Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 59
  1. #25

    Re: Brian Billick employed again ???



    Quote Originally Posted by Heap86 View Post
    Do you think the fact that the talent on offense this team has had is among the worst in the league has anything to do with it's struggles?


    Well, the talent at QB that Billick picked were all failures

    Boller, Grbac, Case, Mitchell etc., all guys hand picked by Billick, not to mention the QB who took us to the Superbowl was later dumped by Billick and an up and coming superstar who is now in Cleveland was cut by Billick.

    Just about all of his personnel decisions involving Quarterbacks have been horrible.

    Don't go and make excuses that the Offensive talent he was given was crap.

    The only good decision Billick made in his coaching tenure was to bench Tony Banks in favor of Trent Dilfer.
    Wow, Billick was not only the coach but the GM as well?

    Geez, he was underpaid at $5 million a year if he was pulling double duty.

    PP




  2. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Perry Hall
    Posts
    2,890

    Re: Brian Billick employed again ???

    Quote Originally Posted by purplepoe View Post
    Wow, Billick was not only the coach but the GM as well?

    Geez, he was underpaid at $5 million a year if he was pulling double duty.

    PP
    I'm sorry, Billick was not the GM, but he most certainly had a hand in picking Boller, trading for Mitchell, and signing Grbac/dumping Dilfer. At least it was his decision to start Boller as a rookie and put him right into the fire.




  3. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    22,490

    Re: Brian Billick employed again ???

    Quote Originally Posted by purplepoe View Post
    Wow, Billick was not only the coach but the GM as well?

    Geez, he was underpaid at $5 million a year if he was pulling double duty.

    PP
    Oh stop. You know what he meant.

    Billick loved the Pac-10 and was very into Boller's future when he was at Cal. That's not some big secret. Ngata was "hand picked" by Billick too -- meaning he pushed for him to get signed.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  4. #28

    Re: Brian Billick employed again ???

    Quote Originally Posted by Losac View Post
    I'm sorry, Billick was not the GM, but he most certainly had a hand in picking Boller, trading for Mitchell, and signing Grbac/dumping Dilfer. At least it was his decision to start Boller as a rookie and put him right into the fire.
    Yes, starting him instead of Chris freakin' Redman. We would have won the goddamned Super Bowl with Chris "I wasn't ready to play" Redman!

    Whatever Billick's contributions behind closed doors, he was *not* the gm, and personnel is the gm's responsibility. Blaming Billick for personnel decisions is like blaming the Vice President for stuff the President does.

    I should probably let you guys hate unreasonably on Billick, now that he's gone and getting paid for sitting on his front porch, but it's irritating. Oh well, carry on.
    Festivus

    His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.




  5. #29

    Re: Brian Billick employed again ???

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven
    Billick loved the Pac-10 and was very into Boller's future when he was at Cal.
    Then why did the Ravens try to trade up with the Vikings to draft Leftwich? If the Vikings answer the phone and get things done in a timely manner, Boller doesn't even get drafted by the Ravens.

    Of course Billick had some input into some of these decisions, but stop turning him into the personnel guy. He wasn't.




  6. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Perry Hall
    Posts
    2,890

    Re: Brian Billick employed again ???

    Quote Originally Posted by festivus View Post
    Yes, starting him instead of Chris freakin' Redman. We would have won the goddamned Super Bowl with Chris "I wasn't ready to play" Redman!
    Who needs him when you have a green rookie who can throw the ball through the goal posts from his knees!




  7. #31

    Re: Brian Billick employed again ???

    **AHEM!!**

    I'll take the time to step away from you cats bickering like a bunch of old hags at Bingo Night in South Baltimore and get back to the actual (gasp!) TOPIC of this thread.

    I don't think Billick will step back into the shark tank as anything less than a HC and not unless the situation fits his specific parameters <--(Billick-speak).

    Also, I feel it's too soon for him to do so and that he'll need a couple of years to lick his wounds and collect his money, all while raising the IQ of whichever NFL program he decides to let employ him...

    I know I'll be watching attentively with pen and pad whenever he's on...

    UNLEASH THE BEASTS!!!!




  8. #32

    Re: Brian Billick employed again ???

    If the Ravens had drafted Leftwich and he didn't pan out, as he hasn't panned out, then I bet our "fans" would be saying that Leftwich was Billick's boy but Ozzie wanted Boller.




  9. #33

    Re: Brian Billick employed again ???

    Quote Originally Posted by Losac View Post
    Who needs him when you have a green rookie who can throw the ball through the goal posts from his knees!
    Losac, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you play NFL football with the team you have, not the team you want.

    I really hadn't pegged you for one of the ones who thought Redman should have been starting, and was evilly ruined by Brian Billick. It's not like Redman *ever* did anything to make me wonder, but perhaps the fact that Redman was once again on an NFL team this year is justification in your mind for second guessing that decision made six years ago.

    Color me wrong, I guess.

    If you *are* one of those folks then I don't care to discuss it anymore, no offense.
    Festivus

    His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.




  10. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    22,490

    Re: Brian Billick employed again ???

    Quote Originally Posted by highwater View Post
    Then why did the Ravens try to trade up with the Vikings to draft Leftwich? If the Vikings answer the phone and get things done in a timely manner, Boller doesn't even get drafted by the Ravens.

    Of course Billick had some input into some of these decisions, but stop turning him into the personnel guy. He wasn't.
    No team focuses on ONE player. They didnt target Leftwich and nobody else. Billick has a long track record with pac-10 schools. Boller had is eye.

    When did I say he is the personnel guy??? Just because he doesnt make the final decision doesnt mean his input ranks low. He was the chef (as is Harbaugh now) and has the biggest say on what ingrediants he wants.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  11. #35

    Re: Brian Billick employed again ???

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    No team focuses on ONE player. They didnt target Leftwich and nobody else. Billick has a long track record with pac-10 schools. Boller had is eye.

    When did I say he is the personnel guy??? Just because he doesnt make the final decision doesnt mean his input ranks low. He was the chef (as is Harbaugh now) and has the biggest say on what ingrediants he wants.
    No.

    No no no no no no.

    No.

    Houston stating things as fact does not make them so.

    Sorry.

    Billick did *not* have responsibility for drafting when he was here as head coach.

    Nevermind that we were literally desperate for a quarterback, because of the early departure of Grbac, and we needed somebody who could take snaps. We got someone at pick 19 who is still in the league, five years later. Other teams have done worse at qb with better picks.

    Boller was *Ozzie's* pick. However much Billick may have liked him or disliked him, he was Ozzie's pick. It is not the Vice President who signs a bill into law.

    :brickwall:
    Festivus

    His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.




  12. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    22,490

    Re: Brian Billick employed again ???

    Quote Originally Posted by festivus View Post
    No.

    No no no no no no.

    No.

    Houston stating things as fact does not make them so.

    Sorry.

    Billick did *not* have responsibility for drafting when he was here as head coach.
    Uhh ... I never said he did.

    Quote Originally Posted by festivus View Post
    Nevermind that we were literally desperate for a quarterback, because of the early departure of Grbac, and we needed somebody who could take snaps. We got someone at pick 19 who is still in the league, five years later. Other teams have done worse at qb with better picks.

    Boller was *Ozzie's* pick. However much Billick may have liked him or disliked him, he was Ozzie's pick. It is not the Vice President who signs a bill into law.

    :brickwall:
    I agree. Arent we saying the same thing? Yes, of course, its not Billick alone. I've said that and will always say it. But his input is much larger then you give him credit for. Teams do not become succesful with GM's who are in the coaches way -- see down 95 with the Maryland Redskins.

    Are you saying that Billick simply got players handed to him and was told to make due with what he got?

    That's not very realistic and if Next Man Up is accurate, that's not a realistic assumption on your part.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland