billsfan1959

Marrone wanted an aggressive, attacking defense. He hired Pettine specifically to bring his high pressure defense to Buffalo. It is not as if we had a system in place that was working - or even headed in the direction Marrone wanted. Now we do. The defense improved drastically; however, we have a ways to go. As far as I know, Marrone hasn't changed his philosophy of wanting an aggressive, attacking defense, and, after a year of coaching this team, has a pretty good idea of the defensive personnel on his team and what their strengths and weaknesses are. I believe he hired the best coach available to build on what is already in place. It may not be exactly what Pettine did - but, I think it will fall within the philosophy of what Marrone wants without starting over, and without overhauling personnel. We'll see.

Pettine was pretty consistent as a DC over the last five seasons. While many people want to view his time in NY as being "under the shadow" of Ryan - that was perception only (unless you want to interpret it literally before Ryan lost all that weight). The truth is Pettine learned under Ryan in Baltimore. They share similar philosophies and he knew what Ryan wanted in a defense in NY. However, Ryan gave him as much autonomy as any coordinator gets. He ran the defensive meetings, he designed the defensive game plans, and he was the one that made the defensive calls during the games. So, I don't think the Browns looked at him in terms of just what he did with the Bills. I think they looked at him as being consistent over five seasons as a DC.

Interview of Schwartz in 2004 by Football Outsiders http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2004/football-outsiders-interview-jim-schwartz

I am with you. IMHO, I think Whaley, Marrone, et al understand the step forward the defense took this year, while also understanding the areas that still need improvement. I just get the feeling the organization is going about the improvement of this team in a way we have not been used to seeing. I honestly believe they evaluated, in depth, what DC would be best suited to build on what has been accomplished with what personnel we have, while also improving the areas of weakness - as opposed to completely scrapping a system and starting over, or even dismissing what has proven to be effective (personnel and philosophy wise) - and hired that individual. I also believe it will not stop there, but extend to personnel brought in through free agency and the draft. I tend to be optimistic about things; however, not blindly so. I like what I have seen over the last year in terms of the direction this team is headed. I like this hire. I believe Schwartz proved himself to be more than capable as a DC in Tenn (really couldn't care less about HC stint in Det) and I am optimistic his philosophy and schemes will mesh with the attacking style defense this organization wants and was begun by Pettine. I may be completely wrong - but I hope not. Whether or not they accomplish that is another story. The truth is, we will not have a good idea until we see what the team does, personnel wise, through free agency, the draft, and philosophy wise through mini-camps/spring training...

You could have said the same about Pettine under Ryan in NY - but it isn't true, just as it wasn't true about Schwartz. The fact of the matter is that the defensive coordinator typically (not always, but the vast majority of time) is the one handling the vast majority of game prep and in-game calling of defensive game plans/plays - not the head coach. Pettine proved he was a good defensive coordinator in NY and Schwartz proved he was a good coordinator in Tenn - I don't care that the head coaches of their teams were Ryan and Fisher. As far as what Schwartz did as a head coach...I couldn't care less, since it is a completely different role than DC.

This ^^^

He wasn't the Defensive Coordinator. However, as a Head Coach, he definitely plays a role in that. With that said, he was also dealing with several personalities that most coaches would have problems controlling. As a defensive coordinator in Tenn, he ran a pretty disciplined, hard hitting, fundamentally sound defense. So, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt

1) I don't think this will be as drastic a change as you might think...and I also think our defense next year may be even better. 2) There is no doubting Byrd's dissatisfaction over the last year; however, I also think the Bills realize Byrd deserves to be paid in a range commensurate with his ability. I wouldn't be surprised to see a deal worked out. I hope I am not wrong...

They changed the scheme last year for the third time in three years...didn't work out too bad. I wouldn't be so quick to say goodbye to Byrd...

IMHO, a very good hire. Aggressive when he has the talent and has put together some consistently strong pass and rush defenses as a DC. Also like that he has learned under some very good defensive coaches...

Good job that season, although only two of their wins came against teams with a winning record...just sayin

When it comes to pure head coaching - I look at those coaches who managed to have long term success with and without hall of fame talent (particularly at QB) - or with different teams - or both. Bill Parcells is an interesting guy to me in terms of pure coaching ability. His teams were always so fundamentally sound and competetive. He took two different teams to three superbowls (winning two), a third team to the AFC Championship game, and four different teams total to the playoffs. He did it with great talent and not so great talent - and all without the benefit of ever having a Manning, Brady, Montana, etc. caliber QB. Not to mention, not one of the four teams had more than five wins the year before Parcells took over. How many other coaches have we seen (Jimmy Johnson comes to mind) that had great success with great talent, but average success with average talent.

I think you have it backward. IMO, if BB did not have Brady as his QB, he would probably be considered a good defensive coach but a slightly above average head coach. You can hate and despise Brady all you want - he is still one of the best, and most clutch, QBs to ever play the game.

From the perspective of being a life-long fan of the Bills, I despise every team in our division with a passion...and which one I despise the most at any given time depends on a number of factors. However, as a fan of the game, I can appreciate just how good Manning and Brady are - two of the best to ever play the game. My team is home for the playoffs and now, as a fan of the game I am hoping each game is down to the wire, great football. I hope Manning and Brady each play to their potential this coming weekend. If so, it could truly be one of those games that only come along once in a while.

He must really be awful if he can't make plays with Da'Rick Rogers on the field :rolleyes:

My apologies. I meant to write that only 4 of 16 (not 3 of 16) of Eagles opponents ranked in the top 20 in defensive YPP - as opposed to 13 of 16 (not 14 of 16) for the Bills. I can see how it now completely changes my argument...

I'll give Foles a lot of credit for what he did this year, but comparing him to Manuel is ridiculous. Foles was in his second full season in the NFL, playing behind a much better offensive line, against a far weaker defensive schedule - only 3 of 16 teams on their schedule ranked in the top 20 in YPP compared to 14 of 16 for the Bills (with 11 in the top 15 and 7 in the top ten), and Manuel missed half the preseason and five weeks of the regular season. Comparing Foles' production last year to Manuel would be more appropriate.

I was thinking the very same thing...like driving past a bad accident on the highway - you don't want to look...but you do anyway

There are plenty of players on the active roster, as well as the practice squad, who are here because of future potential rather than their imediate impact in 2013. If the release of Rogers was due simply to the inability of the of the organization to "consider the long view" and their tunnel vision in regard to 2013 production...then how do you explain their decision to keep any players that clearly were not going to make any type of significant contribution in 2013?

Activated only because of injuries. Targeted 23 times in 5 games. 14 catches for a 13.7 yard per catch average. Sorry, don't get all the consternation.

IMO, drafting a QB, especially in the 1st round at #9, does nothing to help this team short term or long term. Upgrades (in order of importance) at offensive line, defensive line, linebacker, Tight End, and Wide Receiver are going to bring this team to playoff contention. As far as which of those positions should be the priority early in the draft - it is way too early to tell. I would like to see the team aggressively address some of these needs in free agency. Then, (1) if there is true difference maker at one of those positions of need at #9, take him; (2) If not, hopefully we can trade down and acquire more picks; or (3) if there are no good offers to drade down, take the BPA at one of those positions.

It doesn't feel like speculation on Marrone's future. It feels like another "Marrone sucks, is in over his head, and should be fired" post. If you are looking for legitimate discussion, then maybe ask a question such as, "Why do you think Marrone will or will not have more success next year (substantive analysis only)?"

I didn't miss your point. I just happen to disagree with you - on several points: (1) I do not think that "competition" is a prominent reason for Foles' jump in performance this year. (2) I do not agree with you on this idea that Foles was focused on "outperforming another player." I believe he was probably focused on the same thing as Manuel - being the best player he could be. (3) I do not agree with you on this notion that Manuel was coddled. I believe that Manuel's performance this year was about what we could have asked for a rookie without the opportunity to practice and play consistently - which I think is more important than competition

He was in the exact same position last year as Manuel was this year and they posted similar numbers. He posted tremendous numbers this year in his second season. There are a lot of reasons for that, such as maturity, practicing and playing at an NFL level for two years, staying healthy, playing one of the weakest (if not the weakest) defensive schedules in the NFL, etc; however, I don't see competition as one of them.

Kinda feel like starting out the season 2 - 6 is more to blame for the Steelers not making the playoffs than a blown call in the third game of three they needed to go their way on the last day of the season...