Sisyphean Bills

Actually, this was a HUGE miscalculation. He mortgaged the 2005 draft to take Losman in 2004 on the reasoning that there were no QBs in 2005 worth taking. Aaron Rodgers was drafted in 2005. Epic fail with the forecast scouting = Modrak. The conspiracy theories that Donahoe sometimes reacted to what Pittsburgh was doing may not be wholly true, but sometimes one has to wonder if there wasn't a grain of truth there. Mularkey later said he knew Losman wasn't ready.

I was referring to what he did in the Las Vegas Bowl when he overrode the coach's decision to punt on 4th down. It was an odd moment and some have been hugely critical of Osweiler for doing it. As far as Erickson, he has never been known to run a very disciplined program. Here's a link, CB. Search for waved. http://www.foxsportsarizona.com/12/23/11/Broncos-show-BCS-what-they-were-missing/landing_sundevils.html?blockID=632578

Interesting comment, as Osweiler was exhibit A as far as players that refused to listen to Erickson.

You may be on to something. The Lions gave Matt Millen 7 and a quarter seasons to bottom their franchise out.

The first one doesn't count because everyone was covering Lee Evans.

Agreed. Though, I'm not sure Whaley (if he's still around) would truly have the power to start another coaching search if the team is still being run from Detroit. Buffalo is not considered a plum post; Chuck Knox is the only Bills head coach to leave Buffalo to take the same gig with another NFL team. The next hiring (assuming the team is still run out of Detroit) is likely to follow this same old pattern.

Shouldn't the title be "Jills"?

Super Bowl!

By the way, you are comparing the 1st overall pick to the 250th overall pick in the same draft class. (The Tom Brady exception holds no water; both for the rarity of a franchise QB -- or really more League Icon -- taken that late in the draft and that he won a Super Bowl and MVP in his second season.) Smith is tasting success now while Fitzpatrick is still inconsistent but hopefully going to get better -- saying one is the apple pie and one is the apple on a tree is pretty apt. I don't see a lot of parallels between Harbaugh's move to make the 49ers more of a "ground and pound" team to Gailey's moves of making the Bills an aerial circus. As for the contract, I'm not sure how many Bills fans cheer for Ralph to put more money in his pocket than the next owner, but if it makes you happy then it can't be that bad. Fixed.

One would certainly hope that Gailey could do better than the cluster!@#$ offenses that Jauron had including the no-huddle dumpster fire that Schonert try to implement before he was sent packing and was replaced with a guy that was a quality control coach a year prior.

Fixed.

Mularkey was asked by the owner to fire a number of assistants. The owner also fired Tom Donahoe. The owner then hired Marv Levy to be his GM. Levy met with Mularkey and actually felt like they had reached an agreement and Mularkey would stay. Mularkey then turned around and resigned because as he put it the Bills organization wasn't being set up in a way that was conducive to him being successful. He was, in hindsight, perfectly correct. I suspect that the owner's inspired hiring of Levy and the apparent lame duck quacking swirling around Mularkey himself made it nearly impossible for MM to hire new qualified assistants, let alone assistants with better credentials than those he had fired on the request of the owner. MM saw the inbound cluster!@#$ for what it was.

Sticking with a 4-3 1-gap defensive system would've been far simpler. It's what Fewell ran, so the players he and Jauron had coached up were already familiar with the scheme. Instead of having to replace (or move out of position), say, 9 starters from the word go, they could have replaced the underperformers first and (drum roll) built from depth. Transitioning from the too small Tampa-2 to a bigger 4-3 defense could've been accomplished a player or 3 at a time. As for the players, I think Dwan Edwards is undervalued here on this board, but I'm not sure I follow the question entirely. Stroud was physically done (though they asked him to move to the outside anyway -- player evaluation?), so Dwan (playing a different position of course) is frankly an upgrade. Williams and Kelsay still start then and now (though the aborted experiment to make Williams a 0-technique 2-gap nose never has to take place). Maybin may still be on the team if they stayed 4-3 and let him do the one thing he can do -- line up wide and loop around the tackle in a speed rush. They needed better LB play to improve the run defense and they still do. Of course, if the scheme is ineptly coached and no one knows what they are doing, then scheme is not the issue and talent may not be as big an issue as it might appear. Under Edwards, it was way too often where Bills players didn't know their assignments and stood there looking at one another while the other team executed plays unchallenged. If you have that sort of coaching going on, then success isn't possible. I agree with that.

No, we aren't. I'm not expecting the question to be answered. BTW, there have been other situations where a consultant is brought in to mentor a younger coach in the NFL and that has led to statistical (measurable) improvements. In this case, you're correct. Who knows?

I wrote here on this board day 1 that switching from the Tampa-2 to a traditional 3-4 defense was a BIG change and would be difficult.

Of course not. Where did I say that he should undermine his colleagues? Talk about a ridiculous straw-man. If the guy is a defensive genius and great teacher, then why can't he work with Chan and George to improve the situation? What sort of job do you have where it is perfectly acceptable to sit by and let your peers FAIL in spectacular fashion because you're afraid your input might be taken as "stepping on toes"? Why hire Wannstedt in the first place if his knowledge was to sit in a jar of formaldehyde on a shelf? The defense didn't improve from last year. What did he do that improved the situation?

Every team has packages on defense, just like on offense. That's not what I mean. But most defenses have a basic, primary set. It is true that the 2 best players on the team are very good players and can be used in different fronts. That doesn't mean the Bills had the talent in the other 5 positions to have a shift front. The Patriots used a true hybrid defense to great effect a few years back because they had great and versatile talent across the board in their front 7. There is a difference.

Tech fans would say he never really transitioned to the college game. BTW, he ran a pro system in college. Not the spread.

In the Bills case, Edwards "hybrid" was a polite euphemism for cluster!@#$. The Bills ran the hybrid because they don't have the right players, not because the players are so versatile they can switch fronts down to down.

So not stepping on toes is more important than winning or getting players to understand their assignments.

They played a lot of rotational 4-3 yesterday, so maybe the rumors that Wanny had more of a hand in things late in the year has some legs? OTOH, the defense gave up 7 scoring drives in 8 possessions in the last 3 quarters yesterday. Another kink is that Buddy has been hiring staff on the scouting side used to scouting for the 3-4 (including himself), burned two drafts working on converting to the 3-4, signed free agents for it, and has said repeatedly that they were not going to "keep flip-flopping". Let's put it out there: Chan is now really on the hot-seat.

Deck chairs.

Yes, Chris Polian has had a bigger hand in the Colts over recent years. I wish I had the link somewhere, but there was an article not that long ago about the damage Chris had done within the organization with his nepotism aided career. If Irsay felt Chris Polian needed to have less control, there is little doubt he'd have to fire both father and son to do so. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/06/chris-polian-catching-more-blame-for-the-state-of-the-colts/ The link to the Indy Star article is there, but its archived now.

Bingo. Being a good college head coach is anything but a guarantee of success in the NFL, and more have failed than succeeded. BTW, Mariucci was really, IMO, an NFL coach that spent a single season as Cal's HC before returning to the NFL. While there are many examples of guys doing the Xs and Os at the college level and working their way up the NFL ranks, its a whole other animal to come from heading up an elite/very good college program and think what worked there will work in the NFL. Chan Gailey has plenty of NFL experience, so labeling him "just a college coach" isn't accurate.

Yes, he was the head coach of a Division III school 40 years ago. Find the winning (edit: NFL) record among: Butch Davis. Tommy Prothro. Bud Wilkinson. Dick MacPherson. Darryl Rogers. Frank Kush. Rich Brooks. Dennis Erickson. Mike Riley. Steve Mariucci.