thewildrabbit Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 obviously. you need to hire good players, coaches, analysts, scouts and more.... when you get those all operating at a high level together you get dynasties. simply having warm bodies doesnt mean success and no ones arguing that this hire means instantly vaulting into contention All I'm saying is that one great hire at the head coach position completely turned around this franchise in the past. That one hire changed the coaching staff, the scouting dept, and the team made the playoffs in three short years. At this point it really is to early to tell if Marrone is going to become a great NFL head coach, and he does deserve his three years to prove he can turn things around. Although, judging from the past, and some really very good college head coaches that failed at the NFL level, it does make me think Marrone has very little chance to make it.
Jauronimo Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 All I'm saying is that one great hire at the head coach position completely turned around this franchise in the past. That one hire changed the coaching staff, the scouting dept, and the team made the playoffs in three short years. At this point it really is to early to tell if Marrone is going to become a great NFL head coach, and he does deserve his three years to prove he can turn things around. Although, judging from the past, and some really very good college head coaches that failed at the NFL level, it does make me think Marrone has very little chance to make it. That is not all you were saying. Even if it were all you were saying, the point still stands that Lombardi, Cowher, Gibbs, Belichek, or Jesus Christ himself is not a substitute for analytics. Analytics are a supplement for any coaching staff. An aid to help craft a better game plan and make better decisions. Your criticism of analytics in football is completely invalid.
NoSaint Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) All I'm saying is that one great hire at the head coach position completely turned around this franchise in the past. That one hire changed the coaching staff, the scouting dept, and the team made the playoffs in three short years. At this point it really is to early to tell if Marrone is going to become a great NFL head coach, and he does deserve his three years to prove he can turn things around. Although, judging from the past, and some really very good college head coaches that failed at the NFL level, it does make me think Marrone has very little chance to make it. The great hire needs to be Russ Brandon here - and he needs to pick a great coach and GM and they need to pick great scouts and coordinators who need to identify great players and put them in positions to win. This hire simply helps point towards us going the right direction and having a guy at the top that wants to give the guys in the chain every resource to succeed. Still need to show success but it's a promising sign that they get the process, now we need to see execution. Edited November 1, 2013 by NoSaint
thewildrabbit Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Granted that it comes down to Marrone and what he makes of the info, but who are you arguing against by saying that? I think everyone would agree that all the best info in the world is useless if you don't apply it intelligently. You seem to be approaching this as if the organization has hired this guy to overrule Marrone and start making in-game decisions for him based on computer models. Contrary to popular opinion I already stated I get why they hired this new guy, and that every NFL team most likely already has a dept in place. The Buffalo Bills didn't have one, so they are in the process of building one. I just happen to think the money would be better spent at this time on an actual NFL football consultant to help these rookie coaches to make smarter decisions. Like going into the season with a rookie QB, and a back up QB that had no NFL experience. Also, like going into the season with a LG as bad as Colin Brown and backup G who also has already been cut. Gailey made almost the same ludicrous decisions with the QB & O line his first year and it was inexcusable IMO given his previous NFL experience.
Jauronimo Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Contrary to popular opinion I already stated I get why they hired this new guy, and that every NFL team most likely already has a dept in place. The Buffalo Bills didn't have one, so they are in the process of building one. I just happen to think the money would be better spent at this time on an actual NFL football consultant to help these rookie coaches to make smarter decisions. Like going into the season with a rookie QB, and a back up QB that had no NFL experience. Also, like going into the season with a LG as bad as Colin Brown and backup G who also has already been cut. Gailey made almost the same ludicrous decisions with the QB & O line his first year and it was inexcusable IMO given his previous NFL experience. What would this football consultant do? Would he watch film and gather data on tendencies and then share this information with the coach to improve game planning and play calling? The position you described which deals with roster concerns is what we call a General Manager. GM if you're into the whole brevity thing.
MRW Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Contrary to popular opinion I already stated I get why they hired this new guy, and that every NFL team most likely already has a dept in place. The Buffalo Bills didn't have one, so they are in the process of building one. I just happen to think the money would be better spent at this time on an actual NFL football consultant to help these rookie coaches to make smarter decisions. Like going into the season with a rookie QB, and a back up QB that had no NFL experience. Also, like going into the season with a LG as bad as Colin Brown and backup G who also has already been cut. Gailey made almost the same ludicrous decisions with the QB & O line his first year and it was inexcusable IMO given his previous NFL experience. But that is completely, 100%, totally irrelevant when talking about this hire. It's not a lack of money that is keeping them from bringing in a consultant.
thewildrabbit Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 What would this football consultant do? Would he watch film and gather data on tendencies and then share this information with the coach to improve game planning and play calling? The position you described which deals with roster concerns is what we call a General Manager. GM if you're into the whole brevity thing. I do believe Buddy Nix is still in that capacity as GM consultant. I'm thinking more of a OC-QB consultant like former Colts OC Tom Moore, which I mentioned earlier in this thread. Someone to help those young QB's read NFL defenses in regards to the heavy blitzes they have recently faced and have shown they are pretty much clueless on how to read them. Help those young QB's to set protections, make their blitz reads, hot reads and progressions. Clearly both Marrone & Hackett need some help in determining how to effectively run an NFL offense in several areas. OTOH, DC Mike Pettine seems to have his side of the team under control. But that is completely, 100%, totally irrelevant when talking about this hire. It's not a lack of money that is keeping them from bringing in a consultant. then what is it?
MRW Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) then what is it? Maybe they don't think the benefits outweigh the cost of undercutting Marrone's authority when he is trying to establish himself as HC. Or maybe they don't think that the coaches are doing a bad job under the circumstances and don't see a reason to bring in an outsider. Do you really think that it's because they want to save on the relatively small salary for a consultant? Edited November 1, 2013 by MRW
thewildrabbit Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Maybe they don't think the benefits outweigh the cost of undercutting Marrone's authority when he is trying to establish himself as HC. Or maybe they don't think that the coaches are doing a bad job under the circumstances and don't see a reason to bring in an outsider. Do you really think that it's because they want to save on the relatively small salary for a consultant? NFN, but this team cut LG Chad Rinehart over Colin Brown, and made the decision to not sign an NFL experienced back up QB. Marrone & Hackett both need some help whether they like it or not. I dunno that a top consultant would work for a relatively small salary.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 It's already linked in post 160 of this thread. Very insightful and interesting discussion. Good stuff. Thanks for linking, CB.
Jauronimo Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 NFN, but this team cut LG Chad Rinehart over Colin Brown, and made the decision to not sign an NFL experienced back up QB. Marrone & Hackett both need some help whether they like it or not. I dunno that a top consultant would work for a relatively small salary. Rinehart left in free agency. Whaley/Nix signed veteran Kolb and he would have either started or backed up Manuel. He hit the IR late in training camp. You need to brush up on the facts.
Saint Doug Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) I'm all for analytics helping guide Marrone's decisions. Doctor's use guidelines based on evidence (evidence based medicine) too, so why shouldn't coaches. Sure, people's health isn't football, but the same concepts apply. Doing something because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's right. And people's "gut reactions" tend to not be the best. Remember, even the greatest of coaches couldn't win a Super Bowl for another team. There's more to it than instinct. In fact, I'm shocked analytics have caught on more for the draft. After all these years there must be enough data points to construct a mathematical model for draftee success. But, the fact that's he's from Buffalo means they probably couldn't recruit anyone better. Edited November 1, 2013 by kas23
San Jose Bills Fan Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 What part of "It's another layer of information" are some people here having a hard time understanding?
NoSaint Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 What part of "It's another layer of information" are some people here having a hard time understanding? And here I was assuming people would be too excited for this and assuming it would totally change our fortunes.... Full of surprises
MRW Posted November 2, 2013 Posted November 2, 2013 Marrone & Hackett both need some help whether they like it or not. I dunno that a top consultant would work for a relatively small salary. But again, it doesn't seem like team management agrees with that. If it were a salary thing, I think we'd be hearing about them meeting with guys and nothing coming of it.
Rico Posted November 2, 2013 Posted November 2, 2013 I see no problem with this hiring provided the HC uses it to supplement & reinforce what he already knows. I have no use though for a HC who doesn't have the instincts to make proper decisions on his own in the first place. As an additional tool, OK, providing he's smart enough to take it all with a grain of salt. But as for in here, there are many Bills fans in this thread and on this board who spend an inordinate amount of time researching stats as opposed to actually watching the games. They love to post an often-times inane take that makes no sense & 'support" it by twisting some numbers. Then a fellow nitwit thanks them for posting the "facts". The statement "Stats are for losers" is meant for these people. Just because the Bills have hired a director of analytics doesn't change a thing, they are still losers.
Dibs Posted November 2, 2013 Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) I see no problem with this hiring provided the HC uses it to supplement & reinforce what he already knows. I have no use though for a HC who doesn't have the instincts to make proper decisions on his own in the first place. As an additional tool, OK, providing he's smart enough to take it all with a grain of salt. ..... Though I agree with the sentiment here, I think that you have generalized the point. If a study definitively shows that a preconceived aspect that the HC has is incorrect, I would hope that said HC would have the intelligence and wisdom to change their view on that particular aspect. Edited November 2, 2013 by Dibs
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted November 2, 2013 Posted November 2, 2013 And every 'analytic person' knows and understands that, there's various other game situations to consider (team you're playing, your talent, quality play to use, if your talent can run that quality play, etc...). There's this disconnect that the public thinks we're like computers. You took that one the wrong way. There were posts a few pages back where people were saying they want a coach who doesn't use what we refer to as 'gut calls,' and that got me thinking is all. I'm only suggesting we don't go overboard, far from insulting statisticians.
thewildrabbit Posted November 2, 2013 Posted November 2, 2013 Rinehart left in free agency. Whaley/Nix signed veteran Kolb and he would have either started or backed up Manuel. He hit the IR late in training camp. You need to brush up on the facts. How do those facts change the facts this team still went into the regular season with not only a rookie at QB, but an un drafted free agent rookie QB as his only backup. Was EJ's psyche so fragile they didn't want or need an experienced backup? How smart was it to not keep Tarvaris Jackson on the roster? Because I don't get it, as EJ was already hurt in the 2nd pre season game, and was iffy for the start of the season. First time ever in the history of the NFL i can recall hearing that an NFL team went into the regular season with no experienced back up QB, and a rookie QB starting. Someone, somewhere at OBD should have been panicking over this thinking. Or change the fact this team went into the regular season with a LG who was graded as the worst player in the NFL after five weeks, and his backup was even worse. So now both are gone and the Bills have Doug Legursky at LG which is a big upgrade from either of those two. A backup guard right off the waiver wire. Still, Legursky came from one of the worst O lines in the game last season and he graded as the worst of that bunch. Not very confidence inspiring to anyone in my opinion. For a HC / OC / GM simply not knowing the degree of competence for the players on that line previous to the season starting is unnerving to me. Particularly when entering the season with two rookie QB's on the roster, and of primary importance would be protecting those rookie QB's. While I'm not entirely blaming this coaching staff / GM for these missteps because they are also rookies at their respective jobs. EJ played 4 1/2 games, and sacked 13 times,3 INT's. Thad Lewis 3 games also sacked 13 times, 2 INT's. Jeff Tuel played 1 1/2 QTRs and was sacked 2 times, 1 INT. With a better O line this team could easily be 5-3 as they have been in every game this year. There are smart NFL people out there that could possibly help this team win more games this season. This team could use an offensive mentor with proven NFL knowledge in building teams and winning games over an analytic dept IMHO. Any analytic dept the team builds will probably stay even if this coaching staff doesn't.
Recommended Posts