dave mcbride Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 you hear comments like this: 'Raiders coach Norv Turner , when asked to discuss the quality of Oakland's win, said a mouthful regarding the viability of the Bills when he replied, "They've done some good things in the last couple weeks to get themselves going, but I'm not sure they're as good as some of the teams we played earlier. Even though it didn't start good, I don't think we ever got uptight. I don't think we ever got concerned and we played that way."' when a longtime respected coach and coordinator known for being tactful says that, he's really saying that buffalo really is a lousy team. when i hear things like this, i find it hard to fathom how donohoe continues to get a free pass from some of the better posters here. it's five years. they're no good. they may find themselves in first place next week if they get lucky against the pats, but no one should mistake them for being any good. if i can engage in absolute pessimism for a moment, i deeply fear that losman is going to be a bust. i've read too many comments by scouts, etc. in lenny p's column and pro football weekly going back to the preseason to not be worried. now those guys are wrong all the time, but i am concerned. he looks pretty bad so far, and if he goes back in in a couple of weeks in the mopup portion of the season, he's going to have a hard go of it. i remain hopeful, but i'm also pretty worried. and i get the sense that the bills' brass is pretty concerned too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 when a longtime respected coach and coordinator known for being tactful says that, he's really saying that buffalo really is a lousy team. 485924[/snapback] Stick to hockey dave Considering they played and lost to the Pats by 10 (in wk 1 before their injuries), Eagles by 3, Chargers by 13, Chiefs by 6, I think what he's saying is that the Pats, Eagles, Chargers, and Chiefs played them better than Bflo did. He's also hinting that the Pats, Eagles, Chargers, and Chiefs are better than Bflo. Hardly an earth-shattering revelation IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeRay Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 when i hear things like this, i find it hard to fathom how donohoe continues to get a free pass from some of the better posters here. That's an easy one to answer. Because the board Gods say so. I've harped for the past 2 1/2 seasons how non-productive this team has been under donahoe's watch and the board God's contend it's crusading, not a viable opinion, and threaten to kicK me off like Ice and Spiked. Mind you, I don't call posters disparaging names either... just lay out the facts on Teflon Tom's record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted October 25, 2005 Author Share Posted October 25, 2005 Stick to hockey dave Considering they played and lost to the Pats by 10 (in wk 1 before their injuries), Eagles by 3, Chargers by 13, Chiefs by 6, I think what he's saying is that the Pats, Eagles, Chargers, and Chiefs played them better than Bflo did. He's also hinting that the Pats, Eagles, Chargers, and Chiefs are better than Bflo. Hardly an earth-shattering revelation IMO. 485944[/snapback] the bills had a better record than the chiefs last year. there's no reason why they shouldn't be better this year. i also think turner was saying another thing as well: we shouldn't get too excited about this victory, because we were basically playing a talent deficient bottom feeder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Stick to hockey dave He's also hinting that the Pats, Eagles, Chargers, and Chiefs are better than Bflo. Hardly an earth-shattering revelation IMO. 485944[/snapback] No, not an earth-shattering revelation, but I think DM's question is WHY aren't we as good as those teams, esp. the Chiefs and the Chargers, both of whom recently were mediocre? McBride's point about us being lousy 5 years into the TD program is right on. We are soft on both lines, aging rapidly on D and without an NFL QB anywhere in sight. Next year, Clements will be gone, Spikes will be rehabbing an injury most don't come back from, and Sam Adams will be another year older and heavier. Fletcher, Milloy and Vincent will also be another year older. I don't see Tim Anderson or Justin Bannan (is he still on the team?) or any of the free agent castoffs on our OL morphing into good linemen. It's also quite possible that Moulds will get fed up with playing with a bunch of stiffs, they will ask him to take a pay cut, he will say no, and then he'll get cut. The only hope we have to be in the playoffs anytime soon is of JP turning into a good QB. Notwithstanding DM's pessimism and the various comments we've seen here and there, there is just no way to know the answer on this yet. It's still a 50/50 shot. Elway and both Mannings all stunk their first years. Bottom line is that after 5 years of TD making $1 million per year, we are in worse shape than when he took over. Remember Wade Phillips? He got run out of town after making the playoffs twice in 3 years and finishing 8-8 in his 3rd year. Would anyone here not trade this coaching staff, front office and team for Wade's/Butler's group in a heartbeat? TD has: 1. hired gregg williams, wasting 3 years of everyone's life 2. wasted a 1st round pick on Bledsoe, when QBs of comparable quality (eg bledsoe himself, this year) are floating around in free agency every year. 3. wasted the 4th pick in the draft on Mike Williams, who is a lousy pass blocker and gets hurt every year. 4. drafted ONE starting o-lineman 5. drafted ZERO starting DTs (you can count Ron Anderson or Tim Anderson here if you really want to) 6. failed to address getting a replacement for Pat Williams this year -- somehow forgetting how bad we were against the run the last time Ron Anderson was starting (ie before Sam Adams arrived, when it was just Pat Williams). Did he think we were just going to "stop the run with numbers" to quote his protege GW? 7. drafted ZERO starting LBs 8. drafted ZERO starting safeties 9. assembled a team with zero mental toughness that gets completely waxed every time there is a road game of any consequence. I still can't believe how badly we lost to Pitt's backups last year when a win would have put us into the playoffs. Note that the above list doesn't include the possible wasting of another 1st rounder and at least 2 more years of everyone's life on JP b/c I do believe it's too early to judge. On the other hand, it probably would have been wiser to not invest so much in a rookie QB and instead find a caretaker veteran QB (e.g. Brian Griese, who could've been had for a couple of throwback jerseys) and spend the money and the draft picks on lineman. Donahoe must go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts