Cynical

I can't stand Jauron, but if he somehow directs this team to a 11-5 record, I think it would be pretty damn stupid to can him. An 11-5 record deserves another year, to determine if real progress was made, or if it was just another fluke year.

Depends on the circumstance. Peyton Manning stayed an additional year in school, and he has been quoted as saying that extra year helped him tremendously in his game. Last time I checked, Peyton was not hurting for cash.

Does Jim Trotter and Nick Canepa of the San Diego Union Tribune also qualify as 'idiots'? By the end of the 2001 season, neither one of those guys were "enthralled" by Flutie either.

Are you kidding? By no stretch of the imagination am I a Tebow fan, but if the Gators win another NC, and Tebow has another good year, some team will take a stab at him in the first round. Some team will need a QB, and they will end up thinking with the right coaching, they can correct whatever "flaw" exists. In fact, staying in school may have been the best thing he could have done. In the pros, he would have been pressured into the starting lineup before his mechanics were fixed.

This is relevant to the discussion in what way? Should I include Thurman Thomas as one of "those guys" because he made a similar comment about the team last year? What's with the attack on his character when you yourself, in the next paragraph, admit there is a problem? Stroud and Mitchell joined the team last year, and the change seemed minimal at best (from an accountability stand point). Wood is a rookie. I do not care how "nasty" (there's an overused word) he is, expecting a rookie to come in and automatically assume a leadership role is not a sign of a "good thing". That practically admits there is a huge leadership void in the locker room. TO is the best shot at leadership. Whether he does it in private or in public, he will call players and/or coaches out.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying they do not try their "best". They do. However, if their "best" comes up short, the attitude seems to be "so what". They tried their hardest, they wish they could have done better, and obviously they had hoped it would have led to a win, but in the end, it didn't. As Kelly said, he would walk into that locker room on a Monday, and he could not tell if the team had won or lost based on the mood in the locker room. That's not a talent problem. That's a "I could not give a rat's azz" problem.

If we believe the Jauron apologists, all the problems and mistakes were made by the players. Some of the same problems seemed to occur on a regular basis (i.e. play execution). Yet, the same players continued to play and start. How were the players held accountable for their screw ups? A stern talking? No gold stars? If real accountability existed, I didn't recognize it, and it surely didn't seem to make a difference.

You would be correct. That's because the spread offense is not some "new" creative type of offense. IIRC, the last time a full spread offense (or the closest thing to it) that achieved any kind of success was the Run 'N Shoot. Even in it's heyday, I think only about 3 teams ran it.

I think he was referring to the perception the team seems to lack a certain amount of heart. Nobody on the team seems to be playing with "fear": fear of losing the game, fear of losing their job, etc ... Real accountability does not exist on the Bills. Until it does, the players will only play hard enough to maintain their position.

Jauron is going to call it the "Wild Bill". It will be used in defense of the Wild Cat.

And I have that article. In full, saved on my HDD. Just read it again. Gleason raked Flutie over the coals. Here's the search result from the News archives: And here's the link (costs money to read it): Linky Just reading that brought back a slew of memories. Such as the big number of "long time die hard" Bills fans that came out of the wood work when Flutie was signed, and the same number of "long time die hard" Bills fans that disappeared when Flutie was cut. I also remember lurking on the Charger boards after Fultie was signed, and reading the Charger fans bitching about the "long time die hard" johnny come lately Charger fans that were now appearing. On one board, one of these "long time die hard" Charger "fans" had no idea who Dan Fouts was, but he was sure Flutie would be so much better than him.

"Found these stats posted by Balto at WPI (he didn't link to where he got them, so I'll just have to take his word for their accuracy) and thought it would be an interesting conversation piece:" AND "The second thing that jumps out at you is Jason Peters, LT for the Bills going to the Pro Bowl while giving up the most sacks of any other LT in the NFL (11.5) in only 13 sacks." So, to re-iterate, this guys whole analysis is based on stat he himself cannot verify the accuracy of. Yeah, he knows.

You haven't supplied enough info to give you a really informed opinion, but based on the info you did give: 2004. Without question.

Second.

This does not automatically equate to Doug Flutie being a good QB. During their SB year, the Ravens won more under Trent Dilfer than they did under Tony Banks. Based on Flake logic: Trent Dilfer must be a good QB. See response to A. Based on your own admission, Flutie alone did not do it. Therefore, if he was not alone, than he alone is NOT the reason for the success. Reference: Trent Dilfer, Tony Banks, 2000 Baltimore Ravens 2 hypothetical questions: If the Bills did NOT have a great defense, do you think the Bills would have achieved the same record? If the Bills had John Elway as QB, do you think the Bills would have achieved a similar record? A. I am not an RJ supporter. Your assumption was wrong. B. Regarding NASA and Neil Armstrong, nobody has ever stated the reason a man walked on the moon was due to Neil Armstrong. Contrast that with the Flake insistence Doug Flutie saved the franchise. C. Yes, Flutie was QB of the TEAM that made the playoffs. But that does not automatically equate to Doug Flutie being a good QB. Reference: Trent Dilfer, Tony Banks, 2000 Baltimore Ravens Just ask Trent Dilfer and the 2000 Baltimore Ravens. HOPE THIS HELPS!

What part of "team" don't you get? Suites and tickets were sold because the "team" won. Flutie just happened to be the QB. Why is it so hard to grasp that if the "team" had won without Flutie, the Bills still would have sold the suites, etc ...? It is the most basic concept of football capitalism: win games, sell tickets.

And I think if I had played the lotto last night, I would have won.

A huge ego can be a problem major problem if: The player doesn't have the abilities to back it up The player cannot recognize or refuses to recognize he can/did screw up, or is playing poorly These were Fluties problems. When he was playing poorly, and was called out on it, he never hesitated in pointing fingers at other players, and their mistakes. And if those 3 INTS were because of you, you better accept the blame. Pointing out the failures of somebody else without taking responsibility for your own failures does not create a harmonious working relationship.

Yeah, God knows these players take such a beating during the OTAs

That would depend on what you are looking at. I'll take his first season in Buffalo over his second all the time every time. While he didn't have the yardage (he didn't play in every game either), his other numbers were better. Better accuracy, more TDs, less turnovers, better pass average, etc ...

And you would breathe a sigh of relief if the Bills starting DT's went on IR? How about the DE's?

Fixed it for you.

I never said pro football was that simple. You attempted to show there was no correlation, and you failed. The correlation does exist. Now, go waste your time trying to figure out why Jauron coached teams tend to lose. Develop your little theories and concepts. When each one fails, you will create another new excuse in defense of Jauron. Meanwhile, the rest of us have already looked, and have concluded all we need to look at is the big picture. Dick Jauron is a loser. In pro football, like real life, sometimes the most obvious answer and the most obvious solution are the most correct. Jauron coach team, team lose.

Fixed it.

You're partially right. This is no correlation among ALL 3 items. Just like there is no correlation among ALL of the following 3 items: Jauron coach team, defense gets 6 turnovers and scores 2 TDs, team lose. That's because the middle item in both examples are extraneous. The result was the same. But there is one constant in both examples: JAURON coach TEAM, TEAM lose. It was like that in 4 out 5 years in Chicago, and 3 out 3 years in Buffalo. 2 different teams. 2 different ownership 2 different coaching staffs 2 different rosters 2 different sets of divisional opponents 1 constant Jauron coach team, team lose. That is a very direct correlation.