistants.

 

It doesn't make you a weak or ineffective leader if you don't go to the mat for every decision that's outside of your role and responsibility and not your first choice. It makes you a team player who works within the designated structure.

[Reed83HOF]

 

Reich, I'm kind of sensing that you're on a roll here and nothing anyone says will sway you.

 

As evidence that coaching matters, I put it to you that the Pats** are playing without a top D player, 3 starting OLmen, and their starting all-star QB yet managed to make what should still be a very good Arizona team look paltry.

This is not because they have these great all-star players at every position - as a matter of fact, when they do, they tend to trade (or release) many of them the minute they feel their quality of play no longer justifies their salary. It is not because they have fantastic draft judgement. They stockpile picks, but if you look at their draft, their record is very mixed. The are good at picking up cast-off players from other teams and making them look great - I'm betting we'll be wondering why we let Hogan go by mid-season. We let "bad" players go and wonder why they have careers elsewhere.

 

What the Pats** have is a very sound, established system and high expectations for their players. You learn the playbook and you do your job, or out you go and we bring in the next guy. They wouldn't tolerate the prima-dona acting out after busted plays or slovenly effort we see from our WR and TE on a regular basis or the crap where allegedly the D didn't understand the system last year. They operate on the system that they are fielding the best team, not the best players, and a full-go effort from an average player who is all-in is better than a "meh" effort from a greater athlete who is not fully committed (remember when Belichek dumped his starting 2ndary just before the season?) They also have top-notch game and clock management and great in game adjustments. I hate them, but I see this.

 

In contrast, we have players acting up when things don't go their way, getting suspended in droves or showing up out of shape, horrible game and clock management, and no or ineffective in-game adjustments.

 

Don't you think that has something to do with coaching?

 

Players will take on the characteristics of the leadership they are under....That Pats* do this better than anyone else

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Well, I am persuadable, and you've done a really good job of persuading me. I guess I'll say it's 50/50 on personnel vs. coaching. I do agree that a good coach could get more out of this personnel, and that that "more" could be enough to make this a playoff-competitive team, which it really should be -- at least on the order of Baltimore or the Jets, two teams likely to be in the hunt. I guess my disagreement is more with the idea that we have excellent personnel such that we should be expected to make the playoffs. To be honest, I don't think that's been the case since the great Super Bowl teams.

 

I would agree that we don't have excellent personnel as we did on the great Super Bowl teams. I think the problem in the Salary Cap/Free Agency era is that no team can assemble and keep that kind of roster.

So success depends upon:

1) having a coach that can get the maximum out of every player - good teaching, good discipline, high expectations

2) having a system/scheme that doesn't critically depend upon the unique talents of specific players - it can utilize unique talents, but it has to be flexible enough to work around suspensions/injuries

3) effective game management and communication

4) good talent acquisition through draft and FA, especially "risk/reward" players or undervalued FA (because no one has the budget to retain all their top talent or hire all the top FA they want)

5) consistent direction in talent acquisition, by which I mean, a system that doesn't change what sorts of players it needs every couple of years - so that late round picks and UDFA can be stashed and developed.

 

1 2 & 3 are on the coaches. 4 & 5 are on the GM and on the management.

1) Rex has the rep as a player's coach, but I don't think he's really successful at 1). Being the player's bud is fine, but sometimes the player needs to be a bit afraid to come back to the huddle if he f*cks up, and I think Rex hesitates to chop off anyone's head. Mario walked on him last year.

2) In my opinion, Rex as a defensive coach *does* depend critically on the quality of his DBs and his LB (but maybe I'm wrong)

3) Enough said. We are lacking here

 

5) We have not had this during Whaley's tenure. We changed coaches, we changed defensive systems, we changed blocking schemes on the OL. The guys developed under Marrone were no longer the right guys. This is a hidden hurt.

so the question is, how has Whaley done with his primary role and responsibility, 4)? I think some criticism is in order. He has definitely pushed hard on the risk/reward guys - the players who fell due to injury or character concerns - and this year in particular, it has bitten us in the butt Big Time. Whaley rolled the dice on Karlos Williams, Kujo, and Shaq Lawson, and he lost. He has also had some genuine bad luck - the Ragland injury and Henderson's Crohns being two examples that could not have been reasonably forseen. He seems to be pretty good at evaluating defensive talent. I'm not as sold on his evaluation of offensive players. Bryce Brown was a whiff. Kujo was a risk/reward for a coach who demanded big hulking behemoths and I believe his knees have hampered him. On the skill guys, it's not entirely clear to me if he's whiffed or if we simply haven't had a QB who can utilize them effectively, but that falls on Whaley too.

 

So overall, I don't get the Whaley condemnation (and I don't see looking only at talent acquisition through draft as a reasonable metric), and the change in systems must be taken into account but he's certainly not above reproach, and he won't be unless/until we find a clear capable QB and field a winning team.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Hapless Bills Fan

[GunnerBill]

It was made very clear who has control of the coaching staff at the Rex intro presser.

 

Rex Ryan does.

[Reed83HOF]

The problem with Whaley is that he has not been given the full GM role yet (As far as being the only one to hire, manage and dismiss the HC; the direct reporting relationship is not there). Upfront he should have been given those responsibilities, but he wasn't (Russ was calling the shots, whether intentional or not he was the "owner"). Whaley has real no "power" in this organization other than being in charge of scouting (pro and college).If the Pegulas gave it to him when Marrone left, fine; but they didn't. All you can grade him on is the talent he brings in and even that is dependent on if the coaches can grow a player or not.

 

The problem you have is that has he done enough to stay around? Will the Pegulas and Brandon (when Rex inevitably goes) all of a sudden stay out of the hiring process and let Whaley do his thing? I don't see that happening and that is a big issue....

[YoloinOhio]

It was made very clear who has control of the coaching staff at the Rex intro presser.

 

Rex Ryan does.

as he should, he's the HC. Like him or not. Edited September 17, 2016 by YoloinOhio

[GunnerBill]

as he should, he's the HC. Like him or not.

Yes I totally agree.