WIDE LEFT

Well, Belichick is a defensive coach and has been his entire career. He never coached an offense. He has nothing to do with Brady's greatness, just as Marv Levy had zero to do with Kelly's greatness. And by the way, defensive genius Belichick has had some of the worst NFL defenses in the ast several years.

I plead guilty to being a Patriot hater, but with that disclaimer, I still think Kraft and his Patriots organization is overrated. Kraft gets all of this positive publicity from the media, and I just don't see it. We don't praise a guy who buys a winning lottery ticket for being a financial genius; and drafting a QB in the 6th round and having him turn out to be a Hall of Famer is akin to buying a winning lottery ticket - just luck. Before and/ or without Brady, Kraft's team was a mediocrity. And spare me the talk of Kraft the great humanitarian. Ever go to a Patriots game? Despite the fact that Kraft has more money than his children's children's children will ever be able to spend, he sticks it to the average fan by charging absolute top dollar from everything from parking to concessions. Not because he needs the money, but just because he can. So spare us the talk of the great and generous Robert Kraft.

Of course the head coach makes the final decision - he has to live with it. A "strategy" coach would only be an adviser, separated from the on field action. So in the Harbaugh scenario described in my OP, a strategy coach would simply be reminding the coach he still has a timeout and he should use it. Just advice - not the decision maker.

I am always shocked that NFL teams do not employ a coach whose game day responsibilities are limited to just game management decisions. A coach/advisor who is in the booth completely divorced from the action whose job is strictly game management/strategy, ie timeouts, 2 point conversions, punt or field goal etc. It is obvious to anyone who watches NFL games that the head coaches get too caught up in the action and emotion of the game and routinely mismanage situational game management. It's especially bad when the head coach has collateral duties, like calling plays. I mean, Jason Garrett in Dallas has been a disaster as a game day strategy manager, and Chan Gailey struggled with this as well. There are a ton of examples, many from Bills history, but one that comes to mind is Ravens coach John Harbaugh in the 2011 playoffs. Last play of game, rushes his field goal team out there, kicker rushes it and misses - all this and he had a timeout he never used. When asked about it after game, it was clear that it just never occurred to him - he just got caught up in the emotion of the moment, and did not have a "strategy" coach to help him out. And Harbaugh is a great coach. BTW, Greg Williams, when head coach of Bills, was a disaster as a game manager, and could have really, really used a strategy coach.

E.J. Manuel is typical of the new breed of quarterbacks, in that he has worked extensively with a QB guru/coach, to improve mechanics etc. And it makes all the sense in the world to do this, with millions of dollars at stake in terms of a successful NFL career. So I always found it to be mind boggling when the Bills hired a QB coach/guru last year, and Fitz stated it was the first time he had ever worked with someone like this on his mechanics. I mean., it never occurred to this Harvard grad, and 7th round draft choice, that hiring someone to help him with his mechanics, might make the difference between NFL success and the money that comes with it? I mean, I know it worked out or him, but to have never worked individually with a QB guru to assist with NFL success, seems, well, pretty dumb for a smart guy.

I wish it were true that Glenn "graded out just fine" but that is simply not true. Whose grades are you referring to? Despite having a QB who got rid of the ball in a hurry, Glenn was actually rated as one of the worst left tackles last year.

Guaranteed money via signing bonus makes their release unlikely; both using this leverage to excercise their right not to participate.

Well I think I did - re read the first two sentences of original post. I admire much of what he did, just don't believe he belongs in Hall of Fame.

ESPN article ranks Marv # 17 in rating of all time coaches. I think that's fair, and that Marv achieved great things as a coach here. I admire much of what he did and stands for, but I do not believe he belongs in the Hall of Fame. He was handed an unbelievably talented roster - the two most important positions (QB and pass rusher) he had hall of famers, including arguably a best ever (Bruce Smith). Toss in a hall of fame RB, the best special teams player ever (Tasker) and the greatest linebacker who will never make the hall of fame (Bennett). My biggest criticism of Marv is his failure recognize what his team was and coordinate offensive & defensive philosophies. The Bills had one of the most prolific offenses in NFL history, virtually unstoppable at times. Given that, what is the worst possible defensive philosophy/scheme you could adopt? Well the one Marv did, a bend don't break type defense. With an offense like the Bills had, the last thing you would want is a defense that bends and allows the opposing team to possess the ball for long periods of time, keeping your prolific offense on the sideline. Should have an attacking, high risk defense because even if you give up a quick TD, you have that great offense getting the ball back. This killed them in the first Superbowl, as the Giants held the ball for large chunks of time. Terribly out coached that game. When your defensive philosophy is so badly mismatched to the offense you have, that is on the head coach. It was Marv's biggest failure.

As noted, it has to be an obvious running play. If you are talking about read option, where QB keeps the ball, then 10 yard penalty because QB is involved. Running back option, again, has to be a clear and obvious running play. It's easy to tell.

Has to be an obvious running play - never a 5 yard penalty when QB is involved.

The NFL does a fairly good job in adapting rule changes to fit the evolving game. I do wish they would consider tweaking the rules a bit in regards to holding penalties. The overriding philosophy for penalties in general is that the punishment should fit the crime. That's why a pass interference penalty is placed at the spot of the foul ie it's where, in theory, the receiver would have caught it had he not been interfered with. Likewise a holding penalty on a pass play is 10 yards, because a sack of the QB would likely have resulted in a loss of around 10 yards. It's the 10 yard penalty for holding on a running play that I object to. Very very few running plays, when successfully defended, result in a 10 yard loss. Looking at most holding calls on run plays, the defense would have been lucky to hold the runner to no gain had there not been a hold. Too many times you see an offense clicking on all cylinders, only to be stopped cold by a holding call on a running play. It puts the offense in a huge hole, and holding calls by refs are very arbitrary to begin with. Retain the 10 yard penalty for holding on a pass play, but let the punishment fit the crime and make it a 5 yard penalty for holding on an obvious running play.