Mike Williams

[ans4e64]

True colors shining through...that's right, Ans. people don't ever change, and even when they do, it's their failures that should be remembered, right? I'm sorry you feel that way, it's sad really.

 

And just so you know, there's no way that Mike Williams got Donahoe fired. Donahoe got Donahoe fired, and he didn't need any help. He was fired b/c he couldn't pick a good coach and refused to change things when they went wrong. If it was all about the players that TD brought in, he NEVER would have been fired. He drafted Nate Clements, Aaron Schobel, Travis Henry, Josh Reed, Terrence McGee, and Lee Evans; he signed Takeo Spikes, Sam Adams, London Fletcher; it's not like he didn't draft good players.

 

The fact that you feel slighted by Williams' actions in the past does not mean that he's a scum bag. He didn't take his job seriously enough, that's it. You have no reason to take it personally, yet for some reason you do. Your little ditty about how he should come back to the Bills and pay them back for their "loyalty" is ridiculous on a lot of counts. First, there's no indication that any team other than Washington wanted him, even though he had to (as you put it) "beg" his way back into the league, so how he's supposed force his way on to a team's roster without their consent for the sole purpose of paying them back is a little beyond me. Second, what "loyalty" did Buffalo show to him that's got you in such a dither? As I said before, the TEAM picked Williams, he didn't draft himself onto the team. If he did, I might understand this "loyalty" of which you speak. Hanging onto a player in an attempt to get a return on an ill-advised investment is not loyalty, it's business, nothing more. And moreover, it's Buffalo's fault for getting the pick wrong. The head of any organization is ultimately held responsible for its success (or lack thereof), blaming one employee for it is beyond absurd.

 

But hey, it doesn't really matter what either of us think. He's going to get his chance, and if he's made the changes in his life that he needed to, he'll be successful. Just don't expect a check in the mail.

 

I'm not going any further than that.

[thebandit27]

I'm not going any further than that.

 

somehow, that doesn't surprise me.

[Thurman#1]

I've read the article before. The problem is, last time I checked, the team drafts the player, not the other way around. The team drafted Williams and paid him $36M. It's not like he held out for such a huge deal, he was a rookie that was picked 4th overall, which commands a huge salary. So he didn't put in the work to be great, yes, that's his fault. That's not stealing, not even in a totally bastardized definition of the word (which was the word Ans used that provoked by initial response). Not living up to your contract, sure, but people in all walks of life and all professions do that every day (don't tell me you've never seen one in your line of work). Bottom line, it's the employer's job to do something about it, and when no consequences exist for irresponsible behavior, there's no reason to change. That's on the team, not the player. He was 21 years old and an instant millionaire, if you don't understand how that might change a person's attitude in a way that could negatively affect his/her performance in their job (which--whether we all want to realize it or not--pro football is still a job) then i'm probably wasting my time with this response. Also, you can't exactly cry that he "took our money". Did he show up at your door and force you to fork over some cash, or did you give whatever money you gave voluntarily for the privelege of watching/supporting the team? Again, not to be insulting to you personally, but see my comment about over-dramatization in my first post in this thread.

 

As to your hope for his failure, I think that's pretty unfair. He was a young kid that wasted an opportunity. Again, it happens every day. People absolutely deserve second chances, especially a guy that hasn't (to my knowledge) committed any kind of crime or done anything to adversely affect another person's quality of life.

 

I personally hope he goes on to have a properous career, and no, it won't bother me in the least that he flopped when he was here. I love hearing stories of success from people that had challenges (i.e. poor work ethic, bad attitude, sense of entitlement) and learned to overcome them. More people (especially in Western NY) need to be like that.

 

So go get 'em, Mike Williams, I'll be cheering for you.

 

 

First, you replied to my post, but seem to be talking in large part about another guy's actual comments. It would have been nice if you had indicated that. But, whatever. I'll ignore the parts of the post where you are talking to someone else (most of the post).

 

 

1) Your attempt to compare the job that Mike Williams had with average jobs simply doesn't make sense. You said "it's the employer's job to do something about it, and when no consequences exist for irresponsible behavior, there's no reason to change. That's on the team, not the player." What, practically speaking, would you like the team to have done? Withheld salary? The union wouldn't have allowed it, and they would have been right. Ban him from the training table? So he goes to McDonald's. Yell at him? Have him do push-ups? And what if he doesn't do them?

 

Virtually all ability to control a guy in a job situation comes down to one thing, the fact that at last resort you will fire the guy. And in 99.9% of all jobs, that works, because there's another 1000 guys out there who can do the same job for the same salary, or very close. But with a super-high draft pick like Williams, if you fire him, it's YOU who takes the economic consequences, that the entire unamortized portion of the signing bonus smacks you in the face right then. And you can't replace the guy in mid-season, or in camp, or at virtually any other time, because how many elite LTs become available?

 

You are talking about a guy who has recieved a $10.5 million dollar signing bonus and didn't really want to play football. Think he wouldn't have been happy to be released. Think another team wouldn't have been thrilled to pick him up if he had decided he wanted to stay in the league?

 

Under the current bargaining agreement, a high pick is untouchable, and that is simply the way it is. It's a great deal of the reason that high-round picks are so scrutinized, that teams are finding it very difficult to trade down out of high picks, and that we may well face a labor stoppage fairly soon, because the teams hate this fact so very very much, and yet the union loves it. It's why you absolutely have to hit a home run with the high-round picks. These guys have you hostage, and if their character turns out to suck, the team is out of luck, it has not one good, or even mediocre or not too terribly bad option.

 

 

2) You say "if you don't understand how that might change a person's attitude in a way that could negatively affect his/her performance in their job (which--whether we all want to realize it or not--pro football is still a job) then i'm probably wasting my time with this response." Hey, I UNDERSTAND. I just refuse to feel that because his attitude might have changed, that, hey, not playing hard is ... you know, OK. I mean, just play patty-cake, Mike. After all, your attitude has changed. So, that changes everything and makes it all OK. Are you insane?

 

3) You say "As to your hope for his failure, I think that's pretty unfair ... People absolutely deserve second chances ..." Have I argued that Goodell should step in and not allow the guy to play? Did I say that he didn't deserve a second chance? No. I just hope that he fails. It's not unfair at all.

 

 

4) You say "especially a guy that hasn't (to my knowledge) committed any kind of crime or done anything to adversely affect another person's quality of life." Well, he certainly hasn't committed a crime, and he also hasn't affected my quality of life, or yours, to any serious or punishment-worthy degree. But he hasn't affected anybody's quality of life? Really? You don't think his dogging it has affected the job security, the salaries and the physical health of many of his teammates? There was no effect on the QBs when he got tired because he was out of shape because he refused to get in shape, and therefore allowed fleet powerful, muscular guys free to run at the QB intent on violence? You don't figure that might have affected their willingness to look downfield with confidence? You don't think a few might have developed "happy feet" thanks to the jury-rigged OLs that Mike's mediocrity and finally absence caused the Bills to have to field? You don't think RB salaries go down, and RB jobs are lost as their YPC goes down with bad line play in front of them? You don't think player salaries go down on losing teams and up on winning teams?

 

You don't think coaches and GMs get fired when they make decisions that turn out to be as horrible as the Mike Williams pick was? You don't think line coaches get fired for fielding inferior lines, particularly when guys on those lines are high draft picks who therefore should be good?

 

Williams had a HUGE impact on the quality of life of the players, coaches, and management of the Buffalo Bills. If you don't understand that, to steal your own words, I'm probably wasting my time with this response.

 

Talking about people who overcame challenges, you say "More people (especially in Western NY) need to be like that." Well, yeah. Like, for example, Mike Williams when he was in Western NY. Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

I hope he fails, and I think a lot of Bills fans agree, for good reason. This guy hurt my team.

[Thurman#1]

somehow, that doesn't surprise me.

 

 

Me either. You just don't get it.

[thebandit27]

First, you replied to my post, but seem to be talking in large part about another guy's actual comments. It would have been nice if you had indicated that. But, whatever. I'll ignore the parts of the post where you are talking to someone else (most of the post).

 

 

1) Your attempt to compare the job that Mike Williams had with average jobs simply doesn't make sense. You said "it's the employer's job to do something about it, and when no consequences exist for irresponsible behavior, there's no reason to change. That's on the team, not the player." What, practically speaking, would you like the team to have done? Withheld salary? The union wouldn't have allowed it, and they would have been right. Ban him from the training table? So he goes to McDonald's. Yell at him? Have him do push-ups? And what if he doesn't do them?

 

Virtually all ability to control a guy in a job situation comes down to one thing, the fact that at last resort you will fire the guy. And in 99.9% of all jobs, that works, because there's another 1000 guys out there who can do the same job for the same salary, or very close. But with a super-high draft pick like Williams, if you fire him, it's YOU who takes the economic consequences, that the entire unamortized portion of the signing bonus smacks you in the face right then. And you can't replace the guy in mid-season, or in camp, or at virtually any other time, because how many elite LTs become available?

 

You are talking about a guy who has recieved a $10.5 million dollar signing bonus and didn't really want to play football. Think he wouldn't have been happy to be released. Think another team wouldn't have been thrilled to pick him up if he had decided he wanted to stay in the league?

 

Under the current bargaining agreement, a high pick is untouchable, and that is simply the way it is. It's a great deal of the reason that high-round picks are so scrutinized, that teams are finding it very difficult to trade down out of high picks, and that we may well face a labor stoppage fairly soon, because the teams hate this fact so very very much, and yet the union loves it. It's why you absolutely have to hit a home run with the high-round picks. These guys have you hostage, and if their character turns out to suck, the team is out of luck, it has not one good, or even mediocre or not too terribly bad option.

 

 

2) You say "if you don't understand how that might change a person's attitude in a way that could negatively affect his/her performance in their job (which--whether we all want to realize it or not--pro football is still a job) then i'm probably wasting my time with this response." Hey, I UNDERSTAND. I just refuse to feel that because his attitude might have changed, that, hey, not playing hard is ... you know, OK. I mean, just play patty-cake, Mike. After all, your attitude has changed. So, that changes everything and makes it all OK. Are you insane?

 

3) You say "As to your hope for his failure, I think that's pretty unfair ... People absolutely deserve second chances ..." Have I argued that Goodell should step in and not allow the guy to play? Did I say that he didn't deserve a second chance? No. I just hope that he fails. It's not unfair at all.

 

 

4) You say "especially a guy that hasn't (to my knowledge) committed any kind of crime or done anything to adversely affect another person's quality of life." Well, he certainly hasn't committed a crime, and he also hasn't affected my quality of life, or yours, to any serious or punishment-worthy degree. But he hasn't affected anybody's quality of life? Really? You don't think his dogging it has affected the job security, the salaries and the physical health of many of his teammates? There was no effect on the QBs when he got tired because he was out of shape because he refused to get in shape, and therefore allowed fleet powerful, muscular guys free to run at the QB intent on violence? You don't figure that might have affected their willingness to look downfield with confidence? You don't think a few might have developed "happy feet" thanks to the jury-rigged OLs that Mike's mediocrity and finally absence caused the Bills to have to field? You don't think RB salaries go down, and RB jobs are lost as their YPC goes down with bad line play in front of them? You don't think player salaries go down on losing teams and up on winning teams?

 

You don't think coaches and GMs get fired when they make decisions that turn out to be as horrible as the Mike Williams pick was? You don't think line coaches get fired for fielding inferior lines, particularly when guys on those lines are high draft picks who therefore should be good?

 

Williams had a HUGE impact on the quality of life of the players, coaches, and management of the Buffalo Bills. If you don't understand that, to steal your own words, I'm probably wasting my time with this response.

 

Talking about people who overcame challenges, you say "More people (especially in Western NY) need to be like that." Well, yeah. Like, for example, Mike Williams when he was in Western NY. Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

I hope he fails, and I think a lot of Bills fans agree, for good reason. This guy hurt my team.

 

So apparently you missed this quote in my response to you:

 

So he didn't put in the work to be great, yes, that's his fault. That's not stealing, not even in a totally bastardized definition of the word (which was the word Ans used that provoked by initial response).

 

There, that should at least address where you requested that I tell you when I'm not addressing you. Now, onto the rest...

 

1) Yes, it is the employer's job to make certain the employee does his, there's no getting around it. Union, no union, it can absolutely be done. If he's dogging it in practice, bench him. Send a message. If he doesn't care, de-activate him for the season (a la Keyshawn Johnson and T.O. in their previous careers with the Buccaneers and Eagles, respectively). Nobody holds a team "hostage", the team can cut him, bench him, deactivate him, etc. any time they want. If he doesn't care about it, then it's the team's fault for mis-reading his character prior to drafting him. Like it or not, the responsibility lies with the team.

 

2) I never said you didn't undertsand, only that if you didn't I wasn't going any further with this debate. Take it easy. You and Ans have the same problem, you both somehow believe that I think Williams' performance with Buffalo was OK...show me where I said that, please. I believe, for the 3rd time now, that I said I UNDERSTOOD why the money affected him that way. That does not state, imply, or even give the slightest hint that I think his work ethic/performance were acceptable. However, I do believe that--yes--if he's changed his attitude now and goes on to be successful, he should be forgiven. That's part of life; understanding that we're all humans (even football players that don't play well for your team) and we all make mistakes is part of growing up. When someone makes the effort to turn things around I'll forgive them, I guess you don't believe in that kind of mentality, and that's your right...but I do.

 

3) Yes, I believe it's an unfair, or in the very least, unwarranted point of view to want Williams to fail. If he really has changed, why do you want him to fail? Believe it or not, the game of professional football is not about you. This is about Williams and his personal efforts to become a great player. Why let the fact that he didn't do his job as a Bill keep you from celebrating what could be a tremendous career turn-around and success story? Just seems self-centered to me.

 

4) You still seem to believe that Mike Williams did all of this harm to the team without their permission, which for the life of me I cannot understand. If he's out there dogging it to the point where he's endangering his teammates (by the way, the fact that you're playing your violin because another football player might get hurt during a contact sport is a little bit sad), it's the team's job to put somebody else who won't do so on the field. The team didn't do that, that's not Williams' fault, and it's certainly not enough of a reason to hope the guy fails, IMO.

 

This last one is precious, too, and in my mind says everything:

 

I hope he fails, and I think a lot of Bills fans agree, for good reason. This guy hurt my team.

 

That's right, it's all about you. Forget about Mike Williams the man and his personal journey, what you feel about your team is what really matters.

 

Pathetic, and you think I'm the one that doesn't get it?

[sharper802]

Fixed it for you

There was no consensus which player was better. Everyone thought it was a good draft pick for the Bills and really no one to this day faults them for the pick. Mckinnie(sp?) had character issues and in fact didn't even sign a contract until after the season started. He has been a serviceable LT in the same way Robert Gallery has been ok at guard for the Raiders. He is not in the class of Joe Thomas (Browns) or Jake Long(Dolphins).

[spartacus]

It wouldn't suck, not like the Bills screwed up on this one. Every one of the 31 other teams would have cut him under the same circumstances. If he gets his act back together, good for him.

 

Nobody can blame the Bills for cutting him when they did.

 

maybe not, but they sure screwed up taking him in the first place when they passed on a real LT.