box0life Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Sorry, I was referring to Wade Phillips. I make that mistake all the time.
Ever Since '86 Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 If you look up the word scapegoat in the dictionary George Edwards' face would be staring back at you. This guy has been demonized more than Satan himself around here. It's amazing to consider that the same people who rip the Bills for switching to the 3-4 without the proper personnel yet want Edwards canned. Not to mention the fact that he is a first year DC and might, gasp, get better with a year under his belt. Also this is not the same defense as Fewell's, he ran a Cover 2, Edwards runs a 3-4. Totally different. Was he good? No. Are you being overly dramatic? Yes. And who did Wade Wilson coach? well said....entirely too soon to pass judgments on a first year DC in the first year of installing the 3-4 D with the wrong person-ell
Buckeye Eric Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) Changing the coaching staff every year could also be his undoing. The issue was not with the coaching, but talent and execution. Edited January 6, 2011 by Buckeye Eric
Bzee Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) If Gailey keeps Edwards as his defensive coordinator, it will be his undoing. I hate the fact that Bills coaches don't make the necessary moves to improve the coaching staff. Edwards is over his head and has never had great results as a defensive coordinator. There are several bonafide experienced defensive coordinators that he could replace Edwards with, but he doesn't have the balls to do it. This reminds me a lot of when Wade Wilson would not fire his incompetent special teams coach which was Wade's undoing with the Bills several years ago. I see the same thing happening here. The Bills basically have the same defense they had last year and with Edwards and they got significantly worse this year. I really miss Perry Fewell who is now up for a potential head coaching job. I hate our coaching staff period. Chan is in over his head as a head coach, Chan + Edwards= 4-12 and more of the same next year! Edited January 6, 2011 by Bzee
San-O Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 If you look up the word scapegoat in the dictionary George Edwards' face would be staring back at you. This guy has been demonized more than Satan himself around here. It's amazing to consider that the same people who rip the Bills for switching to the 3-4 without the proper personnel yet want Edwards canned. Not to mention the fact that he is a first year DC and might, gasp, get better with a year under his belt. Also this is not the same defense as Fewell's, he ran a Cover 2, Edwards runs a 3-4. Totally different. Was he good? No. Are you being overly dramatic? Yes. And who did Wade Wilson coach? I understand some the excuses, and explanations, personnel etc., however how do you explain giving up 169.6 rushing yards/game? Worst in the NFL, by quite a lot. You're tellimg me an NFL O.C. with NFL players can't stop the run even when they know it's comimg? And they didn't run the 3-4 front exclusively.
Offside Number 76 Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 If he is right I will find a youtube of Susan Boyle singing and place it in this thread. Sorry, I was referring to Wade Phillips. I make that mistake all the time. I got these two mixed up. Can't imagine why.
jjmac Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 I think it's too early to call Edwards a failure yet. Our roster these former 1sts: Whitner, McCargo, Maybin, McKelvin. Think about it.
billsintaiwan Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 I disagree. It was absolutely the wrong pick by Gailey to bring in Edwards. This is how the Bills work. They bring in mediocre coach after coach. When they inevitably tank in a year or 2, some call for their heads, the rest say "just give them more time, better players.....etc.". Then after 3 years, they too are claiming the coach sucks and needs to go. When Ralph finally admitting resigning DJ, he justified it by saying that coaching was not the Bills problem--it was the lack of quality players. Now his mantra is being spoken by his disciples here. Lather, rinse, repeat. you might be right. history doesn't inevitably repeat itself though. i get you, if i had to bet money i'd probably bet on your scenario coming to fruition. but there is not, as yet, enough evidence to make a definitive decision.
fmr60 Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Why? Because Edwards was Chan's pick for the DC position and he is not going to give up on him after one year (no matter how crappy the D was this year). If you give up on him after one year, what does that say to the new guy if his new scheme doesn't work next year? Also, your players are forever in a state of learning a new scheme and will never fully grasp it if they are changing DC's year in and year out. Are there better options out there? Without a doubt, however those other options will have a high cost and Wilson will not pay a DC as much or more than he is paying his head coach. We're stuck with Edwards for at least one more year, if there is no improvement next year (not sure how there can't be), then I would expect a change. I believe you've got it right.
Bflojohn Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 This is a premature assessment of the man as the defensive coordinator. What happens if the Bills DO concentrate heavily on the "D" side of the ledger in the 2011 Draft. Let's say we get Marcell Darius, then in round two, Drake Nevis and follow that up with Mason Foster in round three (all quite possible!). With better personnel, then one can venture a guess on the success or fail of this coach, NOT UNTIL!! The run defense and pass rush could improve enough for a solid turnaround to take place, so let's wait and see on this question until half way through the 2011 season, shall we??
artmalibu Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Wait and see. The fat lady hasn't sung yet. I thought the Bills D was the same, but careful study of the roster plus response to several posts I made showed me that actually is not true. Who did they loose thats any good other than Aaron who is no longer the football?
dave mcbride Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Interesting perspectives from anonymous NFL scouts/personnel guys on PFW's "audibles": http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/01/02/insider-newsome-got-steal-in-cb-wilson • "Why is it that defensive coaches can pick good offensive coordinators, but good offensive coordinators don't always pick good defensive coordinators? I don't think they understand matchups as well. Every situation is different. If I'm looking for a head coach, I'd be more interested in a coach with a defensive track." • "The problem with teams moving to the 3-4 (defense) is that you often need a transition year. You could play some of it some of the time, but it's hard to overhaul your roster overnight. The players on your roster are what they are. You can't turn over your roster in one draft. You need some flexibility. I don't think (former Browns GM Phil) Savage understood that when he hired Romeo (Crennel). I don't think the Bills understood it this year. I don't think the Redskins were ready for it. I've seen it more at the college level, too. Everyone is trying to mimic (Nick) Saban and more teams have moved to the 3-4, but they just don't have the bodies to pull it off. It's hard to find 325-330-pounders who can move."
Beerball Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 No, it's not odd at all. They had been (poorly) drafting and signing 4-3 players for years, but the 3-4 requires different types of manimals. Then why make the switch? Is there a bigger fan of the 3-4 than Bill Parcels? Do all y'all know that the first season Parcels was in Dallas his team ran a 4-3? Why? They didn't have the personnel to run a 3-4. Year 2 after a second offseason they transitioned to the 3-4 game by game until it became their 'preferred' defense. The Bills decision set this team back at least one season, possibly more. It was a decision that is either stupid at best or arrogant at worst. Stupid if they didn't realize how daunting a task it would be. Arrogant if they knew the magnitude of the switch and said...screw it...let's switch now, then draft a RB in the first and 3-4 personnel for most of the remaining picks. So what if we ignore the O-line. So what if we don't really need a RB. We're making these moves now because we think we'll be really good in 3-4 years. We understand that prior to that we'll suck, but we'll still sell tickets. Apologies...I'm getting preachy...but if I and many others understood the lack of talent on this team why didn't the professionals?
dave mcbride Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Then why make the switch? Is there a bigger fan of the 3-4 than Bill Parcels? Do all y'all know that the first season Parcels was in Dallas his team ran a 4-3? Why? They didn't have the personnel to run a 3-4. Year 2 after a second offseason they transitioned to the 3-4 game by game until it became their 'preferred' defense. The Bills decision set this team back at least one season, possibly more. It was a decision that is either stupid at best or arrogant at worst. Stupid if they didn't realize how daunting a task it would be. Arrogant if they knew the magnitude of the switch and said...screw it...let's switch now, then draft a RB in the first and 3-4 personnel for most of the remaining picks. So what if we ignore the O-line. So what if we don't really need a RB. We're making these moves now because we think we'll be really good in 3-4 years. We understand that prior to that we'll suck, but we'll still sell tickets. Apologies...I'm getting preachy...but if I and many others understood the lack of talent on this team why didn't the professionals? If they're committed to running the 3-4, they need a bigger talent than Troup manning the nose. That probably means spending their first rounder on a stud NT (not sure who) or trading out of the 34 spot into the late first because those guys usually don't last long (a la Parcells' planet theory). They can't in good conscience field this front seven next year. It was probably the worst in the NFL.
USABuffaloFan Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 If we don't have good coordinators/coaches how will we know when the Bills have a legitimate NFL team? This is a chicken/egg question I think. Shouldn't you hire good coaches/coordinators to get the most out of your roster while at the same time building up that roster? See, beer can help people think better! Great comment, wish I had said it. Edwards isn't good enough, this defense digressed under his watch. We add talent, yes we get better, but we still won't maximize the potential. If Levy had made a change at DC instead of keeping Walt Corey I believe, with the right coordinator, we would have won a Superbowl. We never had a top defense with that team and all its talent and Pro-bowlers.
Beerball Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 If they're committed to running the 3-4, they need a bigger talent than Troup manning the nose. That probably means spending their first rounder on a stud NT (not sure who) or trading out of the 34 spot into the late first because those guys usually don't last long (a la Parcells' planet theory). They can't in good conscience field this front seven next year. It was probably the worst in the NFL. I can't argue any of that. If they don't significantly upgrade the talent on the line and LBs we'll have another lost season.
The Big Cat Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 I agree with the OP. Edwards' failure to capitalize on the never-ending talent we had on defense throughout the year was downright disgraceful. Dolt.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 The real undoing will be not committing to one defensive front. The guys it takes to run a 34 vs a 43 are totally different, you cant have 350Lb line man and 260Lb linebackers in a 43, It wont work it can't work. Chan should have just stuck with the 43 as we had the players for that and really only needed to upgrade one DT and LB. Now (if they really want to be multiple front) we need upgrade the whole front 7 but Kyle. I wish Cower would have come here because Chan would still be coaching the Offense and we would have a commitment to the 34 and get the right guys in here. I hope Nix has enough sense to get the right personnel as Chan puts it so we aren't waffling back and fourth, a house divided can't stand.
Mr. WEO Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 If they're committed to running the 3-4, they need a bigger talent than Troup manning the nose. That probably means spending their first rounder on a stud NT (not sure who) or trading out of the 34 spot into the late first because those guys usually don't last long (a la Parcells' planet theory). They can't in good conscience field this front seven next year. It was probably the worst in the NFL. So they draft Troup in the second round to be the 3-4 NT and now we need to draft a new 3-4 NT, maybe as our first pick? Insanity.
Ramius Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 If they're committed to running the 3-4, they need a bigger talent than Troup manning the nose. That probably means spending their first rounder on a stud NT (not sure who) or trading out of the 34 spot into the late first because those guys usually don't last long (a la Parcells' planet theory). They can't in good conscience field this front seven next year. It was probably the worst in the NFL. Troup is plenty big enough to run the nose. He's what, 320 or so? You don't need a 350 lb pile of goo just to clog the middle in order to be good. A guy Troup's size with good technique who can anchor is what you need. If you can find a 350 lber with talent, you take him, but to think a 3-4 can't be successful without one is nuts. A handful of teams run the 3-4 without a monster in the middle and have been successful. Ratliff is a great 3-4 NT in Dallas and he goes about 310. Not to mention the fact that if you're just chasing fat guys, you're going to have to pull them off the field during nickel and dime situations, which is probably over 60% of the snaps. I'll take a guy like Troup who has the potential to still be on the field as a 4-3 DT when those packages are run. The notion that you need players to be X size so they can play Y position in a specific defense is ridiculous. Get players that can play, and don't concern yourself on whether or not they are the cookie cutter size/shape to play a position.
Recommended Posts