The Devil has been extended

[Typical TBD Guy]

jad1: Wrong. I would not have wanted Polian fired in '87 because the team had made dramatic progress by his third year from the absolute mess he inherited in ‘85. Plus, he was doing so within the confines of a pre-free agency, pre-salary cap NFL era that did not encourage rapid turn-arounds like we regularly see now. And I've NEVER given TD a hard time for his first two seasons here, but the team has stalled and even backtracked for the last two, which has raised my skepticism of him higher than that of other fans around TBD. Sorry.

 

34-78-83: Ah yes, the classic "you can't be a real fan because you're a pessimist" argument. No need to revive that debate. As far as me being unrealistically critical, I've rarely been anything but optimistic regarding the progress made by our D, ST, coaching, and offense outside the QB and OL. I also feel TD is an OK GM, but I draw the line at calling him top 5 NFL material. This may surprise you, but gloomy Kelso's Helmet thinks the 2005 Bills CAN make the playoffs. Only catch, though, is that I also think they SHOULD as well, whereas many here (too many, IMO) think it's quite all right if a team with the #2 D, #1 ST, talented skill players on O, and competent coaching doesn't.

 

eball: TD's league-wide reputation is almost certainly higher than "average," which is what I've called TD. So few, if any, NFL experts would agree with my assessment. However, an NFL reputation can often be totally inflated (example: Ruben Brown) or based more from past successes than current ones (example: Mike Ditka). For the Steelers, TD was a "well above average" GM. During his time in Buffalo, he's still maintained his reputation as an excellent talent drafter, an excellent financial manager, and a great team marketer. However, the team direction thus far is lacking. There's no killer edge among the collection of excellent players we have. That final game in Pittsburgh is the epitome of what I'm getting at with this. For all the outstanding statistical rankings the team has gained and all the player talent we've amassed, in the end - like for virtually all other competitive venues in life - it all comes down to the final result (the W's). IMO, TD has created a team of paper tigers after 4 years, and while 1 more year to prove otherwise is fair, 2 more years (for a total of 6) seems too much by today’s NFL standards.

 

Realist: A respectable opinion, though I admit I’m more of a bottom-line W/L guy. I think this team has the talent to do better than your prediction of 9-7, but this is dependent on the D staying strong against the run and JP minimizing the turnovers.

 

Yoho: Don’t forget Dick Gallagher. My ranking would be Polian, then Gallagher, then Butler, then TD (who can move ahead as soon as we make the playoffs), and then the dreaded rest whose names should be burned from the record books.

 

God, do I hate the pre-preseason debate...

[Alaska Darin]

i challenge you to find ONE respected NFL expert who would agree with your statements.  just ONE.  your proof must come in the form of a published article from a reputable source (i.e., florio at profootballtalk.com doesn't count).

 

this is the kind of bullcrap i expect to read from troll fans of other teams.  you don't have to worship the ground TD walks on, but ANY fool can see that the bills are in a drastically upgraded position today as compared to where they were when butler left town.  the defense has finished #2 for two years in a row.  the ST were the best in the league (aside from K) last year.  moulds.  evans.  mcgahee.

 

i don't call people out unless they deserve it, and you, sir, deserve it.  take off your freakishly large helmet and allow your head to breathe.

391614[/snapback]

Mike Florio just called. He's pissed because Kelso's Helmet won't get off his PC.

[Typical TBD Guy]

Mike Florio just called.  He's pissed because Kelso's Helmet won't get off his PC.

391761[/snapback]

 

Truly amazing.

 

I call TD a mediocre GM, support this by highlighting his objective 4-year record as Bills GM, and I get ripped on left and right as a radical.

 

OK then. Fair enough. I've seem some legit counter arguments here.

 

Yet there are guys calling TD a top 3-5 NFL GM talent, have no real support for this other than some gut instinct (see: homerism), and they barely receive a scratch.

 

I can't even imagine what non-Bills fan guests who view this board are thinking when they see a GM with a 26-38 regular season record being labeled top 5 GM material. TD had a great run as a Steeler GM, but those years - at this point in time - seem like long-forgotten history.

 

But the powers that be have spoken. I really need to stop posting here now.

[Alaska Darin]

Truly amazing.

 

I call TD a mediocre GM, support this by highlighting his objective 4-year record as Bills GM, and I get ripped on left and right as a radical.

 

OK then. Fair enough. I've seem some legit counter arguments here.

 

Yet there are guys calling TD a top 3-5 NFL GM talent, have no real support for this other than some gut instinct (see: homerism), and they barely receive a scratch.

 

I can't even imagine what non-Bills fan guests who view this board are thinking when they see a GM with a 26-38 regular season record being labeled top 5 GM material. TD had a great run as a Steeler GM, but those years - at this point in time - seem like long-forgotten history.

391777[/snapback]

Mostly because you conveniently ignore the big picture and always fall back to "26-38" - as if the 3-13 season wasn't completely necessary due to the sins of the previous regime.

 

At the end of the day, being one game under .500 the last three seasons in the toughest division in football ain't anywhere near as "average" as you make it out to be.

 

But the powers that be have spoken. I really need to stop posting here now.

Whaa.

[RJsackedagain]

At the end of the day, being one game under .500 the last three seasons in the toughest division in football ain't anywhere near as "average" as you make it out to be.

Whaa.

391781[/snapback]

It ain't great either. ... To borrow a quote from a rival AFC East coach "You play to win the game" and TD hasn't done a very good job in that department no matter how you slice it. No division titles! No playoffs! No championships!

Tell me what's so good about being mediocre in the NFL??

[34-78-83]

Mostly because you conveniently ignore the big picture and always fall back to "26-38" - as if the 3-13 season wasn't completely necessary due to the sins of the previous regime.

 

391781[/snapback]

 

Bingo... There's your answer Kelso.

 

 

Many of us have also laid out examples multiple times as to why TD is an above average GM. I suppose you may be right calling us lazy not to post it over and over again.

 

And Kelso, maybe you could make a post just once about how good you feel about our D or special teams as you mention. If you have done so I appologize for missing it, but I fear it has become "cool" to be negative and overly critical, or rather "uncool" to say anything that shows (homeristic) support. I mean C'mon, no fan of any particular form of entertainment just sits there and criticizes it all the time.

 

This "homer" by the way is seriously concerned about the left Tackle position, TE position, Kicker, backup LB, and somewhat DT and QB. It's not all peachy in my world either.

[Kelly the Dog]

And I've NEVER given TD a hard time for his first two seasons here, but the team has stalled and even backtracked for the last two, which has raised my skepticism of him higher than that of other fans around TBD. Sorry.

 

391748[/snapback]

Whatever credibility you may have had has completely gone out the window with that last sentence. The team has backtracked the last two seasons from the first two? Last year wasn't a better team than 2002 or 2003? The record was better, the team was better, the play was better, the coaching was FAR better, the players are better, the defense was better, the special teams were MUCH better, the offense was better (excluding one half of 2002), where was this backtracking the last two seasons? That's just plain blind.

[Alaska Darin]

It ain't great either. ... To borrow a quote from a rival AFC East coach "You play to win the game" and TD hasn't done a very good job in that department no matter how you slice it. No division titles! No playoffs! No championships!

Tell me what's so good about being mediocre in the NFL??

391824[/snapback]

You might want to look up the definition of mediocre. You'll be able to find it quickly by scanning for the picture of Drew Bledsoe.

[jad1]

jad1: Wrong. I would not have wanted Polian fired in '87 because the team had made dramatic progress by his third year from the absolute mess he inherited in ‘85. Plus, he was doing so within the confines of a pre-free agency, pre-salary cap NFL era that did not encourage rapid turn-arounds like we regularly see now. And I've NEVER given TD a hard time for his first two seasons here, but the team has stalled and even backtracked for the last two, which has raised my skepticism of him higher than that of other fans around TBD. Sorry.

 

 

391748[/snapback]

 

Your comments are so far from the truth here, I don't know where to start.

 

Polian's 3rd year here was '88, not '87. His record by the end of '87 was 11-20. Needless to say, those of you who scream RECORD and PLAYOFFS, couldn't have been happy with Polian's record at the end of '87.

 

To Polian's credit you acknowledge that he inherited a mess. However, your refusal to acknowledge the mess Donahoe inherited also discredits your argument.

 

Polian did not draft Kelly, Reed, Talley, or Smith as GM. Those guys were on the roster when he took over.

 

Conversely Donahoe has purged 52 of the 53 players he's inherited thanks in large part to the salary cap, which you somehow claim encourages quick turnarounds.

 

So Polian inherits a core of HOF players, while Donahoe has to purge millions of dollars to get under the cap. How did their first years turn out? Polian 4-12, Donahoe 3-13. Polian is one win better.

 

In their 2nd year Polian is 7-8 (non-scabs 6-6) while Donahoe is 8-8. Polian improves the team by 3 wins, Donahoe by 5 wins. 5 wins matches Polians largest season-to-season improvement, by the way.

 

In '88, Polian's 3rd seasons, the Bills explode to 12-4. Donahoe's Bills, in his 3rd season, fall to 6-10. Donahoe's biggest season-to season backslide is 2 wins.

 

Polian's 4th seasons sees the Bills backslide to 9-7, 3 fewer wins than in '88. Donahoe improves his team by 3 wins in his 4th season, to 9-7.

 

So both GMs inherited a mess (although Polian inherited a better team), both improved them rapidly, both suffered backslides.

 

Etiher Polian is an "average" GM or Donahoe is a pretty good one, because these guys have more in common than you would admit.

 

And if you can tell me how posting a 9-7 record is "backtracking" for Donahoe, I'd like to here that twisted logic.

 

Despite the cap and FA there are no quick "turnarounds" in the NFL. The Pats, Rams, Ravens, Buccaneers all spent most of the '90s accumulating talent to win their Super Bowls. If you take a close look at how these teams were built, you'd see that it still takes 5 or 6 years of accumulating talent to build a consistent winner in the NFL.

[Dan III]

Great post jad1.

[Alaska Darin]

Your comments are so far from the truth here, I don't know where to start.

 

Polian's 3rd year here was '88, not '87.  His record by the end of '87 was 11-20.  Needless to say, those of you who scream RECORD and PLAYOFFS, couldn't have been happy with Polian's record at the end of '87.

 

To Polian's credit you acknowledge that he inherited a mess.  However, your refusal to acknowledge the mess Donahoe inherited also discredits your argument.

 

Polian did not draft Kelly, Reed, Talley, or Smith as GM.  Those guys were on the roster when he took over.

 

Conversely Donahoe has purged 52 of the 53 players he's inherited thanks in large part to the salary cap, which you somehow claim encourages quick turnarounds.

 

So Polian inherits a core of HOF players, while Donahoe has to purge millions of dollars to get under the cap.  How did their first years turn out?  Polian 4-12, Donahoe 3-13.  Polian is one win better.

 

In their 2nd year Polian is 7-8 (non-scabs 6-6) while Donahoe is 8-8.  Polian improves the team by 3 wins, Donahoe by 5 wins.  5 wins matches Polians largest season-to-season improvement, by the way.

 

In '88, Polian's 3rd seasons, the Bills explode to 12-4.  Donahoe's Bills, in his 3rd season, fall to 6-10.  Donahoe's biggest season-to season backslide is 2 wins.

 

Polian's 4th seasons sees the Bills backslide to 9-7, 3 fewer wins than in '88.  Donahoe improves his team by 3 wins in his 4th season, to 9-7.

 

So both GMs inherited a mess (although Polian inherited a better team), both improved them rapidly, both suffered backslides. 

 

Etiher Polian is an "average" GM or Donahoe is a pretty good one, because these guys have more in common than you would admit.

 

And if you can tell me how posting a 9-7 record is "backtracking" for Donahoe, I'd like to here that twisted logic.

 

Despite the cap and FA there are no quick "turnarounds" in the NFL.  The Pats, Rams, Ravens, Buccaneers all spent most of the '90s accumulating talent to win their Super Bowls.  If you take a close look at how these teams were built, you'd see that it still takes 5 or 6 years of accumulating talent to build a consistent winner in the NFL.

392022[/snapback]

Get some. Good job.

[Typical TBD Guy]

392022[/snapback]

 

Interesting post. I agree with some points, disagree with others. Let me explain what I disagree with:

 

1. Yes, 1987 was indeeed Polian's second season, but that only furthers my point that I wouldn't have been calling for his head by that time. I've never even come close to calling for TD's head after his second season (2002). In fact, I've never even called for TD's head NOW! The earliest I've ever suggested is by the end of this upcoming 2005 season.

 

2. You forgot to mention that in Polian's 3rd and 4th seasons, the Bills not only made the playoffs but won their divisions. In 88, they made the AFC Championship. Small difference from what TD accomplished in his 3rd and 4th seasons, despite whomever Polian inherited.

 

3. Calling the 2004 season a "backtrack" would be valid if you consider that it concluded with the firing of the starting QB and the promotion of a totally unproven rookie QB. Now many will contend that this is not a backtrack at all because Drew blew so bad, and I actually AGREE! You were right, and I was wrong. I should not have called 2004 a backtrack. It was a poor choice of words in the heat of the moment. However, if we all agree that 2004 wasn't a backtrack, then why are a lot of people saying it's OK if we don't make the playoffs in 2005? If JP is an improvement over Drew, then why are most fans here OK with another season without playoffs? We were, after all, close in 2004. So wouldn't expecting anything less than playoffs be "backtracking" from '04 to '05?

 

4. You've explained how TD can still be considered to be on equal pace with Polian's historical progress. But my central argument has been that it should be playoffs or bust by this coming January. Would you not agree that a fifth year without playoffs would derail TD further from the similar path that Polian was blazing by his 5th season (1990)?

 

To everyone else besides jad1 who has replied to me, I can concede that:

 

1. I have gone overboard with the negativity in many of my posts this offseason about TD and the OL.

 

2. TD is an "above average/good" GM who has just been flat out unlucky in a lot of situations with players, coaches, and so forth.

 

3. Making the playoffs shouldn't be the all-or-nothing ultimatum that determines whether TD stays here beyond the '05 season (i.e., unusual numbers of injuries DO happen and a dramatic second half-season turnaround CAN justify 1 more year).

 

But for those who believe TD can be considered among the top 3-5 current GM's in the NFL, I just hang my head and sigh. Because at this point in time, I can't see how he can possibly be viewed as any better than around the border between top 3rd and middle 3rd in a ranking of current NFL GM's.

 

The evidence is just too damning:

 

2001: 3-13, no big deal. Rebuilding year.

2002: 8-8, good job. Future looks bright and on schedule.

2003: 6-10, trouble. Now we need a new rookie coaching staff.

2004: 9-7, trouble. Now we have to go with a new rookie QB.

 

And during this timespan, all but 6 lowly teams (Jags, Texans, Bengals, Skins, Lions, Cards) have made the playoffs.

 

Luck plays a role, but can a top 3-5 GM be THIS unlucky?

[eball]

Interesting post. I agree with some points, disagree with others. Let me explain what I disagree with:

 

1. Yes, 1987 was indeeed Polian's second season, but that only furthers my point that I wouldn't have been calling for his head by that time. I've never even come close to calling for TD's head after his second season (2002). In fact, I've never even called for TD's head NOW! The earliest I've ever suggested is by the end of this upcoming 2005 season.

 

2. You forgot to mention that in Polian's 3rd and 4th seasons, the Bills not only made the playoffs but won their divisions. In 88, they made the AFC Championship. Small difference from what TD accomplished in his 3rd and 4th seasons, despite whomever Polian inherited.

 

3. Calling the 2004 season a "backtrack" would be valid if you consider that it concluded with the firing of the starting QB and the promotion of a totally unproven rookie QB. Now many will contend that this is not a backtrack at all because Drew blew so bad, and I actually AGREE! You were right, and I was wrong. I should not have called 2004 a backtrack. It was a poor choice of words in the heat of the moment. However, if we all agree that 2004 wasn't a backtrack, then why are a lot of people saying it's OK if we don't make the playoffs in 2005? If JP is an improvement over Drew, then why are most fans here OK with another season without playoffs? We were, after all, close in 2004. So wouldn't expecting anything less than playoffs be "backtracking" from '04 to '05?

 

4. You've explained how TD can still be considered to be on equal pace with Polian's historical progress. But my central argument has been that it should be playoffs or bust by this coming January. Would you not agree that a fifth year without playoffs would derail TD further from the similar path that Polian was blazing by his 5th season (1990)?

 

To everyone else besides jad1 who has replied to me, I can concede that:

 

1. I have gone overboard with the negativity in many of my posts this offseason about TD and the OL.

 

2. TD is an "above average/good" GM who has just been flat out unlucky in a lot of situations with players, coaches, and so forth.

 

3. Making the playoffs shouldn't be the all-or-nothing ultimatum that determines whether TD stays here beyond the '05 season (i.e., unusual numbers of injuries DO happen and a dramatic second half-season turnaround CAN justify 1 more year).

 

But for those who believe TD can be considered among the top 3-5 current GM's in the NFL, I just hang my head and sigh. Because at this point in time, I can't see how he can possibly be viewed as any better than around the border between top 3rd and middle 3rd in a ranking of current NFL GM's.

 

The evidence is just too damning:

 

2001: 3-13, no big deal. Rebuilding year.

2002: 8-8, good job. Future looks bright and on schedule.

2003: 6-10, trouble. Now we need a new rookie coaching staff.

2004: 9-7, trouble. Now we have to go with a new rookie QB.

 

And during this timespan, all but 6 lowly teams (Jags, Texans, Bengals, Skins, Lions, Cards) have made the playoffs.

 

Luck plays a role, but can a top 3-5 GM be THIS unlucky?

392033[/snapback]

i commend you for a stand-up post admitting that you have made some over-reaching statements. now, to address a couple of things:

 

your first point # 2 -- the competitive level of the AFC is much different now than it was in the late 80s/early 90s. if the bills had been "lucky" enough to be playing in the NFC last season, they very well may have won their division. they destroyed the NFC west in head-to-head competition.

 

your first point # 3 -- i think most reasonable bills' fans "expect" the bills not to backtrack from their competitive position at the end of 2004. does that mean playoffs? maybe yes, maybe no. 10-6 might not be good enough, but would that mean they have backtracked? i don't think so. see my paragraph above -- we're playing in a much more competitive conference.

 

polian got lucky in that his first HC hire was a future HOF'er (and his initial roster was loaded w/ HOF talent). conversely, donahoe admittedly screwed the pooch w/ his first HC decision. but despite the dropoff from 2002 to 2003, the roster was being built and most of those players (acquired by donahoe) are the foundation of this year's team. donahoe also corrected his HC mistake. i don't agree with calling 2004 a "trouble" season because so many positives came out of that campaign.

 

furthermore, the bills didn't draft losman because they planned to sit him for 2-3 years. how he pans out is going to say a lot about the donahoe regime because there is no doubt he is "TD's guy."

 

so, at this point i think TD has an "incomplete" on his buffalo bills' GM report card because of the team's failure to reach the ultimate goal of being a perennial playoff and SB contender -- but in terms of organizing and acquiring a talented roster and running a solid organization, he is certainly not in the "middle of the pack."

 

in all seriousness, if you could swap entire rosters with any team in the league, would you? it's an all or nothing proposition. how many teams would you swap with? philly? new england? pittsburgh? maybe. anyone else? not me.

 

despite the "incomplete" TD is a top 5 GM, right now. of course that's just my opinion.

[34-78-83]

Just a Bravo for the civility shown on this thread where it could have easily gone another way.

[Dan Gross]

Just a Bravo for the civility shown on this thread where it could have easily gone another way. 

392142[/snapback]

 

Eat my shorts.

[34-78-83]

Eat my shorts.

392148[/snapback]

 

Sorry, I prefer Shirts.

[gantrules]

It's simple. TD got an extension b/c he puts butts in the seats. The performance on the field is secondary to the fiscal improvements the Bills have had since TD came on board.

[Mile High]

It's really even easier than that. I think that Ralph realizes now the reason for the Bills being mediocre is Bledsoe. Do what I do, take the easy road blame Drew.

[plenzmd1]

The GM's of the Patriots, Eagles, and Colts (Polian!) would suffice.

391348[/snapback]

 

Very interesting reading those insightful posts above.I am such a whimp I go between TD is the Son of Satan, to he is a the savior depending on whether Lindell missed or a kick that week, or we punted instead of trying a 46 yarder. But what interests me so much is that of the three teams listed above, isn't the defacto GM the coach.

 

We hear so much about how one cannot do the job, yet the two SB participants last year had that structure. Just curious is all

[In space no one can hear]

Anybody else find it kind of creepy that Wilson extended Donahoes contract last year and only now is it finally leaking out?

 

I mean... who are we Bills fans to expect to get this type of information sooner?The bottom line is this franchise has been built on our backs....don't we deserve better?

 

Is it Wilsons embarassment that he extended a G.M. who under his watch the Bills record has been a paltry 26-38? Or is the won loss record no longer the bottom line?

 

It seems to me that Wilson is now suscribing to the bunker mentality management style that Donahoe uses. If only we knew what Wilson, Donahoe and Modrak know ....then we too could lead a team to a 26-38 record after four years!! Yikes!!