Did anyone $&^@ this team more last year than Dave Wannstedt?

[nucci]

It's a common flaw of mine to expect too much rational thinking from posters in this community.

You've been here long enough. You should know better.

[The Big Cat]

That's not a bad point. On the other hand, as GM he could've stepped in early in the process and just told Gailey, "You know what Chan, I've really thought about it and we're not going to go down this road with Dave." If you think about it, if Nix had stuck to his plan to convert to a 3-4, then Wannstedt doesn't get the job, Gailey might have redeemed himself, and Nix saves himself from the public ridicule he is now receiving.

 

 

 

Definitely, PTR. Some posters were guaranteeing that Wanny would have the defense in the top 10, if not the top 5. Looking at how the linebackers had regressed the year before did not resonate a collective skepticism apparently.

Nix's responsibility in the Wannstedt caper is easily summed up as it's already been covered here.

 

On the negative hand, by hiring Gailey and giving him carte blanche to hire his own staff, Nix abdicated his responsibility as GM.

 

On the positive hand, by allowing Gailey carte blanche to hire his own staff, Nix avoided micromanaging and gave Gailey full power to succeed or fail based on his own decisions.

 

Either view has validity IMO.

 

^

[Orton's Arm]

Or to paraphrase one of our esteemed posters, Wanny was playing checkers when the OC was playing chess.

 

 

 

Hate to disagree with you K-9 but I disagree. Wanny is the perfect case study of the coach who makes his players worse and places them in a position to fail, thus destroying any shed of hope, belief, and confidence.

 

The Wanny case study shows that:

 

1) Coaching IS as important as talent.

 

2) The efforts of even the most highly-motivated professional athletes can be undermined by hopelessness.

 

Dom Capers, Wade Phillips, and Buddy Ryan didn't spend exhaustive hours creating complex defenses because they thought that talent wins football games.

 

Last year's defense was bad enough that there's plenty of blame to go around. I remember we set a record for most yards surrendered over a two game stretch. (Or something to that effect.)

 

You are absolutely correct to point out that Wannestedt did less than nothing to put his players in a position to succeed. Just as K-9 is correct to point out that players often failed to make plays they were in a position to make.

[The Big Cat]

Last year's defense was bad enough that there's plenty of blame to go around. I remember we set a record for most yards surrendered over a two game stretch. (Or something to that effect.)

 

You are absolutely correct to point out that Wannestedt did less than nothing to put his players in a position to succeed. Just as K-9 is correct to point out that players often failed to make plays they were in a position to make.

 

The prevailing theory on successful coaching (not the "correct" one, just the one most people agree on) is that you design you system to maximize your players' talents. Wanny did the opposite of that. So...

[Kelly the Dog]

Good and great teams all have one thing in common, the organization assembles a bunch of talent with a few stars, the coaching staff works well, the players mesh well and perform well, and they make their own luck or get lucky. It's almost without fail.

 

Crappy teams have mediocre talent, the coaching stinks, the players are not in a position to succeed and don't play well together, and they have crappy luck.

 

The Bills on defense had a few stars players. Wanny used to be an excellent defensive coach, even when he was a crappy HC. There was reason for optimism. But Wanny was out of the NFL for about six years and in those six years the game changed dramatically. The rules favored the offense, which became much more sophisticated and pass heavy. Wanny was able, before, to devise his defense where if you had better players overall they would win a lot of their match-ups, and it proved successful. He thought he could do it that way but the game had changed too much and it was a complete disaster.

 

Combine that with terrible linebackers considering that Barnett was a little too old and Bradham a little too young. Combine that with terrible CB play as Williams flat sucked and Gilmore was a rookie and getting acclimated (although he played well), Brooks was hurt, Rogers sucked and Leo was was not used much at first.

 

Combine that with Mario hurt early and ineffective for the first month, the Dareus tragedy, Kyle playing hurt and Mark Anderson hurt on the DL.

 

Combine that with a terrible offense and crappy luck and you have the complete disaster that was the 2012 Bills defense.

 

The game passed Wanny by, and he was terrible and did not adjust, AND he got no help.

[The Big Cat]

Good and great teams all have one thing in common, the organization assembles a bunch of talent with a few stars, the coaching staff works well, the players mesh well and perform well, and they make their own luck or get lucky. It's almost without fail.

 

Crappy teams have mediocre talent, the coaching stinks, the players are not in a position to succeed and don't play well together, and they have crappy luck.

 

The Bills on defense had a few stars players. Wanny used to be an excellent defensive coach, even when he was a crappy HC. There was reason for optimism. But Wanny was out of the NFL for about six years and in those six years the game changed dramatically. The rules favored the offense, which became much more sophisticated and pass heavy. Wanny was able, before, to devise his defense where if you had better players overall they would win a lot of their match-ups, and it proved successful. He thought he could do it that way but the game had changed too much and it was a complete disaster.

 

Combine that with terrible linebackers considering that Barnett was a little too old and Bradham a little too young. Combine that with terrible CB play as Williams flat sucked and Gilmore was a rookie and getting acclimated (although he played well), Brooks was hurt, Rogers sucked and Leo was was not used much at first.

 

Combine that with Mario hurt early and ineffective for the first month, the Dareus tragedy, Kyle playing hurt and Mark Anderson hurt on the DL.

 

Combine that with a terrible offense and crappy luck and you have the complete disaster that was the 2012 Bills defense.

 

The game passed Wanny by, and he was terrible and did not adjust, AND he got no help.

 

Otherwise, yes.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

I agree 100% but was it really necessary to put F**K in the title to get your point accross? Let's use a little more class here.

We need more intensity anyways... lighten up a little, please.

[FleaMoulds80]

You could make a strong arguement that Wannstead cost Gailey his job.

 

No. Gailey cost Gailey his job.

[hondo in seattle]

Some of the blame has to go to Nix, just for hiring a grossly unqualified candidate like Gailey. The warning signs were there before last season, with whatever the defensive plan was in 2010 which ended up virtually wasting an entire draft, and a HC that admits to not planning the defense.

 

I can't believe NIx still has his job. He's so embarrassing.

 

This is a fair argument. Nix hired Gailey. Gailey hired Wanny. The leader owns all the accountability. Let's see if Nix redeems himself by hiring Marrone who in turn hired Pettine.

[LabattBlue]

Hmmm...the buck stops at defensive co-ordinator? Who hired him? Who agreed with his strategies and management? Who failed to keep valuable players and failed to draft strong players. As long as Buddy is GM we will continue to go downhill.

Exactly. Blame the guy who is no longer here, and ignore the clown at the top who hired him and is still calling the shots.

[Mr. WEO]

I only read the first sentence. But if you believe Barnett was 'decent' than you're fully on board with eBall's summation that Wanny destroyed his players. If Barnett was a 'decent' player, than how do you explain him being the culprit in 80-90% of big plays surrendered last year?

 

Perhaps I should have said the only decent LB on the D. And no way was he responsible for all of those big plays. Perhaps you don't remember Williams's awful play at CB? How about Mario the Matador (before his miraculous wrist stiffening surgery)? Or Wilson's 2 dropped ints that many here have wailed cost the Bills the SB!

 

Nix's responsibility in the Wannstedt caper is easily summed up as it's already been covered here.

 

On the negative hand, by hiring Gailey and giving him carte blanche to hire his own staff, Nix abdicated his responsibility as GM.

 

On the positive hand, by allowing Gailey carte blanche to hire his own staff, Nix avoided micromanaging and gave Gailey full power to succeed or fail based on his own decisions.

 

Either view has validity IMO.

 

Noticing and then telling your HC that the DC is no good and needs to be replaced (or, was part of the problem and shouldn't be promoted to actual DC) is not "micormanaging". It's his duty. It's what someone is paying him for.

 

I think these hillbilly types are too tight.

 

And yet...show of hands. How many TSW "experts" were excited to have Wanny take over the DC role last spring?

 

How much of the 20-20 hindsight in this thread would posters be willing to share if SDS had an easy-to-look-up archive system on the Wall that would present that kind of "don't look at what I said then, look at what I'm saying now" commentary?

 

It's maddening (or Madden, as well) to read the "this [insert FO person name] is inept" posts time and again when the majority of TSW posters were on board with many of the personnel and coaching decisions at the time they took place (i.e., real time, not after the fact).

 

Have the Bills failed yet again. Yes, undoubtedly. But the "I'm quite when things are going well, but know more than the front office fools when their not" attitude on this, or any MB, gets to be a real drag and adds nothing to the discussion...

 

The vast majority of the posters who now disparage Wanny were gushing when he was promoted. But there were more than a few posters who didn't think this was a good idea at the time---and said so right here on this board. There's nothing wrong with them now pointing out their correct assessment of Wanny---especially as it is very relevant to this discussion regarding Nix's competence (and all of the tortuous attempts to absolve him of serious blame).

[The Big Cat]

Perhaps I should have said the only decent LB on the D. And no way was he responsible for all of those big plays. Perhaps you don't remember Williams's awful play at CB? How about Mario the Matador (before his miraculous wrist stiffening surgery)? Or Wilson's 2 dropped ints that many here have wailed cost the Bills the SB!

 

 

 

Noticing and then telling your HC that the DC is no good and needs to be replaced (or, was part of the problem and shouldn't be promoted to actual DC) is not "micormanaging". It's his duty. It's what someone is paying him for.

 

I think these hillbilly types are too tight.

 

 

 

The vast majority of the posters who now disparage Wanny were gushing when he was promoted. But there were more than a few posters who didn't think this was a good idea at the time---and said so right here on this board. There's nothing wrong with them now pointing out their correct assessment of Wanny---especially as it is very relevant to this discussion regarding Nix's competence (and all of the tortuous attempts to absolve him of serious blame).

 

Um, yes he was. Get a game-rewind subscription. BALL DON'T LIE.

[Orton's Arm]

The prevailing theory on successful coaching (not the "correct" one, just the one most people agree on) is that you design you system to maximize your players' talents. Wanny did the opposite of that. So...

 

Agreed.

 

I remember the days when Wade Philips designed the Bills' defense. We had a few stars, like Ted Washington, Bryce Paup, Antoine Winfield, and an aging Bruce Smith. The other seven guys on defense ranged between mediocre and solid. But that defense as a whole was one of the very best in the NFL. Unlike Jerry Gray's defenses--which looked amazing when facing bad offenses, but crumbled when facing anyone good--this defense looked good no matter who it faced! I loved that defense.

 

The very first major decision TD made was to disassemble that defense by hiring a defensive minded head coach to instill a new scheme. When he was hiring his first head coach, the final four candidates were all from the defensive side of the ball.

 

That late '90s defense was a lot like what Kelly the Dog had described in his post. A lot of middle of the road players, a few stars mixed in, and a defensive scheme brilliantly designed to put players in a position to succeed. The Bills' defense this past season had less talent than those mid '90s defenses had. But as important as that talent difference is, I think the difference in coaching is even more important.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Edwards' Arm

[Mr. WEO]

Um, yes he was. Get a game-rewind subscription. BALL DON'T LIE.

 

I can't argue with made up facts, so...you win.

[K-9]

Or to paraphrase one of our esteemed posters, Wanny was playing checkers when the OC was playing chess.

 

 

 

Hate to disagree with you K-9 but I disagree. Wanny is the perfect case study of the coach who makes his players worse and places them in a position to fail, thus destroying any shed of hope, belief, and confidence.

 

The Wanny case study shows that:

 

1) Coaching IS as important as talent.

 

2) The efforts of even the most highly-motivated professional athletes can be undermined by hopelessness.

 

Dom Capers, Wade Phillips, and Buddy Ryan didn't spend exhaustive hours creating complex defenses because they thought that talent wins football games.

 

I don't think I've ever remotely suggested that coaching isn't as important as talent. Far from it. I take each play on its own merit. And what I saw last year was a defense woefully lacking in talent as evidenced by the sheer amount of times our guys were beaten at the POA, whiffed on opportunities, were late in getting to the play AFTER others had executed their assignments correctly. I'm sorry, but I've been seeing this since Fewell coached one of our worst defenses since the Jauron era. The one commone thread on all those teams is lack of talent.

 

Now I know it's convenient to lay it all on Wanny but I've yet to read ONE single post suggesting what he should have done differently. Nor have I seen one post to convince me that he used people out of position. "But Barnett was made to play the will and Bradham never played strong..." Excuse me, but did it ever occur to anyone WHY Wanny did that? Here's one simple clue: Barnett was our BEST coverage LB last year. By far. That's how bad we were in coverage by LBs in a league that demands good coverage LBs. That's just one example.

 

I can't count the number of times our DLmen did their jobs only to see LBs and safeties either not get there in time or whiff. Do I really need to point out how bad George Wilson was last year? Was his lack of speed and coverage ability up to Wanny to fix? Do I really need to remind people how bad Kyle Moore is against the run? How should Wanny have "schemed" that glaring lack of talent?

 

I agree totally that Capers, Phillips, and Ryan devised defenses to put there players in great positions to succeed. But lets not confuse that with their players NOT constantly winning their one on one battles, either. Our guys WERE in positions to make plays and simply couldn't make them much of the time due to their lack of talent overall. That should have been obvious to anyone who watched the games.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[jumbalaya]

The more I hear out of defensive players as they're around the new staff, the angrier I become at Wannstedt for his unemotional and uninspired tenure as the Bills' DC. Say what you want about Gailey's playcalling and Fitz's inconsistency, but nobody did more to screw the Bills' chance at a good season than Wanny. The Buffalo News article on Bradham this morning is just the latest example of the changed atmosphere and intensity around the team.

 

I hear many of you whining about lack of talent, but coaching DOES matter.

 

There is no reason for optimisim as the current team and scheme have not won a single game. Let's see a defense that can harass Brady all game. Let's see a defense that keeps the team in the game. Let's see a defense that wins two or three games by itself. Then let's get optimistic. Until then, this is just the same group of futile players dressed in little girls outfits that have sucked for over a decade.

[Kelly the Dog]

I don't think I've ever remotely suggested that coaching isn't as important as talent. Far from it. I take each play on its own merit. And what I saw last year was a defense woefully lacking in talent as evidenced by the sheer amount of times our guys were beaten at the POA, whiffed on opportunities, were late in getting to the play AFTER others had executed their assignments correctly. I'm sorry, but I've been seeing this since Fewell coached one of our worst defenses since the Jauron era. The one commone thread on all those teams is lack of talent.

 

Now I know it's convenient to lay it all on Wanny but I've yet to read ONE single post suggesting what he should have done differently. Nor have I seen one post to convince me that he used people out of position. "But Barnett was made to play the will and Bradham never played strong..." Excuse me, but did it ever occur to anyone WHY Wanny did that? Here's one simple clue: Barnett was our BEST coverage LB last year. By far. That's how bad we were in coverage by LBs in a league that demands good coverage LBs. That's just one example.

 

I can't count the number of times our DLmen did their jobs only to see LBs and safeties either not get there in time or whiff. Do I really need to point out how bad George Wilson was last year? Was his lack of speed and coverage ability up to Wanny to fix? Do I really need to remind people how bad Kyle Moore is against the run? How should Wanny have "schemed" that glaring lack of talent?

 

I agree totally that Capers, Phillips, and Ryan devised defenses to put there players in great positions to succeed. But lets not confuse that with their players NOT constantly winning their one on one battles, either. Our guys WERE in positions to make plays and simply couldn't make them much of the time due to their lack of talent overall. That should have been obvious to anyone who watched the games.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Because Wanny based his entire defense on his players being better than their opponents and winning their one on one battles. That's what made his defenses successful in the past, and he publicly said it. But whether it was talent or injury or a combination of both, that is the defense he taught, put on the field, and worse, kept to for a mind-numbing length of time, even when it was obvious they weren't winning (m)any of those battles.

 

I was very optimistic about Wanny before the season. But as stated earlier, the game had passed him by and he didn't adapt at all and it was an immediate and continuous disaster.

[bmur66]

Read my signature. He should have resigned after the SF game

Edited April 18, 2013 by bmur66

[Lurker]

The vast majority of the posters who now disparage Wanny were gushing when he was promoted. But there were more than a few posters who didn't think this was a good idea at the time---and said so right here on this board. There's nothing wrong with them now pointing out their correct assessment of Wanny---especially as it is very relevant to this discussion regarding Nix's competence (and all of the tortuous attempts to absolve him of serious blame).

The problem is determining who that later group is--so you can have a discussion--and who the former were now that many are now saying 'I told you so,' so they can be ignored....

[eball]

Noticing and then telling your HC that the DC is no good and needs to be replaced (or, was part of the problem and shouldn't be promoted to actual DC) is not "micormanaging". It's his duty. It's what someone is paying him for.

Pray tell, how is it you had access to all of the private conversations Buddy and Chan had throughout the course of the season last year? Keep pushing your "Nix is a buffoon" agenda, WEO.

 

 

The vast majority of the posters who now disparage Wanny were gushing when he was promoted. But there were more than a few posters who didn't think this was a good idea at the time---and said so right here on this board. There's nothing wrong with them now pointing out their correct assessment of Wanny---especially as it is very relevant to this discussion regarding Nix's competence (and all of the tortuous attempts to absolve him of serious blame).

And what, precisely, is wrong with that? Is no one permitted to change his mind after witnessing the product on the field? Also, exactly what "tortuous attempts" are being made to absolve Buddy Nix of responsibility for the state of the franchise? You are so arrogant and focused on your own agenda you can't even participate in a simple discussion without blowing it up.