Alaska Darin Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Until the season concludes we have no idea how good of a job Marv has done. 735096[/snapback] That's enough of the reality checking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 I'll give this new regime a chance by waiting to see actual games over the next 2-3 years before rushing to give last rites. This logic is the equivalent of attending a childs Baptism and yelling out " You're just going to die anyhow ! " . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Somebody, anybody please insult me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Cop out! GMs should be cognizant and approve of what is being offered. From what has been reported, the Bills seem to be lowballing. 734884[/snapback] this is wrong. it's been reported in a couple of places that todd france secured a relatively poor deal for ernie sims, just like he did for carlos rogers at the 9 spot last year. note that neither of the players signed around sims -- leinart and whitner -- have signed, and that the gap between huff and sims is massive considering they were only 2 draft spots apart. also, huff probably got a little more than anyone expected. so, the bills are stuck between an overpaid #7 and an underpaid #9. the bills want to use 9 as the model, and whitner's agent wants to use 7. that's the problem, not any incompetence in negotiating by the bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 You do realize the GG is, unsurprisingly, trying to put words into my mouth, don't you? Where did I criticize McNally or Peters? Or is your schtick nothing but getting the right wing back slapping circle jerk society into action? 734913[/snapback] Riiiight, I'm putting words in your mouth by quoting your original post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted August 4, 2006 Author Share Posted August 4, 2006 Riiiight, I'm putting words in your mouth by quoting your original post. 735148[/snapback] Your ability to quote is not in question. Your ability to understand what you quoted and respond to it instead of responding to what you wish I said is. Specifically, where did I criticize the Peters extension? Where did I criticize Peters or McNally? Where did I say I know more than McNally? Questions I asked which you didn't respond too, a recurring theme from you I might add. The Peters extension was a good thing but hardly major and not worthy of breaking out the Pom Poms. It was something that was started under Donahoe. It was the obvious thing to do since he was already under contract. It was rather minor compared to the other issues I raised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted August 4, 2006 Author Share Posted August 4, 2006 this is wrong. it's been reported in a couple of places that todd france secured a relatively poor deal for ernie sims, just like he did for carlos rogers at the 9 spot last year. note that neither of the players signed around sims -- leinart and whitner -- have signed, and that the gap between huff and sims is massive considering they were only 2 draft spots apart. also, huff probably got a little more than anyone expected. so, the bills are stuck between an overpaid #7 and an underpaid #9. the bills want to use 9 as the model, and whitner's agent wants to use 7. that's the problem, not any incompetence in negotiating by the bills. 735147[/snapback] So what was wrong with what I said? If the Bills are using an underpaid #9, how are they not lowballing. Take a overly paid #7 and an underpaid #9, average them and you get a reasonable #8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5 Wide Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Somebody, anybody please insult me. 735129[/snapback] Your mother was a Hampster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 If Marv did mostly positive things and I'd make positive posts. 735052[/snapback] Hmm...glad you mentioned that: -- Hired a well-respected HC and assembled what has been widely perceived to be a quality coaching staff quickly -- Acquired key FAs at positions of need (Triplett, Royal, Reyes, Fowler); early reports from camp are that Triplett and Royal are huge successes -- Has 9 of 10 draft picks signed and in camp Negatives? -- Didn't do what some fans and "experts" wanted in the draft -- Didn't sign high-priced "glamour" FAs like Hutch You're right, scrappy...Marv's tenure as GM is riddled with boneheaded maneuvers and !@#$ups. Moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5 Wide Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 I think that just the talk of all the cohesiveness and belief that is coming from camp this year as compared to the circus of last year is a major positive step in the right direction. Marv made it a number one priority to change the attitude and makeup of the team and it seems as though it is taking hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Actually responding to the topic has never been your strong point Darin. You do little more than personal insults. You might as well get used to it. Questioning the decisions of the GM has been done on every message board for every professional team. People will talk about Marv for as long as he is GM and beyond, just like they did with TD. 735068[/snapback] I actually disagree with you when it comes to Marv's performance so far but at the same time, you are right on about the insult fest. There is no need for that. Your post basically started off with some observations on personnel moves that aren't going so well and concluded that Marv's start isn't so hot. The first responses were sarcastic stuff about tar and feathers and then AD chimed in with a personal insult and things degenerated from there. Too bad. I think Kelly's comment was right on, that Marv has done some good, some bad and its too early to reach any conclusions. My take, or hope rather, is that Marv isn't out to prove that he is smarter than everyone else by pulling off noteworthy, attention getting personnel moves. TD was always making headlines with this or that big move. Whitner an McCargo were examples of that. He didn't try to show how clever he was by trading down and screwing around with the picks. Our top need was a safety and he took the best one on the board at the time our pick came up. Our next top need was a DT and he got the best guy still on the board when we took him. Everyone is speculating that if he made that trade, did this or that fancy move, he could have got an extra pick or two and still filled those needs. Maybe so. It is what TD would have done and no doubt Kiper would have rated our draft an "A+" just like all of TD's other drafts. Of course, most of those wonderful drafts turned out to be disasters a few years later. As for those who disagree, I respect their opinions because reasonable minds can differ on whether Marv could have parlayed that 8th pick into something better. I think he played it safe, got some good young players at postions of obvious need. He won't make headlines but he might just be building a winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Your ability to quote is not in question. Your ability to understand what you quoted and respond to it instead of responding to what you wish I said is. Specifically, where did I criticize the Peters extension? Where did I criticize Peters or McNally? Where did I say I know more than McNally? Questions I asked which you didn't respond too, a recurring theme from you I might add. The Peters extension was a good thing but hardly major and not worthy of breaking out the Pom Poms. It was something that was started under Donahoe. It was the obvious thing to do since he was already under contract. It was rather minor compared to the other issues I raised. 735163[/snapback] I love it. As crazy as it seems to get into an arguement like this, I think that for a couple of guys to get into a sharp debate over how smart it was or wasn't to extend the contract of a right tackle is a demonstration of just how hard core we Buffalo fans are. Clearly, we all enjoy our insanity too much when it comes to the Bills to ever take our medication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 this is wrong. it's been reported in a couple of places that todd france secured a relatively poor deal for ernie sims, just like he did for carlos rogers at the 9 spot last year. note that neither of the players signed around sims -- leinart and whitner -- have signed, and that the gap between huff and sims is massive considering they were only 2 draft spots apart. also, huff probably got a little more than anyone expected. so, the bills are stuck between an overpaid #7 and an underpaid #9. the bills want to use 9 as the model, and whitner's agent wants to use 7. that's the problem, not any incompetence in negotiating by the bills. 735147[/snapback] Hell-oooooooo?! Mc-Briiiiddddee?! That is some strange science you're using there, fella. If both the #7 and the #9 got conventional deals the Bills would be in the exact same place, wanting to use #9 as the model, because the numbers would be the same. Too much for #7 and too little for #9 cancel each other out. The Bills should somewhere very close to the middle and they are not. That looks a lot like a lowball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 WOW. Normally I just laugh aloud at the moronic posts whenever they do come up, but this one takes the cake, so I had to respond. How are you questioning Marv at this stage in the game after the moves he's made? The two guys he's gotten rid of that you reference (Moulds and Adams) were cancerous! They had run their course! They didn't want to be on the team!? How much simpler do those moves get? They DID NOT want to play on the team. Do you want to keep them regardless? He picked Whitner because that was the guy they wanted. Period. They got the guy they wanted, and they got the best D Lineman avail at 22. What's wrong with that? Who cares if they reached. They got the guy they wanted. They had a startegy and they adhered to it. Besides, Baltimore wanted him at 12, and St. Louis wanted Whitner at 15. They've publically said so. Whitner will sign. I think it's bad on both parts for him to not be in camp at this point b/c 1st round money is slotted, so there's not much room for negotiations. So that point, I give you, but it takes two to tango and Marv's stickin to his guns...give him some credit for playing hard ball, while realizing that he doesn't negotiate contracts...Overdorf does it. I'm just curious on how you question Marv after 60 yrs of experience. Did he become inept over night? Doubt it. Same thing I tell people here in Chicago when they tease me for having Jauron as our coach. They guy won coach of the year one year in 2001 as the Bears coach. Did he become a bad coach over night and forget how to coach after he won that award? Doubt that too.... Have faith in the system. Marv wants to win as bad as we do. Fact is, he's having to clean up a lot of dog sh_t left behind by the inept former regime. All beginning with the horrific move to let Rusty Jones come here to Chicago. Spelled the beginning of the end for Mularkey, and friends. Go Bills! 734965[/snapback] You need to post more often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Your ability to quote is not in question. Your ability to understand what you quoted and respond to it instead of responding to what you wish I said is. Specifically, where did I criticize the Peters extension? Where did I criticize Peters or McNally? Where did I say I know more than McNally? Questions I asked which you didn't respond too, a recurring theme from you I might add. The Peters extension was a good thing but hardly major and not worthy of breaking out the Pom Poms. It was something that was started under Donahoe. It was the obvious thing to do since he was already under contract. It was rather minor compared to the other issues I raised. 735163[/snapback] Because you seem to be incapable of moving away from your singular POV. Sorry that Marv's tenure as GM isn't sitting right by you, before a single ball that counts is snapped. Sorry that you choose to dismiss the positives under Marv as mere pedestrian moves, while holding your opinion of what he should have done above the administration, scouts and the coaches. I'm sorry that you're incapable of reading between the lines that the 2005 team was largely undone in the lockerroom, and that the most vocal protagonists of the backroom strife are now plying their trade in Houston & Cincinnati. I'm sorry that the calming influence that Marv has brought to an organization that had descended into an insular monolith driven by a megalomaniacal GM is not a major accomplishment in your book. Of course that could also be the reason why you seem to miss the TD regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Don't argue with Scraps. His mind is made up. Just keep his posts handy for future reference. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Because you seem to be incapable of moving away from your singular POV. Sorry that Marv's tenure as GM isn't sitting right by you, before a single ball that counts is snapped. Sorry that you choose to dismiss the positives under Marv as mere pedestrian moves, while holding your opinion of what he should have done above the administration, scouts and the coaches. I'm sorry that you're incapable of reading between the lines that the 2005 team was largely undone in the lockerroom, and that the most vocal protagonists of the backroom strife are now plying their trade in Houston & Cincinnati. I'm sorry that the calming influence that Marv has brought to an organization that had descended into an insular monolith driven by a megalomaniacal GM is not a major accomplishment in your book. Of course that could also be the reason why you seem to miss the TD regime. 735313[/snapback] The problem is that he's not seeing that we have more than this season to build for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 I like Royal more and more. 734831[/snapback] Should I? It's been a while... ROBERT ROYAL IS THE SAVIOR. He'll play OT, DT, DE, WR and a smattering of P as well!! Damn you Marv, you should have paid him 100,000,000 over three years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Should I? It's been a while... ROBERT ROYAL IS THE SAVIOR. He'll play OT, DT, DE, WR and a smattering of P as well!! Damn you Marv, you should have paid him 100,000,000 over three years! 735409[/snapback] He better not steal Jason Peter's thunder! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 He better not steal Jason Peter's thunder! 735447[/snapback] What thunder? According to scraps, the Peters extension was a no-brainer that any idiot with an IQ of 70 could figure out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts