Buffalo Bills Pursuing Continuity With Buddy Nix, Chan Gailey

[Cash]

Another soothsayer I see. What does your crystal ball say the winning number in the powerball is going to be tommorow. Please, PM me the numbers so I can win! I see you can so arrogantly see the future by saying that Chan will NEVER coach a team to the playoffs. What I'm saying, is that another year in the same system vs trying to blow it all up will not be any better. In fact it will set us back.

 

I hear a lot of people try and retort me with the whole "lather, rinse, and repeat" argument. Well, I'll opine that it is the ADD generation that is doing that with the 3 year and out attitude. Will we learn from our mistakes or continue to pick up the pitchforks and doom ourselves to repeat recent history?

 

 

 

Soothsayers are abound here I see

 

So would you say that the 49ers should have kept Dennis Erickson, Mike Nolan, or Mike Singletary on board in the name of continuity?

 

http://en.wikipedia....9310:_Struggles

 

Mariucci was fired despite making the playoffs, Dennis Erickson was brought in, then fired after 2 years and a 9-23 record. Mike Nolan was brought in to rebuild, went 16-32 in 3 seasons. He was retained for a 4th, and fired once the team started off 2-5. Mike Singletary was hired as HC after going 5-4 as the interim HC. Singletary was under fire, but retained, after a full season of 8-8, but fired after going 6-9 the following season. Then Jim Harbaugh was hired, and the 49ers are 23-6-1 since.

 

The 49ers were totally on the "blow it up every 2-3 years" cycle that you claim we're in, yet they got out of it by firing their coach. Do you honestly think that if they'd retained Erickson or Nolan or Singletary, they'd still be this good now? Or better yet, that firing Erickson and Nolan set them back, and they might've become a dominant team a couple years earlier? I really want to know. I'm not saying I'm definitely right, but I'm confident that Chan Gailey isn't a good enough head coach to lead this team to success without elite talent across the board, and I'd rather get rid of him now than later. I felt similarly about Dick Jauron after the 2008 season. He was retained for the sake of continuity, and the team only got worse. My guess is that if Gailey is brought back (and I agree that there's a good chance of it), the team will start off with a bad record and he'll be fired midseason, a la Jauron or Nolan.

 

Unfortunately I can't find the link, but I recently read a good analysis (I think by Tim Graham, but not sure) of coaches whose first 3 seasons were all losing records. (EDIT: Here's the link, and it was Mark Gaughan who did it.)

 

Only about 12 head coaches (EDIT: 11 in the last 25 years) have been brought back for a 4th season, and of them, only Belichick had a winning season (EDIT: playoff berth) in year 4, going 11-5 with the Browns. I just don't see anything in Gailey's record with the Bills that suggests that he can do significantly better than what he's already done.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Cash

[HamSandwhich]

So would you say that the 49ers should have kept Mike Singletary on board in the name of continuity?

 

http://en.wikipedia....9310:_Struggles

 

Mariucci was fired despite making the playoffs, Dennis Erickson was brought in, then fired after 2 years and a 9-23 record. Mike Nolan was brought in to rebuild, went 16-32 in 3 seasons. He was retained for a 4th, and fired once the team started off 2-5. Mike Singletary was hired as HC after going 5-4 as the interim HC. Singletary was under fire, but retained, after a full season of 8-8, but fired after going 6-9 the following season. Then Jim Harbaugh was hired, and the 49ers are 23-6-1 since.

 

The 49ers were totally on the "blow it up every 2-3 years" cycle that you claim we're in, yet they got out of it by firing their coach. Do you honestly think that if they'd retained Erickson or Nolan or Singletary, they'd still be this good now? Or better yet, that firing Erickson and Nolan set them back, and they might've become a dominant team a couple years earlier? I really want to know. I'm not saying I'm definitely right, but I'm confident that Chan Gailey isn't a good enough head coach to lead this team to success without elite talent across the board, and I'd rather get rid of him now than later. I felt similarly about Dick Jauron after the 2008 season. He was retained for the sake of continuity, and the team only got worse. My guess is that if Gailey is brought back (and I agree that there's a good chance of it), the team will start off with a bad record and he'll be fired midseason, a la Jauron or Nolan.

 

Unfortunately I can't find the link, but I recently read a good analysis (I think by Tim Graham, but not sure) of coaches whose first 3 seasons were all losing records. Only about 12 had been brought back for a 4th season, and of them, only Belichick had a winning season in year 4 (11-5 with the Browns). I just don't see anything in Gailey's record with the Bills that suggests that he can do significantly better than what he's already done.

 

Did you read any of my posts?

 

The biggest problem with what you just said is nobody knew if Harbaugh would be this good. It's hit or miss, plenty of college coaches have tried and failed. What's you point with this?

[HalftimeAdjustment]

For those preaching continuity. How many consecutive losing seasons should a coaching staff be given before a change. Is 5 losing seasons a reason to prefer change? How about 8? Or should GMs and coaches be appointed for life? I am curious as to when, if ever, you think a change would be the better option.

[Keukasmallies]

If the "top" people remain in place, it appears to me that the message to the players is that mediocrity is the new standard. Clean house, get new people, charge them with specific objectives; if they don't deliver on their objectives, get a new set of people in their places. Lead by actions: The only acceptable outcome is winning.

 

Of course, that presumes that winning IS the objective at OBD....

[HamSandwhich]

For those preaching continuity. How many consecutive losing seasons should a coaching staff be given before a change. Is 5 losing seasons a reason to prefer change? How about 8? Or should GMs and coaches be appointed for life? I am curious as to when, if ever, you think a change would be the better option.

 

I said more than 3, at least one more year. Lets stop this incessant switching of coaches every three years. Its obvious, it hasnt worked.

[Cash]

Did you read any of my posts?

 

Yes, although several of them were posted while I was looking for the link in question. Forgive me if I missed it, but I didn't see anything answering the question, "Would the 49ers have been better off keeping one of the coaches they fired from 2003-2010 instead of firing them?"

[HamSandwhich]

If the "top" people remain in place, it appears to me that the message to the players is that mediocrity is the new standard. Clean house, get new people, charge them with specific objectives; if they don't deliver on their objectives, get a new set of people in their places. Lead by actions: The only acceptable outcome is winning.

 

Of course, that presumes that winning IS the objective at OBD....

 

We've done that in the past, MM and Jauron, 3 years and out, didn't work.

 

Yes, although several of them were posted while I was looking for the link in question. Forgive me if I missed it, but I didn't see anything answering the question, "Would the 49ers have been better off keeping one of the coaches they fired from 2003-2010 instead of firing them?"

 

The biggest problem with what you just said is nobody knew if Harbaugh would be this good. It's hit or miss, plenty of college coaches have tried and failed. What's you point with this? You can't live your life with hindsight. Or are you captain hindisight?

[Cash]

Did you read any of my posts?

 

The biggest problem with what you just said is nobody knew if Harbaugh would be this good. It's hit or miss, plenty of college coaches have tried and failed. What's you point with this?

 

My point is that I'm curious as to what you think in response to my question: "Would the 49ers have been better off keeping one of the coaches they fired from 2003-2010 instead of firing them?"

 

There's no way to prove a right or wrong answer, but I'm curious what you think. Or if you think the wording is unfair, how about, "Would the 49ers have righted the ship (winning records, playoff appearances, etc.) by keeping one of the coaches they fired from 2003-2012 instead of firing them?"

 

If you're willing to answer that question, I have a follow-up: "Would the Bills have made the playoffs by now if Gregg Williams, Mike Mularkey, or Dick Jauron had been retained as head coach?" Again, no way to prove a right or wrong answer, just curious as to your honest opinion.

[mjt328]

OK... Mr. Nix.

 

Is our problem REALLY that we start over every 3 years?

Or is our problem that we hired Gregg Williams, replaced him with Mike Mularky, replaced him with Dick Jauron and replaced him with Chan Gailey?

[Fixxxer]

If we draft a QB (or two) I'm on board. I want to see Gailey with a more talented player at QB. He will be forced to use Spiller and the running game to aid the young player. Play action and heavy dose of Chandler and Stevie.

 

No more Fitz, please.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Fixxxer

[HOUSE]

Got to be honest here.....

 

Any GM- head coach combination that can not see the weaknesses in the lineup need to go NOW.

 

Geeeez,everyone on the board knew handing Fitz the job was a mistake. We all knew we needed a 2nd WR and even my grandmother hates the LBers on this team.

 

What will it take to wake these guys up, a brick to the face???

 

You failed to move forward, the team is now worse....get out of town.....please!!!

Edited December 18, 2012 by HOUSE

[BillnutinHouston]

 

 

So would you say that the 49ers should have kept Dennis Erickson, Mike Nolan, or Mike Singletary on board in the name of continuity?

 

http://en.wikipedia....9310:_Struggles

 

Mariucci was fired despite making the playoffs, Dennis Erickson was brought in, then fired after 2 years and a 9-23 record. Mike Nolan was brought in to rebuild, went 16-32 in 3 seasons. He was retained for a 4th, and fired once the team started off 2-5. Mike Singletary was hired as HC after going 5-4 as the interim HC. Singletary was under fire, but retained, after a full season of 8-8, but fired after going 6-9 the following season. Then Jim Harbaugh was hired, and the 49ers are 23-6-1 since.

 

The 49ers were totally on the "blow it up every 2-3 years" cycle that you claim we're in, yet they got out of it by firing their coach. Do you honestly think that if they'd retained Erickson or Nolan or Singletary, they'd still be this good now? Or better yet, that firing Erickson and Nolan set them back, and they might've become a dominant team a couple years earlier? I really want to know. I'm not saying I'm definitely right, but I'm confident that Chan Gailey isn't a good enough head coach to lead this team to success without elite talent across the board, and I'd rather get rid of him now than later. I felt similarly about Dick Jauron after the 2008 season. He was retained for the sake of continuity, and the team only got worse. My guess is that if Gailey is brought back (and I agree that there's a good chance of it), the team will start off with a bad record and he'll be fired midseason, a la Jauron or Nolan.

 

Unfortunately I can't find the link, but I recently read a good analysis (I think by Tim Graham, but not sure) of coaches whose first 3 seasons were all losing records. Only about 12 had been brought back for a 4th season, and of them, only Belichick had a winning season in year 4 (11-5 with the Browns). I just don't see anything in Gailey's record with the Bills that suggests that he can do significantly better than what he's already done.

 

The 49er analogy is an apt one - possibly good enough to get me off the fence I've been sitting on. BUT...

 

What we really can't know is, just how desireable (or undesirable) is the Bills HC job? Is it the disaster the conventional wisdom here believes, or is it as desirable as Buddy Nix made it sound when he hired Gailey - he said he fielded 20 or so phone calls a day about the job.

 

Clearly the front office knows exactly what the real state of play is. If the Bills GM (whoever he is) knows the Bills can't attract a better coach, then continuity is what you must sell rather than hire a guy you don't believe in. Maybe this is why they brought in Whaley before he becomes GM, so he knows what the real deal is before HE has to go out and hire a coach on his own.

 

Honestly, the fans aren't privy to enough information to know what the best decision is at this point.

[BuffaloBillsMagic1]

If this team had shown growth and development over the past 3 seasons with these clowns I would agree but come on guys, we haven't even reached dick jaron 7-9 levels yet.....

[Cash]

One additional point: Nix defended Gailey/continuity by using Marvin Lewis as his example of a guy who struggled for a while, then got a QB and WR (while failing to note that the Bills passed on both of those players in that draft). For the record, Lewis went 8-8, 8-8, and 11-5 in his first 3 years on the job, taking over a team that went 2-14 the year before and 12-36 over the previous 3 years.

 

In comparison, Gailey took over a 6-10 team that had gone 20-28 over the previous 3 years, and has gone 15-31 so far in his first three years.

 

In closing, I do not think the Marvin Lewis comparison is legitimate. While Lewis' record can be a good argument for continuity in general, I don't think his record is applicable to Gailey's, and that's the question at stake: Not "is continuity good," but "is Chan Gailey continuity good?" I say no, and other than Belichick's tenure with the Browns, I haven't seen any evidence that more Gailey might lead us to the playoffs.

[3rdand12]

Ham sandwich, I like you.

Zuckertown you are a just a drag, nothing hopeful or positive fom you have i seen.

 

But it takes all of us to have these discussions.

But NOT ONE of them affect what will occur in the future.

So you can ride it or B word about it, or heck a bit of both i suppose.

 

My take on this is that The Bills have been so far in the Hole every time we hit refresh and wait 3 years the team is still struggling. And Bills have been doing exactly that for over a decade.

Doing something different is letting the current regime have another go at it.

That pains me to say though after i watched the team give up on each other in Toronto.

It wasnt give up on Chan per se.

The defense fell apart because of disciplines. Trying to make plays and not trusting the guy next to you.

A lot of progress tossed off in one game.

Frustration will do bad things. Fitz has lost the team, not Chan. And wtf is Chan supposed to do. Beg for Cousins mid year ?

He knows ( now ) Fitz is NOT the guy. and he almost single handedly ruined the season. more than once.

 

Try again next year.

we need deep threats and a guy who can reach them, we need firm disciplne and fast play on defense.

Draft a qb or two and or trade for one who has NFL exp.

I know we are between a rock and hard place but the last 12 years is repeating the same ineffective method.

I say Tweak it and keep some continuity.

I mean heck guys , can we really be much worse ? oops maybe i shouldn't have asked that

[Nitro]

I foresse Nix moving into a vice presidency/advisory role, Whaley to GM, Chan to move to a fishing boat down south and a new HC brought in. Draft a new QB and tall WR. Give the fans and region hope. IF they retain Chan, retain Fitz and do not draft a QB they are just greasing the skids to make the move out of Buffalo smoother and with less anger. The good riddance attitude will prevail until the fans sober up and Buffalo will NEVER get an NFL franchise.

[Justice]

Buddy Nix almost has to fire Gailey. If not, then he's basically telling everyone that the talent, or lack thereof, here in Buffalo is the main reason why we aren't winning yet. He would be throwing himself under the bus, instead of Chan.

 

But it does look like these two are joint at the hip. Either both of them go or none of them go. You can already see the writing on the wall, they plan to make Fitzpatrick the fall guy. I guarantee it. If Chan & Buddy are around next season it will be with a new QB or two.

[Cash]

I foresse Nix moving into a vice presidency/advisory role, Whaley to GM, Chan to move to a fishing boat down south and a new HC brought in. Draft a new QB and tall WR. Give the fans and region hope. IF they retain Chan, retain Fitz and do not draft a QB they are just greasing the skids to make the move out of Buffalo smoother and with less anger. The good riddance attitude will prevail until the fans sober up and Buffalo will NEVER get an NFL franchise.

 

My concern is that Fitz is made the fall guy, and Chan is brought back and allowed to draft "his guy" at QB in the first round. Because I expect that "his guy" would be cut out of the Blaine Gabbert/Christian Ponder/Jake Locker mold, and the team would fail miserably. But that sets up Gailey to be the fall guy in 2013, and whatever new coach is hired will stick with Blaikian Plockert for another year or two and continue to fail miserably. That sets up Nix to be the fall guy, and at that point, it's a "blow it up" situation. I feel like there's some merit in continuity, but more on the GM level, and with the understanding that we need an upgrade at QB. I really think there's enough talent on this team right now to make the playoffs, and that's *with* Fitz at QB. Improve the coaching and QB, draft well and re-sign our free agents, and we could really build something.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Really I am so split on this idea. On one hand I want Gaily gone so badly but Nix does make sense. I just think continuity should take place if there was hope of improvement. I think this current regime peaked at the end of the 2009 and beginning of 2010 seasons. I guess at least the organization is trying something new?

http://www.buffaloru...han-gailey-2013

 

How does continuity differ from consistency? (and no, it's not Pan)

 

I'd like to buy two and send them to Ralph and Nix for Christmas.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Hopeful

[Alphadawg7]

Here is my issue...YES continuity is critical...I can agree with that. However, continuity with a staff not capable of being the right guys for the job also fits with the old saying of the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same things and expect different results. That last part much better describes this staffs on field and off field performance.

 

Examples: We are 5-0 when we feature the run game or have a 50/50 split run to pass ratio. And in the two games we ran a lot more than passed we won big (and we amassed that lead from running the ball, not just running to run the clock out). We are 0-9 when we pass more than run, and in most those losses the games were close and there was no reason to abandon a run game, especially considering how well we were running in those games.

 

So Chan, despite the fact we play much better as a team when we run more than pass, keeps saying he wants to run more but then in most games insists on falling back to the inept Fitz and throwing more than running. What does that tell you about our coach? Simple...he refuses to adapt to the strengths of his team and would rather force something that doesn't work. That is not the kind of continuity you need from your HC. You need someone who can identify the strengths of our game and use them to dictate the way we want to play, not the other way around.

 

My other issue is this guy has no bravado, no machismo, no balls, no fire, no heart...and with coincidence, neither does this team. Instead, he comes out and says "the effort was there" and crap like that. This team needs someone who is going to get fired up, inspire, intimidate, motivate, and dominate out on that field. He coaches like a pansy, and quite frankly his game management and clock management is a joke.

 

Why build continuity around that? I would understand if we just did not have enough talent on the field and we needed more time to allot for that, but there is enough talent on this team to win more games than we do. And quite frankly, several losses were on his shoulders because of decisions he's made.

 

Time for a change...but it wont happen unfortunately.