DrFishfinder Posted July 7, 2010 Posted July 7, 2010 A brief statistical analysis of Trent's 2008, pre- and post-concussion: he had a 93.9 QB rating before it (admittedly pretty good), 81.3 after (not exactly cratering). Almost none of that difference comes from completion percentage (66.4 pre, 65.1 post), which is where I would expect to see a difference if he was having post concussion symptoms. Roughly half of the drop in QB rating came from getting picked off more often. Exactly where I would expect to find a difference due to playing better teams. Amazingly, he was sacked only one more time post-concussion, in 130 more attempts...another area where I would expect a brain-damaged player to get worse...but he didn't; he got MUCH better at avoiding sacks.The concussion theory needs to die. He didn't have a drop off; the schedule got harder. The entire team found life much more difficult when they started playing teams that didn't suck. Which brings me back to the topic of the thread, Jauron: Trent's getting crunched in the noggin had nothing to do with DJ's downfall. The concussion theory is not going to die, whether it has any credence to it or not. It has a life all its own and neither you nor I can kill it. You can agree or not, but effects from concussions are extremely variable and can last months. But, in all fairness, it is equally as possible that Trent's problems after the Arizona Head Bangers Ball came from something(s) other than the concussion itself. I should probably use the concussion more as a time marker than anything more substantial. I hope I didn't sound like that. I liked him as a hire, I thought the team played pretty hard for him, and I think some of the criticism of him (and the team in general) tries pretty hard to have it both ways: he's an idiot, but boy, do those players stink...well, either one of those things is completely wrong, or both of them are overblown to varying degrees. Or else we'd be the Detroit Lions. I think the team played reasoably hard for him until the point where Edwards regressed and the injuries started piling up. When the wheels came off, it looked to me as if the majority of the team was going through the motions and just wanted to get through the rest of the season without being injured themselves. I agree with you about not being able to have it both ways. Both were overblown to some degree but both were right to some degree as well. It's just not a black & white scenario, even though people want to point their finger at one thing and say, "THAT's it right there." Yes, they did. If this is supposed to show Trent's diminished capacity, then what about Denver? Are we now going to pick each game and if he sucked, THOSE are the games when he had side effects? No. I was just counterpointing the win over SD with the loss to Cleveland. For many years now, the Bills have seemed to beat (some) teams they weren't supposed to, and conversely lose to teams they were supposed to beat. I can't think of a better example than SD & Cleveland. I'm okay with the Bills losing to clearly better teams. When the Bills start winning the games they are supposed to win, and start closing out games when they are ahead, then I think the team will be on the right track.
Sisyphean Bills Posted July 7, 2010 Posted July 7, 2010 I think the team played reasoably hard for him until the point where Edwards regressed and the injuries started piling up. When the wheels came off, it looked to me as if the majority of the team was going through the motions and just wanted to get through the rest of the season without being injured themselves. I agree with you about not being able to have it both ways. Both were overblown to some degree but both were right to some degree as well. It's just not a black & white scenario, even though people want to point their finger at one thing and say, "THAT's it right there." Like any other complex enterprise, the blame for failures can and should be distributed. As far as the comment about players vs. coaching, part of the reason the players were able to come in and play immediately for Jauron was that his approach was one of simplicity. For the 4 seasons which were started with Jauron, the Bills roster consisted of a lot of young players and depth, which played a role every season, got young very quickly. Strategically, his approach was to take the air out of the ball and try to play games close. "It's tough to win in the NFL," was a mantra and an approach. Being in a position where it was possible to steal a game in the 4th quarter with a field goal was the strategy. (Some would even argue that it implies the Bills were a solid team, though dogged by misfortune.)
billsfreak Posted July 7, 2010 Posted July 7, 2010 dick jauron was THE PROBLEM Dick Jauron was a big part of the problem but he wasn't THE problem. Several things have led to the pathetic results this organization has accomplished over the past decade. Several are: 1. Lack of Talent 2. Poor Coaching 3. Poor Game Plan 4. Poor Ownership 5. Poor Drafts 6. Poor Front Office 7. Injuries after Injuries 8. On, On, On, On and On
DrFishfinder Posted July 7, 2010 Posted July 7, 2010 dick jauron was THE PROBLEM Dick Jauron was a big part of the problem but he wasn't THE problem. Several things have led to the pathetic results this organization has accomplished over the past decade. Several are: 1. Lack of Talent 2. Poor Coaching 3. Poor Game Plan 4. Poor Ownership 5. Poor Drafts 6. Poor Front Office 7. Injuries after Injuries 8. On, On, On, On and On just to continue & see where this goes..... 9. Obamacare 10. Dubya 11. Gobal Warming 12. BP 13. Freddie Mac 14. Bernie Mac 15. Fannie Mae 16. Ellie May
Adam Posted July 7, 2010 Posted July 7, 2010 dick jauron was THE PROBLEM Dick Jauron was a big part of the problem but he wasn't THE problem. Several things have led to the pathetic results this organization has accomplished over the past decade. Several are: 1. Lack of Talent 2. Poor Coaching 3. Poor Game Plan 4. Poor Ownership 5. Poor Drafts 6. Poor Front Office 7. Injuries after Injuries 8. On, On, On, On and On I think the front office is the key issue. We have had years of terrible drafts. Notice that everyone is saying how much they like what Nix and Gailey are doing, but when talking about Jauron, there is no mention of Russ Brandon? Was there any talk of Levy's involvement in the draft when we had Polian- absolutely not- Polian was a strong figure and got us good players. If Jauron truly wanted all those smallish linemen, he should have been fired sooner. and it doesn't stop there- Levy's decision to draft Whitner instead of Ngata- Whitner still may be a great player, but he needs something in front of him. The selections of guys like Lynch, Parrish and linemen who can't play. Bad front office, lack of talent and poor drafts all go hand in glove. Injuries happen- that's why you need a good front office to build some depth.
truth on hold Posted July 8, 2010 Posted July 8, 2010 He was simply awful. In a division with Bellichek, Parcells and Ryan, having Jauron was like having a 5'9" white guy in a pickup bball game with Jordan, Kobe and Shaq.
BillsCelticsAngelsBama Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 lol. no i think jauron was an overachiever as a player, much like george wilson is, but didnt have the "it" factor as a coach...i believe he would ignore the ideas of his players and coaches because he fired two offensive coordinators in three years, one on the eve of the season which is indicative to me that he didnt deal well with dissent and opinions of his coaching staff, not trying to speak for him, its my view, my humble opinion, and stated it as such, but thanks for just disagreeing to disagree. I would humbly submit that Thurman wasn't disagreeing to disagree, he was disagreeing because your point was weak, at best. Coach Jauron is not a great coach IMO but your uninformed informed decision is worthy of critique.
todd Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 Seems to me that there was no single problem. DJ was one of them, and not because he was a bad guy. You don't fire your OC and release your LT two weeks before the season. That's just a recipe for disaster. That is all DJ. You also don't mess with personnel the way DJ and Brandon did. You can't have upheaval on the O-Line through an entire offseason and that was what was engineered by the front office, probably with input from DJ. You also don't mishandle the quarterback situation so badly that it not only becomes bad, it becomes dysfunctional. Awful. So it clearly wasn't all DJ's fault, but he was certainly a factor. The fact that Brandon didn't get fired is disconcerting to me. He clearly had a role in this mess. It is good that he is supposedly out of the football decisions, though.
Heitz Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 Interesting quote from Byrd: http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-3...d0-5391d0172a33 “There are a lot of different things in this defense. We’ll be making other teams think more instead of just being here and here and being so mundane,” he said. “We’ll be switching things up a lot pre-snap with moving around. It should be good.” Sounds like the same problems that the O was having last year. It all points to Jauron not being able to control the whole show... I wanted to see the guy succeed (i.e. the Bills win), but I'm sure not sad that he's gone!
Recommended Posts