Sisyphean Bills

We'll never agree on the aspect of perceived roster quality determining who wants what job. I can tell you that Pete Carroll did not take the Seahawks job based on the players on the roster Jim Mora, Jr. had. He hit the ground running and has thoroughly turned the roster over to build the sort of team that he wanted. Another example: Jeff Fisher did not take the St. Louis job and immediately start gutting the roster because he thought it was stacked with talent. The stability, structure, and commitment of the organization to sustainable success on the football field are far more important than which players may be on the roster for a year or 2 longer.

Yes, I agree. Even if a logical set of arguments could be put together to convince people Nix was, say, the 21st best GM in the NFL (and that's not saying he is), you are absolutely correct that having a mediocre GM is not good enough. On the other hand, simply avoiding obvious blunders at every turn doesn't really make someone even so much as average at one's job.

To be middle of the pack, he has to be better than, say, 10-12 other NFL GMs. Can you support that claim with arguments? Scott Pioli's work in Kansas City was pretty much a disaster as mentioned earlier in the thread, but even Scott Pioli was the GM of a playoff team. It's standard procedure to put the blame on the guys that just got fired in Buffalo. Scapegoating. The trouble is that no matter how many coaches get blamed and fired, the results on the field continue to be about the same. This might suggest that the problems run deeper than the coaches.

And, I disagree with your assessment. I think Pettine came here to work with Marrone, first and foremost. It was a chance to leave a ship that was getting scuttled, a chance to build his own defense the way he wants, and a chance to work with a coach that he probably hit it off with. I think your glasses may be tinted a little with that #1 overall pedigree. Remember coaches may watch the same film and do not have to agree. This is the same guy that Wade Phillips and the Texans let walk and the guy that Dave Wannstedt (working in the thread topic , the guy that boned the Bills last year) absolutely had to have to run his defense through. The irony is undiminished though. Wannstedt was the HC and effective GM that built that "stacked" unit.

The idea that coaches go to situations that are in disarray because of the talent there seems a little stretched. If that were the case, some teams would have an impossible time finding any coaches. But, the reality is that bad teams do sign well-regarded, proven NFL head coaches, who, without question, plan to re-work the roster according to their own designs. Players come and go, so trying to marry a snapshot of a certain roster would be short-sighted. The Bills and Pettine have already begun dismantling the defense from last year. It is in Pettine's own best interest to get out of New York and to work for a boss that will let him have more leeway. Pettine seems to want to prove he can build a defense with his own coaching abilities so he can continue to advance in his own career.

http://sports.espn.g...=bayless/041112 Seems like this article (from 2004) may be in order again. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1995-10-27/sports/9510260555_1_bears-defense-dave-wannstedt-super-bowl-winning

Pioli had a record like this with the Chiefs and got fired after 4 seasons. Haley, Gailey, Crennel, Weis, Muir, Daboll... a regular parade of faces as far as a coaching staff.

It's like the week before Christmas. Kids dreaming about the shiny presents under the tree. Imagining a toy warehouse of fun in all the boxes. Excitement oozing out their pores... Then, there is Christmas afternoon, and the same kid is playing with the empty boxes themselves...

The Jets are scuttling the ship and everything points to Rex (and Sanchez) taking the fall for it. I wouldn't say that necessarily means they won't draft a QB this year, but this year's class being what it is and being in the midst of blowing it all up, they could just as easily wait until next year to address QB and treat fans to another year of the knee-slapping Sanchez Follies.

That is uncategorically false. You've missed the point.

Many people did believe that Wannstedt was the new messiah for Bills football. It may even be true that Nix and Gailey likewise believed that. It's not the straw-man that "everyone should have known he'd fail", it is that he did fail, and failed spectacularly, that casts into question everyone involved in the evaluation process that led to that failure. Do you really think Russ Brandon and Ralph Wilson don't go back and assess these situations based on the results? I know other businesses re-assess directions and decisions all the time. PS: Ultimately, the decision-makers have to get it right more often than they get it wrong in order to turn around a team mired in mediocrity. So, it may not be "fair" in the sense that the expectations must be higher, but it is a necessity for the team to turn it around and become successful. As an extreme example, I don't believe it would be a good decision to hire John Madden as your head coach in 2013, despite his resume -- and I suspect many would agree. Therefore, it would be wise to question a process that arrived at such a conclusion.

If you are being sincere in this post, then I find it fundamentally contradicts your own previous take. If the results matter, then it is perfectly legitimate to use the results to evaluate decisions that were made. It is not "wrong" as you previously stated. The results either validate the decision or they do not. Your previous statement was so extreme and so illogical that the only justification appeared to be that you thought Dave Wannstedt's promotion was a brilliant decision at the time and were/are, for personal reasons, continuing to attempt to defend that promotion. I can think of no other reason that someone would objectively, at this point in time and with 20/20 hindsight, argue that the decision must be considered flawless and a "no-brainer". Yes, I had serious doubts about the move at the time. Ralph Wilson was also concerned enough to call everyone to Detroit. I know some others that were skeptical as well. So, yes, it wasn't the case that everyone was 100% sold. As far as who I would hire, I don't think that is relevant to the point whatsoever. It's like asking, what's your favorite color? My concerns were first about the process. You don't always get the best people when you never look beyond the 4 walls of the building that you're sitting in at the moment. Secondly, Wannstedt had coached some good defenses in past eras, but he was philosophically opposed to the direction that Buddy Nix had been taking the prior two years. Third, I scoff at the idea he had no input to the George Edwards defense of the year before. The decline in blitzing contradicted that assumption. And, lastly, Wannstedt's work with the linebackers was mediocre at best. PS: Even with those concerns above, I was wrong in the sense that I did not see Wannstedt as being historically terrible. He was far worse than I imagined at the time. Also, I like you had hoped that despite concerns, he would actually improve the defense. Turns out, we were both fools.

So, you think that decisions that turn out very badly should be forgiven if the intention was otherwise. Is your world full of unicorns that eat rainbows and poop butterflies? He had a "good" resume being Jimmy Johnson's caddy eons ago. He was drummed out of the NFL and his work with the LBs the year before was unimpressive and turned out to be a vastly more accurate indication of what he would do than his resume with the Cowboys 20 years earlier. It seems very important to you to always be "right", however Gailey and Wannstedt got themselves fired for this so-called "no-brainer" decision. So, I think it is crystal clear what the final decision was as far as Brandon and Nix. The "no-brainer" as you call it was not forgiven. It was a VERY wrong move. The easy hire in this case was a major !@#$-up. It's indisputable.

I rather think it does, especially since you are claiming the problem was mostly coaching. You're trying to have it both ways here. Replacing one guy that sucks at his job with a totally incompetent employee is always a mistake; a mistake that gets people fired in many cases, including this one.

Systemic lack of accountability makes this an exercise in circular thinking.

There is a saying, "a bad plan perfectly executed is better than a perfect plan executed like ****." K-9 has a legit point. Wannstedt's plan may have sucked, but his players gave up on it.

That's not a bad point. On the other hand, as GM he could've stepped in early in the process and just told Gailey, "You know what Chan, I've really thought about it and we're not going to go down this road with Dave." If you think about it, if Nix had stuck to his plan to convert to a 3-4, then Wannstedt doesn't get the job, Gailey might have redeemed himself, and Nix saves himself from the public ridicule he is now receiving. Definitely, PTR. Some posters were guaranteeing that Wanny would have the defense in the top 10, if not the top 5. Looking at how the linebackers had regressed the year before did not resonate a collective skepticism apparently.

Perhaps the thread title should not have been phrased as a question if your intent was to more emphatically cast the blame on Wannstedt and Gailey. The reality is that Nix was involved in the train wreck of last season. It is undeniable that he hired Gailey and supported promoting Wannstedt to defensive coordinator.

The guy can really move a team between the 20s.

Gailey started out 0-8 evaluating the players left over from Jauron...

Actually, Kolb ran it some at Houston. I'm not confusing the NFL and the NCAA. I wasn't following Hopeful's line of question.

No, I didn't say that. That's reversing the cause and effect. A QB that does not read defenses well and cannot handle pressure may do rather well in an offense that spreads the field (fewer bodies in the box at the snap) and is designed to get the ball out quickly (no time to think, no reset and react -- it's just snap it and go). That system can hide a kid's limitations and allow him to look like more than he is.

Watch some Eagles games this upcoming season. I'm sure Chip Kelly is going to try to bring the spread option to the NFL in some form. Actually, some of the principles the Patriots have been using come out of the same bag of tricks. The Redskins, Seahawks, and 49ers all used priniciples of the running game last year. Indeed, even the Bills used principles of the spread and the zone option. Assuming Kolb is named the Bills starting QB, Buffalo may continue to run the spread this season as well. Not sure they want the brittle Kolb running with the ball though. The problem is that the NFL has better athletes on defense across the board, which takes away the pure gimmes. They also have the better defensive coaches (usually), many of whom are capable of scheming up something to counter what looks an offense is giving. So, if Kolb is a one look guy, you give him muddled and changing coverages to keep him under constant mental pressure and keep the pressure on his line as well. Now he's got 2 problems and the simple look-and-react offense is out the window. He starts holding the ball, and your guys T-off on him.

Sounds like they are saying he looks like a guy that came up in a single-read college spread offense. Which is precisely the case and where he had his greatest levels of sustained success.

Agreed. It is a strongly dismissive statement of opinion. The opinion being that anybody that thinks all 31 other NFL GMs were duped by some statements made by Buddy Nix must be a fool. Since I find Buddy Nix rather transparent, I'd be inclined to agree with this deduction.