Bills article

[eball]

Let's take this a step further. KC finished 31st in yards and 31st in scoring during 2007. Gailey arrived in 2008 as OC, and they finished 26th in yards and 24th in scoring. Certainly an improvement for an offense that eventually relied on Tyler Thigpen at QB. However, after 3 low scoring preseason games, an imperious Todd Haley fired Gailey (EDIT: in 2009).

 

Clearly, Gailey has improved some teams on offense. This being the case, why then was he not considered for any other OC job, let alone a HC job for 2010? I don't recall him interviewing for a single job this past off-season.

Some? Which teams didn't he improve?

[BillsVet]

Some? Which teams didn't he improve?

 

Georgia Tech

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

Ok, so I'm not quite drinking the Kool-aid yet about how Gailey is going to turn everything around. I seem to remember a guy by the name of Dick Jauron who was supposed to do that.

 

And before that, Mike Mularkey.

 

And before that a guy named Williams...

 

So once burned, twice shy. Three times, and we should be learning our lesson.

 

And yet, for some obscene reason I do see some hope. Gailey has a better track record than these guys, even though I do wish that we had gotten a big name coach.

I can't say that I like everything so far (not picking up a quarterback we can count on, not filling the LT position with someone we're damn sure can do the job), but kicking our players asses in the offseason sounds like a half decent place to start.

 

If we have lost our god-awful conditioning staff we can hopefully avoid having a bigger body count than Detroit. The city, not the team.

[Sisyphean Bills]

I've always been suspicious of why Jauron canned Schonert when he did.

Might it have something to do with Schonert thinking Jauron was an idiot?

[Sisyphean Bills]

I can't say that I like everything so far (not picking up a quarterback we can count on, not filling the LT position with someone we're damn sure can do the job), but kicking our players asses in the offseason sounds like a half decent place to start.

I think the key point to the past offseason was that the defensive front 7 couldn't stop anybody last year and was getting older (Schobel possibly retiring). They spent their few poker chips there and are going in a new direction philosophically. With the offense, they are also going in a new direction, but many of the players there are already fairly young. The bet is that the new coaches can get more out of these young guys than they have shown under the previous inept coaching. Nobody knows if it will pan out, but you have to start a multi-year project somewhere.

[atlbillsfan1975]

To me it seems as if you have two guys who like each other and can work well together in Gailey and Nix. They really do seem to have a plan and a shared vision. I like the direction they will take this team. I do not however think they will get the Bills to the super bowl but will start the rebuilding process and actually make the Franchise into a profesional team again.

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

I think the key point to the past offseason was that the defensive front 7 couldn't stop anybody last year and was getting older (Schobel possibly retiring). They spent their few poker chips there and are going in a new direction philosophically. With the offense, they are also going in a new direction, but many of the players there are already fairly young. The bet is that the new coaches can get more out of these young guys than they have shown under the previous inept coaching. Nobody knows if it will pan out, but you have to start a multi-year project somewhere.

 

That seems like a fair analysis, even though I respectfully disagree on what I feel is our main priority

 

But do I hope that we can agree on cautious optimism as training camp opens.

[reddogblitz]

I agree with the author and thinking that Bills will go 3-13 this year is just plain silly. I expect us to be fighting for that last wildcard spot come late December. For all the bashing by NFL Network etc, the Bills have been competitive since 2006. We're not that far off.

[Doc]

When in doubt guess. Then challenge your skeptic to disprove what has never been substantiated. In other words what hasn't been unproven could be true. When asked to call heads or tails you call heads and tails. Not only are you slick but you are also slippery.

I'm also usually on the right track. Like with that "Tebow was the Bills' target when they were trying to trade up in the first round" business. But that's just me; I don't accept things that are unsubstantiated.

 

In this case, the only thing we do know is that Gailey wasn't the Bills' first or second choice. Those were Shanahan and Cowher, who the Bills interviewed/contacted in mid-to-late November, which was well before they could contact any of the other coaching candidates. Cowher probably told the Bills he wasn't interested at that time and recommended Gailey, who the Bills likely interviewed at that time. Then when the opportunity to talk to the other coaches opened, they did their due diligence in interviewing as many of them as they could. So if we're going by who interviewed when as indicating in what order the Bills preferred them, Gailey was probably 3rd. But whether that's true has never been substantiated.

[Sisyphean Bills]

That seems like a fair analysis, even though I respectfully disagree on what I feel is our main priority.

I'm just saying. I can only assume that Gailey watched all the film from last year and came away either thinking he saw a few flashes of talent or just plain not knowing much at all. It's difficult to evaluate an offense that was a revolving door of over simplification.

[Sisyphean Bills]

I'm also usually on the right track. Like with that "Tebow was the Bills' target when they were trying to trade up in the first round" business. But that's just me; I don't accept things that are unsubstantiated.

You are the king of argument from a negative premise.

 

"The Bills didn't draft Tebow, so ..."

[Doc]

You are the king of argument from a negative premise.

 

"The Bills didn't draft Tebow, so ..."

It was more a positive premise. As in "I'm positive that reports about the Bills being mad about Tebow being drafted, because they reportedy looked 'visibly' upset and because Ralph Wilson said something, are bunk."

[Sisyphean Bills]

It was more a positive premise. As in "I'm positive that reports about the Bills being mad about Tebow being drafted, because they reportedy looked 'visibly' upset and because Ralph Wilson said something, are bunk."

It wasn't a positive premise, but it is easy to be correct when you call "heads and tails".

 

In this post, http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...t&p=1874760, I explained my mistake about the word visibly and apologized. As I also explained there and in this post, http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...t&p=1871205, that there are reasons to believe that the Bills may have have an interest in Tebow and not and probably both.

 

Your arguments that the Bills had no interest in Tim Tebow were based on the negative premise that because they didn't draft him they didn't have an interest. You tried to support that with arguments such as "The only reason Jim Kelly would've had dinner with Tim Tebow was if the Bills were going to take him with their first pick and since they did not take him, but took C.J. Spiller, they must not have had an interest in Tebow." This denies the Bills very own claim that C.J. Spiller was the top guy on their draft board as an explanation for why they took Spiller over anyone else, not just Tebow. It also denies the fact that businesses don't usually interview people they have no interest in whatsoever. But, hey, it's an argument from a negative premise, so you can draw whatever conclusions fit your preconceived notions!

 

Another argument you used was that Ralph Wilson denied they were interested in Tebow after the fact. I essence, Ralph Wilson was totally believable and there was no reason to be the least bit suspicious of his motives for saying what he said about the Broncos drafting of Tebow. On the other hand, I heard people on NFL Network saying on air that "Bills officials were upset". Ignoring the attack-the-messenger debate tactics, you basically imply that NFL Network has no believability and there is every reason to be totally suspicious of what they were saying. Ralph: 100%; NFL Network 0%. Still, if this were some other sports franchise and their owner came out with an unexpected, uncharacteristic, emphatic statement denying something, there would no doubt be a few people that would question someone like Jones, Snyder, or Al Davis and why they made such a statement.

 

And before you break your back patting yourself, realize that in this post, http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...t&p=1874699, a reporter with far more credibility than yourself simply stated that he wasn't aware of anyone in the Bills camp being upset. That is not the same thing as saying no one was upset. Nor does he say that the Bills had no interest in Tebow, just that he didn't get the impression the Bills were seriously interested. So, your "victory" in proving that the Bills had no interest in Tebow is indeed a very hollow one.

 

Going back to what I originally posted on the subject, we simply will never know. There are reasons to believe they had some interest and reasons to believe they didn't. There are reasons to believe that the entire organization wasn't of like mind on the topic. My dispute was in your excruciating use of bad logic through lame arguments to make a certainty out of an unknown.

 

PS: The sky is not blue, thus it must be raining.

[BillsVet]

I agree with the author and thinking that Bills will go 3-13 this year is just plain silly. I expect us to be fighting for that last wildcard spot come late December. For all the bashing by NFL Network etc, the Bills have been competitive since 2006. We're not that far off.

 

Teams with a new GM, HC, new offense, completely new defensive scheme (T2/C2 to 3-4), 3 QB's, i.e. no QB, no proven #2 WR, no depth on the OL, no proven LT, rookie NT, no proven OLB pass rushers, rookie DC, rookie OC, and Ralph don't go from 6-10 to 10-6 in the AFCE.

 

Competitive is a relative term when used in the aforementioned context. One could argue Buffalo wasn't in the playoff hunt in either December 08 or 09. After all, how many playoff teams did the Bills defeat from 2005-2009? Not many.

[VanCity]

Wow, this is a good battle here Sisyphean and Doc. You are both incredibly opinionated posters and each have valid points. I like it. This is what makes a forum worth visiting.

 

Anyways, I don't know the writer Steve B. for any of his past work, but it seems like he is quite optimistic about the Bills this year. He has some valid points regarding our 4th quarter meltdowns and their possible elimination by increased offensive production and a better defense versus the run. His thoughts regarding our spot in the wildcard race, though encouraging, might be a little premature.

[berndogg]

I agree with the author and thinking that Bills will go 3-13 this year is just plain silly. I expect us to be fighting for that last wildcard spot come late December. For all the bashing by NFL Network etc, the Bills have been competitive since 2006. We're not that far off.

The fact that we were able to get 6 or 7 wins a year (with a lot more last minute losses than last minute wins) when we were near the worst in the league at scoring points AND stopping the run makes me think that if we're even average in either of these areas next year we should be a competitive team. However, i'm not sure that we have the talent at qb/ol/d-line/lb right now to make a significant improvement in these areas. Hopefully the new coaching staff and the rookies/free agents will make a difference, but I'm definitely skeptical.

[VanCity]

Teams with a new GM, HC, new offense, completely new defensive scheme (T2/C2 to 3-4), 3 QB's, i.e. no QB, no proven #2 WR, no depth on the OL, no proven LT, rookie NT, no proven OLB pass rushers, rookie DC, rookie OC, and Ralph don't go from 6-10 to 10-6 in the AFCE.

 

Competitive is a relative term when used in the aforementioned context. One could argue Buffalo wasn't in the playoff hunt in either December 08 or 09. After all, how many playoff teams did the Bills defeat from 2005-2009? Not many.

 

All completely valid points. Being a "BillsVet" has, deservingly, jaded you more than a little bit. That being said, all of the factors you mentioned are the reason that numerous posters are more optimistic. When you have experienced failure in so many aspects of the game, your best chance is to revisit what you have done and make changes for the future. The QB's aside, this is what they have done. All we can do is hope that what the FO has done has put the team in a position to improve for the future. A one season turn-around is, as you have stated, seemingly impossible. One can always hope for horseshoes and rainbows though......

[San-O]

Teams with a new GM, HC, new offense, completely new defensive scheme (T2/C2 to 3-4), 3 QB's, i.e. no QB, no proven #2 WR, no depth on the OL, no proven LT, rookie NT, no proven OLB pass rushers, rookie DC, rookie OC, and Ralph don't go from 6-10 to 10-6 in the AFCE.

 

Competitive is a relative term when used in the aforementioned context. One could argue Buffalo wasn't in the playoff hunt in either December 08 or 09. After all, how many playoff teams did the Bills defeat from 2005-2009? Not many.

 

 

How many teams did Jauron et. al. defeat that had winning records over 4 years?

 

The last I counted there were like 3?

[Malazan]

In this case, the only thing we do know is that Gailey wasn't the Bills' first or second choice.

 

No offense, but what is your source on this? We know they contacted them about something. They could have just wanted to talk, get some buzz out there on what they were offering...drum up some league wide talk. They may have talked to them about being the General Manager. Very few people know which is why we had 'Cowher' watch for a month when is it was fairly obvious he has one job in mind.

 

I also recall Cowher being very supportive of this hire. How do you know that the Bills hadn't had Gailey on their list and then talked to Cowher and looked into it? Just speculation, but we *know* very little about the entire process.

[Doc]

It wasn't a positive premise, but it is easy to be correct when you call "heads and tails".

 

In this post, http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...t&p=1874760, I explained my mistake about the word visibly and apologized. As I also explained there and in this post, http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...t&p=1871205, that there are reasons to believe that the Bills may have have an interest in Tebow and not and probably both.

 

Your arguments that the Bills had no interest in Tim Tebow were based on the negative premise that because they didn't draft him they didn't have an interest...

Actually, I never said the Bills had "no interest in Tim Tebow." What I did say was this:

 

They might have been interested in him as a 3rd rounder. But I doubt within the first 2 rounds.

And I proceeded to give reasons why I didn't think they were interested in him in those first 2 rounds, if even. I didn't base my premise on reports of how the Bills were allegedly upset (visibly or otherwise) or Ralph talking about.