hondo in seattle

Maybe this will end it. Per the Buffalo News... In a release from the team, Pettine addressed the question of a 3-4 vs. 4-3 defense. “The answer is really yes to both,” Pettine said. “We’ll be a multiple front, multiple coverage defense. The trademark of our defense is we’re going to be smart, tough and relentless. How we configure it is more player-driven. I’ve always believed that you don’t fit your players to your scheme, but you fit your scheme to your players.” “What I see here is a group of explosive athletes and playmakers and we’re going to put them in a position to do just that,” Pettine said. “We’re going to be in the configuration that gives us the best opportunity to win football games.”

I think I read somewhere that the Jets actually ran the 3-4 less than 50% of the time. As others have said - and he has said - he'll use multiple fronts. Pettine has been very vocal in explaining that he'll mix things up and try to fit the scheme to the players and not vice-versa. Considering coaches tend to only get 3 years or less to make a difference, you really don't have time to find players to fit a scheme. Another thing I like about Pettine is that he likes to be aggressive. Wanny's D tended to be passive and predictable. Pettine has no intention of being either. Pettine and Marrone are an interesting coaching combo. They've both been very successful as coordinators. Pettine's D was in the Top 10 four years in a row. Marrone's O was in the Top 3 three years in a row when he was at New Orleans. But both played in the shadows of dominant head coaches. Pettine worked for a defensive head coach and Marrone worked for an offensive head coach so it's hard to know how much credit they deserve. I guess we'll find out.

I remember when Trestman was working as a municipal bonds broker - out of football for 3 years - when the 49ers hired him out of the blue to be their OC. I don't think Trestman had ever been more than a QB Coach at that time.

The past is this: Bad Coach + Bad Players = Losing Record Good Coach + Bad Players = Losing Record Good Coach + Good Players = Winning Records I heard one of the knocks on Marrone as the Orange's HC was that he wasn't particularly good at recruiting. Yet he still managed to win. One can only guess how far he might have taken the team in the future as his success made recruiting easier for him. Did Syracuse's poor talent give Marrone a mediocre win-loss record? Did Drew Brees make Marrone look good in NO? I agree that the past is the best predictor of the future, but when it comes to coaches it's often hard to disentangle all the other variables.

Hackett seems like a kid who ought to be playing football somewhere, not coaching it. Is he too young? Some guys have become Head Coaches at similar ages. Mike Tomlin... 34 Bill Cowher... 34 Al Davis... 32 Jon Gruden... 34 Mike Shanahan... 35 John Madden... 32 I think Cowher became a DC at 32. Gruden became an OC at the same age. Hackett is 33.

Hackett is being mentored by Marrone who was a very successful OC at New Orleans. I do think Marrone/Hackett can outcoach Rex. And Pettine says very clearly that he is NOT a 3-4 guy. Instead he's a guy that build a defense around the talents of the players and will use multiple fronts during the course of a game.

Thanks! This is great insight into Pettine. I like his creativity and flexibility. Seems like he'll be able to find a way to make the current roster effective.

As a 53 year old fan, I'm starting to wonder if I'll ever see the Bills ever win a Super Bowl. Each year, there's a 1 in 32 chance. Given the odds, and the typical longevity of my family, I should experience the joy of witnessing just one Bills Super Bowl victory before I croak. Historically, however, the Bills have performed below probability. Hence my concern. So here's my take on the coaching search. If we hired a retread like Lovie or Whisenhunt, we'd get a good-but-not-great choice. Lovie has only had 3 winning seasons in the last six. Whise hasn't had a winning season in the past three. Both have some strengths as coaches but neither would be the second coming of Marv Levy. Marrone has never been a head coach in the NFL. We all know his accomplishments at New Orleans and Syracuse and we all know the weaknesses in his resume. None of us, though, can really know with absolute certainty how he'll perform with us. I think Russ and Buddy swung for the fences. They think and hope he will be an exceptional head coach. Lovie and Whise probably would have gotten the Bills into the playoffs once every 2 or 3 years. But I want more. I'm glad Bandon et al gambled on a homerun pick.

Hackett is young but let's not forget that Marrone has been a NFL OC and the Saints led the league in yards two of his three years. I don't think the Bills are at a deficit in offensive know-how. Hackett, given his parentage and upbringing, is already plenty bright and I suspect Marrone is confident he can mentor him to future heights. Honestly, I was hoping the Bills would hire Hackett - though as an 'offensive consultant' or some such thing. As it is, I understand the move. Marrone has a monumental task in front of him. A trusted lieutenant who understands what he's about and what he's trying to accomplish is a very useful thing to have. When I listened to the presser yesterday and Marrone said "especially on defense" when talking about the NFL experience of future coordinators, he sent us a huge hint about who might be his OC. The other big hint was that we read the Bills were granted permission to interview two DCs but there was no mention of OC interviewees. This hiring is not a surprise to anyone paying attention.

BTW, we might not have a franchise QB on this club, but we might have someone better than Fitz.

JW, okay. Your reservations are fair enough. Except for this part: "geez,shefter was wrong." C'mon John! You go too far!

My own opinion is that the 2012 Bills had enough talent to go 8-8 or maybe a little better if coached well. It's not a great roster but the cupboard isn't bare. Good coaches put players in position to make plays. Good leaders get the best out of people. Wanny was neither a good coach nor a good leader. I think his ineptitude made some of the defensive players perform worse than their optimum. Some of these guys will produce better, I think and hope, under Marrone. The offense players mostly are who we think they are. We really need a QB, Freddy needs to get healthy, and Spiller needs more touches.

I don't evaluate coaches so much on their win-loss records but on what they did with the talent the players they were given. One of the things that dismayed me about Chan was that I thought the 2012 Bills, with average coaching, should have achieved more than 6 wins. I thought the defense, in particular, under-performed. I remember Bills squads in the past that were decimated by injury that didn't give up as many points as this D did. The offense had its share of disappointments, too. But maybe I'm overrating the players and underrating the job done by Gailey and Wanny. Maybe the coaches just didn't have enough talent to field on game day. Maybe the Bills weren't out-coached as much as they were out-played. So what do you guys think? Does Marrone have enough toys to play with?

Okay, so we Bills fans are all hip and modern and into football analytics now... so can a football sabermetrician out there tell me if there's a better formula than the Parcell's rule for predicting NFL success?

We traded Lynch for a 5th rounder. And that trade worked out great... if you're a Seattle fan. If a young Lynch is only worth a 5th round pick on the open market, how much is an old RB worth? A 7th round pick??? FredEx's value to us is far greater than his trade value. As others have said, you need two good RBs in today's NFL.

I only saw him play in the BSC Championship game where he was indeed accurate. However, I also noticed that opposing players rarely got within 6 feet of him. Can he keep his composure and still throw with accuracy when under pressure?

Yeah, Kelly, I did hear him say that. That doesn't mean Marrone didn't do some homework to identify what team had better talent. Then again, maybe the report was just wrong. As far as JW wondering if the the search was "exhaustive," Chris Brown reports the Bills met with Marrone 5 times: "President and CEO Russ Brandon said over the course of last week the coach search committee met with Marrone five times. Brandon was clear that Marrone distanced himself from the rest of the pack with each subsequent meeting." Kelly, I think your speculation about Chip Kelly might be right: he may have been rated higher initially but his wishy-washy attitude combined with Marrone's good interviews put Marrone on top. I confess, I was not hugely disappointed when the Bills hired Chan. But there was all sorts of rumors swirling around back then about luring Cowher or Gruden out of retirement, etc. It felt like Chan was a consolation prize. This feels different.

JW, I think they did "leave no stone unturned." I've got to assume the Bills decided to fire Chan weeks ago and began their due diligence then. After vetting several candidates, they narrowed down the list to the guys who were interviewed. But I suspect Marrone was already a top choice before they sat down with him. Russ and Buddy seemed genuinely excited at the presser today. I really think this is the guy they truly wanted. We won't know for a while if Marrone was a good choice. But I see no reason yet to question it. There are reasons to believe he'll succeed and, as a fan desperate for good news, I'll focus on those until he gives me reason to doubt him. Let's hope he never does. If Kyle Williams was correct when he said some players were slacking, it reflects poorly on Chan's leadership. Marrone seems like a guy who could fix slackers. According to one report, Marrone choose the Bills because he thought there was more talent to work here with than at his other option(s). This could be a confirmation of Kyle's assertion: the Bills underperformed because of poor effort.

I wouldn't use the work "skeptical." I think "jaded" might be a better word. I hate to say it, John, because I usually find you to be a clear, balanced voice of reason. But I wonder if too many dashed hopes and unfulfilled expectations have turned you into a Debbie Downer??? There are just as many reasons to think Marrone will succeed as fail. Why focus on the latter? Marrone isn't Chan, DJ, Mularkey or Greggo. The only connection is that he now coaches the Bills. Yet it seems Marrone's new connection with that uninspiring group of men already taints his image in your mind. Just because he's a Bill now doesn't mean he'll fail. We'll find out in time. But, for now, I'm glad we made a change and am hoping for the best. Yeah, you can be a no-nonsense coach in the NFL. Marrone likes to confront mistakes when he sees them. He confronts forcefully. But I don't get the impression he demeans his players in the process. Parcells would actually go too far and did publicly denigrate players, and he still won a lot of games. Given that Marrone played in the NFL for a couple years and coached for 7, I don't worry that he'll be too tough and aggressive for NFL egos.

Thanks, John

More than once source says Marrone was Cleveland's 2nd choice and with us hiring Marrone, they are now in "Kelly or bust mode." Apparently, they don't consider their #3 option nearly as attractive as Kelly or Marrone. We aren't the only ones who think highly of Marrone.

Good observation, Dr. Tooth. On NFL.com, Brian Billick made this comment on the Bills hiring Marrone.... "I think that's a great hire. He brings that pedigree that's kind of popular now, a substantial pro background with that mix of college."

Brandon and Nix didn't hire Marrone because (1) Marrone was cheap, (2) Russ wanted a SU buddy as coach, or even (3) Marrone interviewed well. I think it's a little arrogant to suggest the Bills think-tank (Brandon, Nix, Whaley) are so much more stupid, shallow and careless than we fans are. They might not be the best leadership team in the NFL, but they are far from idiots and they put a lot of thought and effort into this decision. I assume the Bills began their due diligence a month or more ago and knew a lot about each candidate before the interview process began. Presumably they saw a lot of good and Marrone and perhaps discovered some problems with the other candidates. I'm not saying Marrone was the right choice. But two or three other teams interviewed him. Cleveland reportedly interviewed him twice, despite supposedly already deciding Kelly was their man. While Marrone's record at Syracuse wasn't stellar, let's remember that the Orange had only won 10 games in the previous four seasons and no self-respecting athlete wanted to play there. But, yeah, I understand 25-25 isn't the record you want to see in your HC hire. And I admit that the combination of successes, blemishes and questions make it hard to predict Marrone's NFL success. Lovie Smith on the other hand, is a very well known commodity. He spent 9 seasons as the Bears head coach so we know what he can do once he builds a team up. And Lovie had just three winning season in the last six. Overall, he won 56% of his games. The guy's no Bill Belichick. He's no Marv Levy. He's just a somewhat better than average HC. Back to Marrone, Joe Buscaglia says, "Does anyone know whether or not Marrone will be a success? Absolutely not. You'd be a fool to sit there and say with 100-percent certainty and conviction because, quite frankly, it's guesswork at this point." Personally, I'd rather gamble on the unproven commodity (Marrone) than go with the guy who has proven himself to be mediocre (Lovie).

Yeah, I agree. The more I read about Whisenhunt, the less I hate him as an option. There are some successes on his resume. Those who want to credit those successes to the good players he had at the time need then to attribute his failures to the bad players he had. There don't seem to be any sure-fire candidates available and I'm glad the Bills are doing their due diligence. Let's not forget Levy and Belichick had mediocre first stints at head coach too.

What's the "gimmick"? He runs an up-tempo spread offense. There's nothing gimmicky about it. Levey had success with the no-huddle K-Gun. Gailey tried to find success with the spread. Others use the spread more successfully. Chip Kelly's offense is a clever amalgam of old, good ideas. But what probably sets Oregon apart is that they execute it really, really well because of the way Kelly prepares his teams. I'm not sure how well his offense would work in the NFL but it's not a gimmick. Kelly's just a good college coach. He's good at X's and O's and good at getting his players to execute with speed and precision.