Sisyphean Bills

They have Hall-of-Fame caliber skill players and a bunch of trash lineman they found at Walmart.

I have to give credit for the move to Todd Haley. If he doesn't fire Chan Gailey, who was a hold over, then the Bucs and Bills probably stick with the girl they brought to the dance (at least for a few games). Your question is a good one. First, I have no idea what the situation was really like on the inside. It may be as much that Schonert quit as it was that Jauron fired him. (That was the situation in Tampa, I hear.) I'm not gullible enough to swallow whatever those that are left are willing to put out there hook, line, and sinker. I never thought the Schonert promotion was inspired or really all that good of a move. I would've tried to hire an experienced OC. Just at face value though, if I had a young OC that was struggling, I probably would not have fired him on the doorstep of the season. I'd have to expect mistakes from a 1st/2nd year OC. I'd have to expect them but be confident enough in our system that we could get things corrected. And, I'd have to consider the alternatives, which would be to put someone with even less experience into the situation. But, that's just face value and we don't really know the level of chaos that was going on in the coaching staff. We'll have to wait and see if this was the right move. I hope it was, like I was hopeful that Schonert would be able to turn the offense around, and like I was hopeful that Fairchild would be able to turn it around. So far, my hopes have all been shot down.

This is all your conjecture, right? When Fairchild left, this board was rife with this same sentiment. Fairchild didn't know anything about offense, he wasn't listening to anyone, Jauron was promoting a guy that would do things his way, the right way. And, then Todd Haley fired his OC and we know the rest. Well, yeah. Still, sometimes the plays called were just fine. People not blocking, dropping the ball, and other mistakes were the problem.

Good posts, rstencel. The curious part about this is the Bills offensive line. Why would anyone think that this line is going to out execute the defense? The no-huddle also changes the way the OC conducts the offense from the sideline. The offense lines up at the line of scrimmage and the coach is watching what is happening on the field and radioing in the play as the offense is getting set and standing over the ball. If he sees a mismatch, he can pounce on it. Now, if the offense and defense are huddling, he doesn't have that little extra time. (AFAIK, Trent is not calling the plays on the field.) And, still, this is the pros. You can't run the same 6 plays, each with their own personnel package, and with 1 or 2 formations. (The classic drunk fan in the stands calling 90% of the offensive plays correctly before the snap syndrome.) The defenses are too good for that.

I don't think anybody gets a Gatorade shower for beating teams like the Lions.

Which is exactly what they want you to believe. Schonert may be an arrogant dick, but the players weren't executing much of anything very well. At some point the players have to actually execute their assignments on the plays. All the advice and input from numerous sources doesn't change that.

Good night and big balls.

What's curious: Melvin Fowler, I read in some report, basically went to the coaches last year and said he didn't want to play against the 3-4 defenses. So, they glued him to the bench. That has always struck me as, well, more than a little strange. He was the pivot on an offense that was 4-1, IIRC, at the time. Peters said in a recent interview that he was so exasperated with the contract negotiations that he told his agent to tell the Bills he didn't want to hear any more offers. He was going to play out his contract and leave. At that same time, the Bills called and told him he was traded. Now, there is this story that Dockery watched Redskins games on Monday, crying in his beer as he was handed his game check from the Bills. Finally, we have the unexpected cut of Langston Walker. He sounded less than eager to be switching from RT to LT and his play in practice and pre-season has been labeled, "mailing it in". That is 4 starters out of a unit of 5 that are gone and seemed, shall we say, less than gung-ho about playing for the Bills. Maybe it is all just a coincidence...

All things being equal, I agree. In this case, not huddling has ceased to be a "mere" tactic because it is the only thing the Bills have done (and plan to do). That makes it a tactic that defines their doctrine on offense. Now, if the situation was different and the Bills were going to huddle up some of the time, like the Colts do, then it is just a tactical option. That is the distinction. The point is that the team has prepared 100% to use X, so removing X at the last minute would be disruptive. That isn't unique to the game of football. Dog and K9, let me throw you guys a bone here: Lost in telling me I don't know anything about football was the simple irony that I was defending Dick Jauron on this point. (Bad idea, but I was hoping maybe it would result in some X and O conversation other rather than "you moron".) I should have said "he won't change it now" rather than "it's too late" in my original post to be totally precise. There are coaching reasons why I was arguing that Dick Jauron is not going to go away from the no-huddle offense 1 week before the start of the season. I was arguing that Jauron was correct in that assessment and shouldn't waffle, backtrack, and change things given the unique elements of this situation. I guess taking Jauron's POV these days makes one an idiot. So, let me change my position in the argument. Yes, I agree. The Bills should just start huddling up at this point. It won't change a thing with respect to their plan and thus their execution in the near term. (The execution is already awful. So, so what? As for the plan, that remains to be seen.) And, in the longer term, using both the huddle and no-huddle at certain strategic points in the game, like 31 other teams, might actually help their execution improve through better communication. (That last bit is something I have said before in another thread. I point it out here just because I never really thought putting the huddle back in was something completely impossible. But, I think this short-handed staff won't do it. Yet, anyway. Maybe by the bye-week, the situation will be more clear?)

Completely ruin? No. Are they executing well what they've been practicing? No. So, why would anyone think that changing the approach at the last minute to something they haven't been working on would improve the situation? That's got nothing to do with "football being complicated", it has to do with lack of preparation. Of course, they could change the plan and get prepared by backing off the 100% no-huddle idea. But, if you believe them, they aren't doing that.

Yet, when Kelly talked Marv back into using the K-Gun, the offense started looking better. I'm sorry that you can't appreciate the example, but since so few teams have run a no-huddle offense exclusively we are obviously limited. Chuckle. You're right that the no-huddle is a tactic. You are wrong that the Bills did not define their doctrine based on it. Hence, you are wrong that it can be removed with no effect to their operations. Of course, a strategic thinker such as yourself sees that operations have nothing to do with excellent execution.

Yeah. They spent 6 months working on calling the plays at the line of scrimmage, reading the defense, setting the tempo of the offense, setting the protections at the line, etc. But, since it is merely a tactic, they can just flip a switch and do something they haven't practiced at all and it won't throw them off one iota. Actually, that helps explain why Jim Kelly and the guys always looked so comfortable when Shofner and Bresnahan kept changing the tempo of the offense and trying to get them to huddle up every September.

Marv always commented on the no-huddle that it was all about execution. If the execution is off, the play won't work, you won't gain yards, you won't move the chains, and you won't score. Both the Bills and Bengals teams that used it full-time in the early 90s were veteran teams. They wanted to get their 11 starters out on the field and force the defensive coordinator to go with his 11 and then exploit the weaknesses of whatever 11 he put out there. Of the current Bills starting 11, over half of the starters are playing for the first time or in new positions or with new teammates. The Bills coaches may feel like their outside receivers are a big mismatch against other teams defenses, but they haven't shown any ability to execute anything with any consistency in this offense all pre-season. The execution was ragged the last half of last year with many of the same skills players operating behind a veteran line. Why should we trust the coaches? Have they been successful? Why go with the no huddle? Turk Schonert wanted to put in his offense and put his own stamp on things. Jauron let him do it. Why stick with it? Because it is too late. They've put 6 months into installing this offense. They don't have an experienced OC and they are working with too many rookies to just turn back the clock and install something else. Is it the best thing in the long run? The early results are that this offense has big communications problems, as expected. If that continues and DCs around the NFL attack this offense early and often, then you have put the team behind the 8-ball in both the short and long term by reducing the players' confidence in themselves, the system, and your coaching. If it works and the offense starts scoring points, you look like a genius.

Never forget.

And, they'd be running the wishbone.

Easy work if you can get it.

Cue the "Jaws is an idiot" comments in 3, 2, 1 ...

The Titans didn't use a 3 man rush all that often. They did it a few times. They used more 4 man pressures, and that wasn't getting there. The Steelers line stoned them. They also dialed up some blitz packages in the 4th quarter, but the Steelers line was solid enough and Big Ben was eating them up. People like to knee jerk that a DC is a clown because he didn't blitz enough, I get that. But, you have to be fundamentally sound and just make plays. Sometimes the dog bites you, sometimes you bite the dog. The Titans didn't make the plays they needed to win.

And, anybody that understands line play would be in neither of those groups.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I meant he opened the door with his first response to that question. Yes, they asked about personnel, but he could've just as easily not answered that part of the question and cited some other fluff reasons. Instead, he opened the door and they asked him another question on it. In essence, his first response indicated they were on to something and he was willing to talk about it a bit. It's not being an ahole to take control of the interview and lead the interviewer into things that you want to discuss -- actually, it is indicative of someone that plans ahead and can think on his feet.

But, if the OL sucked then the Titans wouldn't have to blitz to get any pressure. PS: I understand what Coach Cecil was trying to do, so I don't blame him too much. It just didn't work out.

It was transparently evasive and he's lucky they didn't press him on the point and just let it slide. Besides, if you don't want to discuss why you are running the no-huddle, why even go there about the personnel in the first place? He brought it up.

Didn't realize that would be confusing. No, from when Marv hired him.

A decision that things are "in good hands" and that one doesn't have to do anything different, just relieve some tension and make it a fun workplace, is still a decision. And, it was the wrong decision. As was hiring Dick Jauron who was the wrong choice to lead an NFL team out of the wilderness, as I have said from the beginning.