The Big Cat

RE: Jauron, his defenses were light years better than the crap we've trotted out since he's left. Hate the scheme all you want, at the very least it kept opponents from marching up and down the field at will. --But more importantly, I don't know what relevance your latter points have to...anything...in this thread so far-- RE: Tempo, practice speed and meeting energy have absolutely nothing to do with FO activity. RE: Energy and excitement, I'm talking about personnel, not fans.

Then you remember as well as I do when Gailey would get on the microphone MID-SEASON and say things like "well, we're still working on some things" or "we're not quite ready to install some other..." it drove me !@#$ing nuts last year. As per this year, OBVIOUSLY we have to wait and see. But Marrone has, at the very least, already shown an attitude that's completely contrary to what's above. Listen to his interview last week with Murph. There's no time to stop and smell the roses with Marrone...or so he says...now.

And back to the OP--it never seemed like Gailey was looking to hit the ground running. And by all accounts, Marrone and crew already have.

Just so we can back track the !@#$ up here for a second: May be I didn't say this clearly enough, but what motivated me to start this topic in the first place was the soft-damning of the former regime that was coming out through players' endorsement for the current guys. I only bring this back up because--even as the thread's purpose--it hasn't got much discussion.

Fine, but...how bout Jauron?

And Stevie.

Bolded = concept that resulted in a Twitter pissing contest with Tim Graham. Your point/my point: Teams are incentivized to lock up players early, to prevent this from happening, to prevent having to overpay. My counterpoint: Surely by now, agents are hip to this and simply won't enter into negotiations when they can gamble and let a contract ride. In Levitre's case, locking in for a marginal increase, over the long term is a worst case scenario for an agent, and given Levitre's injury non-history, one that was highly unlikely to come to fruition. Therefore, his agent--motivated by one thing and one thing only (getting his client the highest salary possible)--would have ignored and/or rejected any initiative to lock-in his client before his value peaked.

The movie came damn close to actually making a profound point about gaming the system at all levels in West Virginia...but it never..quite...got there.

Exactly. I have no clue what I picked...in either of them.

I did it...twice now. Never received a confirmation or even a copy of my picks....??

Admittedly, I'm cautiously optimistic about Pettine, because I also wonder how much of his defenses were an amalgamation of him and Rex--such that when one party is removed from the equation (in this case Rex), the other can still stand on his own. I absolutely have a legitimate concern about that, but only time will tell. One thing that has allayed my concern thus far, is that whether or not the Rex/Pettine success was symbiotic, it was consistent, and, unlike Wanny's, RECENT.

I would argue that the defense--giving up 5 touchdowns, did in fact lose us the Tennessee game. Do you recall CJ2K's 80+ run straight up the gut? But let's not split hairs, because of the defense, Fitz had to be excellent, bordering on perfect to keep our team honest last year. I'm not saying Fitz is good, but I am saying he wasn't bad either. What I can tell you, is that he wasn't good enough to win with our defense last year, though I'd argue very few QB's in the league would have been. This is important to note, because while I agree that Kolb is a lateral move, he is NOT (presumably) inheriting the same situation Fitz dealt with last year. In other words, if he's the starter (I have my doubts that he will be), and if he can keep his jersey clean and keep his bones in tact (I have my doubts about these things, too), he'll appear, on paper, to be a superior quarterback to Fitz, when I don't believe that to be true.

I think there's too much conflicting evidence to have a consensus on the chicken v egg question: Who lost Bills more games for the Bills in 2012: Fitz? or Wanny? IMO, without question, the answer is Wanny. But, I also acknowledge that there are plenty of folks who see the situation differently, so obviously it's not as cut and dry as it is in my head, or theirs. Where do you come down?

It's not a person's opinion. It's a person saying what many others have already. It's not like he hopped on NFL Network to tell everyone Geno Smith would be a Hall of Fame hockey player.

Oh, please. Fitz had to play perfect this year to keep us honest. Fitz blew a game in which the defense surrendered 5 touchdowns? He's an easy scapegoat because he's not "franchise," but let's not kid ourselves. Mark Sanchez did not get the Jets to the AFC Championship his first two years in the league. That team won in spite of him because of DEFENSE. Fitz was left with the enviable task of winning in spite of his defense, a task he was simply not up to, and a feat that left him looking a lot worse than he otherwise would have. We don't have a quarterback gem, granted. But if you think defenses can flip a team from worst to first, then by acknowledging that potential you're contradicting yourself by saying this team is going nowhere because of QB alone. The Bills need a better quarterback to win the Super Bowl. They need a better defense to get to the playoffs.

I'm not basing the banners on evidence for change--I'm going off what the players have said, what reporters have said, etc. I'm curious, in your opinion, between a historically bad defense, on sub-par QB play, which do you think was more of a factor in the Bills not making the playoffs in 2012?

Honest question: do you even like the Bills?

That was my first thought too, but it's likewise silly to suggest nothing has changed at OBD. Has everything changed? No. But there is more than ample evidence to show things have changed.

Remember how inept we were when Lee Evans was released?

This coming from one of the guys who banged loudest on the Ralph's gotta go before anything changes drum. As far as I'm concerned, the FO change that needed to happen did. Also, all signs point to Nix stepping down after the draft. But I know how you operate--unless it's saying "the Bills suck," smart fans have to wait and see. News reports would suggest the contrary. I know because I got in a Twitter pissing match with Tim Graham about it. Boy, that guy's a piece of work.

Straight up Mike Tice style, yo.

I offered to give details via PM. Take it or leave it. And what evidence? You mean besides Ralph handing Russ the keys? Besides what multiple players have said? Are they lying?

It's only unjustified because you say it is. Before Marrone was hired, his work at Syracuse earned him the reputation as a "culture changer" and actitivy AND player feedback to date would suggest this be the case at OBD, too. This is important because all along the "realists" have told us that nothing will change until Ralph has gone and the culture is shifted. Well, by ALL evidence that exists IN APRIL (GRANTED!), progress is/ being made. And no, the league does not work that way. But out of curiosity which personnel moves should they have made? The post-lockout trends show very clearly that the only teams that are going all-in right now are a.) over paying and b.) are the ones entering years 2, 3 or 4 without much success (i.e. they're FO's trying to save their jobs) You're also making the supposition that the league is full of talented and untalented players--that some teams have talent while others don't. I believe that's categorically false. Yes, some teams will have STANDOUT talent, but the vast majority of players are capable of just about the same thing. What makes them successful or not is how they execute a team's gamplan and scheme.

Okay a quick archive search on bb.com only shows quarterbacks being pleased with Gailey, and that's no surprise, even now after he's gone, I think we can all agree he wrung every last drop of talent from Fitzpatrick, as well, if not better, than any coach would have. There is, however, no mention of the "culture" change--that the atmosphere, or mood was different. Granted, nothing tells you nothing. But--as mentioned before--I have it on good authority that the "culture" was at the bottom of the barrel by last season, that players had lost all faith. Recent comments would suggest that the "attitude" has changed. Enter: the point of this thread. Attitude can be everything. Could it have gotten us a few more wins last year? Debatable, but I say yes, particularly for how badly the defense did...anything (note: my intel, not shockingly, comes from the defensive side of the ball.) If anyone is curious, PM for deets.

Well, I disagree with what you can't fully remember. I do not recall players saying things about the new regime that reflected poorly on the old one. I don't. I'm happy to hop on nexis to verify.