JohnC

Orton was the worst starting qb in the NFL. If he wasn't then who was? Linemen who played for Chan, such as Urbik and Pears, were functional players at best. They were declining minmalist players who should not be on a professional roster. The organization wanted Marrone back before he demanded conditions that were unacceptable to the organization. He wasn't willing to stay under the current circumstances so he exercised his option to leave. What is wrong with that? There were philosophical differences that couldn't be bridged with the front office. Leaving was the right thing for him to do and the right thing for the organization. There is nothing nefarious or devious about his actions. You can talk about the glory days of Chan Gailey but what was his record? Overall Marrone was on a more upward trajectory with the team he was coaching than was Gailey. Let me refresh your memory that Chan Gailey was let go. Sometimes it is better to trust your eyes than to rely on stats. A large chunk of his positive stats were a result of end of the game prevent defenses allowing him to throw underneath and run the clock. Kyle Orton was a shadow of a capable NFL qb. He was well aware that he had nothing left in his small tank. He did the right thing in retiring immediately after the season concluded.

Orton was done as a player before he even belatedly joined the roster. There was s short quick burst when he was injected as a starter but he quickly faded. Regardless how inept the OL was he couldn't make plays, even in the short passing game. There was nothing left in the small corroded tank he broughto the organization.

What creative strategy would you have employed to compensate for linemen who couldn't block and move and a qb who couldn't play? If you are in a race with a horse that is lame how do you compensate for its limitations? The results you get are attributable to the horse's deficiencies not the instruction the jockey got before the race. Marrone took the best strategy under the circumstances he was subjected to. He took a more conservative approach on offense and relied on his defense to keep his team in games. Some may consider it an uncreative response but in reality it was a prudent approach to take. What could be more foolish tha asking your OL and qb to do things that they are incapable of? No matter what creative strategy you advocate for it will not work unless the OL and qb positions are dramatically upgraded. Success in this league is predicated on talent level, not about genius strategy concocted by some svengali coach who magically devises a plan to compensate for his team's glaring weaknesses. Doug Marrone got a team with the worst OL in the league and the worst starting qb in the league to a 9-7 record. What more do you want? He got the team to play to its talent level. For that accomplishment many people are characterizing him as a befuddled fool. Yet the same HC who is unmercifully being maligned is the person that the organization wanted back.

A few months ago someone hacked into my computer and stole my credit card information. That theft was used to buy $23,000 worth of airline tickets. This person or group was so sophisticated that when the credit card company tried to notify me by phone that there was suspicious activity associated with my credit card the call was blocked. When I brought my computer in to be cleaned the technician told me that my computer was loaded with malware. No matter how good your virus protection is it isn't a guarantee that these thieves can't break into your system and wreak havoc.

If you have a competent qb (not necessarily upper tier) who can make plays even a poorly constructed OL can be reasonably effective.If our qb was a more mobile qb who had a quick release and was accurate our line liabilites could have been limited. As bad as our OL was it was the dismal play of our immobile qb that crippled the offense. Watkins and Woods very often got open to no avail. Their exasperation was very visible. The qb simply was unable to consistently get them the ball. If a decent passing game existed it is more likely that the running lanes would have materialized with greater frequency.

The most deserving person on that list is Don Coryell. He was a trail blazer and a genius in designing offenses, especially in the passing game. With respect to the offensive side of the game he was a transformative figure. He deservs an overwhelming vote for his induction. Takser was an important player during the Bills' SB run. However, he doesn't deserve to be on a candidate list for the HOF. He would be the first person to say so.

This group of OL players was less than average. Collectively their fatal flaws of immobility and a lack of athleticism could not be overcome, no matter how good the coaching was. As I stated in a prior post Orton's lack of mobility accentutated the line's vulnerabilities. I do agree with you that Marrone's preference for a big and bulky line was a primitive and unsophisticated approach against modern day defenses that for the most part are very quick.

Pears and Urbik were functional players at best who were declining, not getting better. Richardson was a disaster. Glenn's performance noticeably delcined from the prior year, maybe attributable to his undisclosed illness. The rookie Henderson was overmatched and should not have been playing on a full time basis. The problems associated with our slow and lumbering OL was accentuated by Orton, one of the least mobile and athletic qbs I have seen play. The bottom line for me is that collectively the players on the line did not make it up to the low-bar threshold of mediocrity. If you want to improve the play of the OL next year you need to replace at the minimum both guards and add a depth swing tackle to the mix.

The collective grouping on the OL was less than mediocre, regardless where you played them. Pears couldn't move adequately enough whether it was at the guard or tackle posiiton. Richardson was a disaster at LG and Glenn had a noticeable drop off from the prior season. Maybe that was due to the undisclosed illness he had prior to the season? Kugo was a second round selection who would have been cut very early in traiing camp if he wasn't a second round selection. Henderson was probably the most athletic of the linemen. As you stated at this early juncture in his career he wasn't ready for so much playing time. When the majority of your linemen fall in the category of big, slow and lumbering it doesn't matter where on the line they play because their glaring weaknesses in mobility and athleticism will be exposed and exploited. The bottom line is when you have an immobile qb such as Orton and a plodding line that is overmatched by the defense that is recipe for disaster. When your linemen and the qb have insurmountable flaws that can't be hidden and overcome you get the unsurprising results. The bottom line is that the talent level was mostly the problem, not the coaching.

If he is as bad as you state then why did the organization select him as their HC a couple of years ago?

It doesn't matter what your football philosophy is on offense if the quality of your players is at a dismal level. Our OL and qb were atrocious. The problems they encountered had little to do with strategy and everything to do with their talent level. It is very difficult to game plan for inept players competing against vastly superior players going against them.

Who care how he leaves? Whether he texted his departure or whether he held an inauthentic sobbing press conference what difference does it make? The notion that the fans and players feelings are hurt are non-sensical. The NFL is a business in which players, coaches, front office staff members are constantly on the move. The HC had an opt-out clause in his contract that he exercised. What's wrong with that? Players have free agent categories and front office and coaches have expiring contracts and opt out options that are often exercised. Doug Marrone felt that for him the situation was untenable. So he left. What is worse than leaving in such a situation is staying in such a situation. The former HC did what was right for him and what was right for the organization. He should be credited for acting on his beliefs instead of letting the situation fester into a bigger problem at a later time.

You can't enact an innovative offense when your qb is the worst starting qb in the league and when your OL consistently gets overwhelmed blocking for run and pass plays. How do you call creative plays for an offense that can't execute basic plays? Doug Marrone took a very conservative approach to the offense because collectivelyhis players on that unit (qb and OL) were incapable. Relying on the defense and STs and minimizing the offense was the right approach to take for the simple reason that there were no other alternaitves.

Doug Marrone did the right thing for him and the organization by leaving the franchise. He and Whaley had unbridgeable differences on buidling a team. While it seems that Whaley is committed to EJ it is apparent that Marrone had made a determination that EJ will never be a franchise qb, at least for him, who would give him a chance to succeed. Marrone has strong views on players that contradict the moves that Whaley made. He disagreed with the Watkins deal, made little use of the Mike Williams acquisition and little use of Brown after the fourth round expenditure. Putting aside the stubborn and prickly personality traits of the HC Marrone made the calculation that he had a better chance to succeed elsewhere than he did with the Bills, especially with their dire qb situation. It seems to me that Whaley is very much invested in EJ. So much so that he is betting on a qb that many (if not most) people are understandably very skeptical of. Many people like to bash the departed HC who exercised an option that was stipulated in his contract. I have no problem with his leaving a job in which it appears that he felt that it wasn't going to work out for him. Contrary to most others' views leaving a job for philosophical reasons, espeically when the contractual agreement allows it, it should be more graciously accepted instead of vilified. The bottom line is that his departure benefited him and the organization. Most often when the situation is unsustainable it is better to act sooner rather than later. That's exactly what he did.

Marrone was not into nurturing qbs. His focus was on winning in the present. As bad as Orton played Marrone still believed that he gave the team a better chance to win this season[/b[. He was right. You have to remember that EJ did start for I believe 4 games. After watching him play and reviewing the tapes he pulled the plug. The bottom line is that DM was not willing to sabotage a season for a qb he didn't believe in. There is no doubt that Orton was horrible. The HC still believed that he gave the team the best chance to succeed. What does that say about the HC's assessment of the young qb's prospects?

If you have an offensive line that can't move and block the most creative and well designed play will not work. The Bills didn't extend series by making first downs and moving the chains because the OL was overwhelmed and the qb was so immobile that he was stuck in the mud. In the Green Bay game the offense was usually in a three and out situation because it was embarrassingly inept. My point is simple: It doesn't matter what plays were called if your OL and qb can't execute them. Garbage is garbage. It's about the talent level and not the strategy.

Whaley was asked at a function for season ticket holders whom he would have taken if he didn't move up in the draft to take Watkins. Without any hesitation he said Ebron.

I respectfully but strenuously disagree with your position. Due to talent limitations on offense how do you aggressively call plays in which your qb and OL can't execute? Marrone was smart enough to rely on our defense and special teams to win games. The Green Bay game was an example of that approach. What is the percenatage of success of calling a play for Orton that he physically can't make? What is the percentage of success of calling for a slow developing creative play when the OL can't protect? Marrone was smart enough to realize how good his defense was and how bad his offense was. In my opinion the conservative offensive approach was the right approach to take. There was simply no other way to take in order to have a chance to win.

No coach is going to succeed with the caliber of qbing this team had playing behind a very mediocre line. Regardless who the HC was this past season the fundamental problem was lack of talent on offense (QB &OL) and not the caliber of coaching. I like you am not fretting over Marrone's departure. He is a very replaceable commodity. It is better that he left sooner rather than later because it was apparent that he was not on the same page as the GM and front office.

No I will not accept your argument that his lack of creativity on offense caused him to rely on an immobile journeyman. You have it backwards. He had no other choice but to rely on a very deficient journeyman qb because that is what he had to work with. He made the right decision to replace EJ because he simply was not ready to play. The mere fact that he preferred to rely on an inadequate veteran qb who at least knew how to play compared to the young qb who simply was too overwhelmed when he played. Considering that Marrone had major talent limitations on offense he was prudent in taking a very conservative approach towards the offense. What is the point of stretching the boundaries of the offense when the qb and OL were barely capable of executing basic plays. The bottom line is that the issue of strategy was not this team's major problem; its talent level was the primary source of its failures. Whaley's most important task this offseason is not finding a good replacement for Marrone. His major challenge is to find an adequate qb and to upgrade the OL so whoever replaces the departed cantankerous HC has a fair chance to succeed.

For me playing hard is not simply playing full throttle. It is also includes playing smart and playing with discipline. You can be an all out player who doesn't fulfill his responsibilities such as maintaining gaps and being suckered in to lose your assignment responsibility. A safety who doesn't know his assignments can be a major liability. An outside LB who gets suckered in to the inside when he should be maintaining an outside position containing the run is vulnerable to big running plays. My point is Doug Marrone usually got his players prepared enough to compete at a high level. The major problem he had to contend with were roster limitations, mostly on the offensive side of the ball. I think that the both of us believe that Marrone did a solid job. He has received a lot of unwarranted (my opinion) criticism for being overly conservative on offense. That cautiousness on offense is more attributable to deficencies in talent rather than a willingness to stretch the boundaries.

The quality of coaching had little to do with not making the playoffs. Marrone got an 8-8 caliber of team to play at its level. No HC was going to overcome the caliber of qbs he had on the roster. In addition to having the worst starting qb in the league he also had one of the least talented OLs in the league. Doug Marrone did a solid job considering the major limitations he had to work with on offense. He is far from being an innovative coach who can design schemes to overcome his talent deficiencies. No scheme is going to compensate for a qb who can't move and make plays. To his credit he got his players to play hard and held them accountable for their performances. Losing Marrone is not a devastating loss. A comparable or better replacement can be found. Unless a competent qb and more talent is added to the OL this offseason the team will again be watching the post season from their couches, regardless who the next HC is.

Do you really believe that when they drafted Kaepernick that he was capable of starting in his rookie year? Of course not. He was a qb with a lot of raw physical talent who wasn't going to play right away. The point that you refuse to acknowledge is just because you have a starting qb you still have the ability to continue in your pursuit of finding a better option at qb. If you can't accept that point then so be it. It really isn't that difficult to understand especially as it relates to the Dalton issue.

You are reinforcing my point. Smith was their starting qb and played well for Harbaugh. They still drafted Kaepernick because they felt that he had raw talent and potential. The point I was making is just because you have a qb who has limitations yet is an upgrade that doesn't preclude you from finding a more talented qb. A Dalton type qb on the Bills this year would have been the difference between making the playoffs and not. Just because you can't immediately get an elite prospect doesn't mean that you shouldn't upgrade a position, any position, when you have the opportunity. Dalton with his acknowledged limitations is a tremendous upgrade over what we had. I would gladly take that imperfect yet dramatic upgrade over the status quo any time.

Dalton is not a tease. He is what he is: A qb with limitations. If he can get you into the playoffs how is that not better than what they have had at qb for almost a generation? Without a doubt he is an upgrade. If the position is upgraded with his addition that doesn't mean that the organization shouldn't continue searching for a better option. The 49ers had Smith as their starting qb. He played adequately for them. Yet the organization still drafted Kaepernick in the second round and in the next year they traded Smith and got a second round in return. Would I be satisfied if a Dalton type qb got the team into the playoffs after missing it for 15 consecutive years? I would certainly be more happy making the playoffs than not doing so. If you can upgrade a position, regardless of the position, then that is a positive thing. Moving forward is better than the status quo.