thebandit27 Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Giving Marrone full credit for firing one coach when a second firing, Crossman, is needed. That's erroneous. No, it isn't. Erroneous means wrong, and wrong can only be applied to fact-based statements, not opinions (thanks to their very nature). When you say Marrone isn't willing to make a change to his coaching staff, that's erroneous, given that he already has done so. To say my statement is erroneous based on Crossman needing to be fired is using poor terminology, since Crossman needing to be fired is an opinion. All I was pointing out to you is that your assertion that he won't fire one of his coaches is wrong. That was a token firing. More low hanging fruit. Based on what, exactly?
Beerball Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Ok, I think I've identified the crux of the issue in this thread, which is that too many folks equate "accountability" with "you get one shot and you're gone if you don't get it done". That's not what accountability means. It means taking responsibility for your work, and takin ownership of the results. No part of that means that a coach needs to produce the desired result in one year or else he's out. It means that said coach needs to improve or he'll be out. And for those looking for Marrone to stick to his words about accountability, look no further than Colin Brown, Justin Rodgers, Da'Rick the Infallible, & Ike Hilliard. Obviously Marrone thought those guys were the problem in their respective roles, while he doesn't feel that way about Crossman. Is he right or wrong? I don't know...and neither do you. So, the players need to be accountable, but not the HC. Got it.
Mr. WEO Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) No, it isn't. Erroneous means wrong, and wrong can only be applied to fact-based statements, not opinions (thanks to their very nature). When you say Marrone isn't willing to make a change to his coaching staff, that's erroneous, given that he already has done so. To say my statement is erroneous based on Crossman needing to be fired is using poor terminology, since Crossman needing to be fired is an opinion. All I was pointing out to you is that your assertion that he won't fire one of his coaches is wrong. Based on what, exactly? Firing a position coach is meaningless, especially when his unit's underperformance pales in comaprison to the coordinator position in question here. Seems like many of the posters who defended the firing of Hiiliard mentioned the "bad" receiving roster performance, yet they describe the performance of Hackett as "near miraculous" despite the quality the passers on the roster. How can both be true? It makes no sense to fire a position coach for an underperforming unit that is totally dependent on another unit (QBs), when that unit's coaching is judged to be exemplary, given the circumstances. I think Hiliiard's firing had nothing to do with performance, but it was motivated by a personal disagreement with Marrone (who has said as much with his "different philosophy" mumbo jumbo). Likelwise, his refusal to keep his buddy the ST coach is also not based on performance, but personal reasons So, both major staff decisions by Marrone seem motivated by soemthing other than performance. That's not good decision making for a struggling first time NFL HC. Edited January 7, 2014 by Mr. WEO
Kirby Jackson Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) So, the players need to be accountable, but not the HC. Got it. Ha ha that made me laugh. How many chances should the guy get to be bad in the NFL? I am less concerned that we have a lousy ST coach and more concerned that our HC can't identify the fact that we have a lousy ST coach. Either that or more concerning would be that he is getting a pass because he is Doug's buddy. Can someone give me some positives about the job(s) that Crossman has done? I am looking for a silver lining here but I am having a hard time seeing the positives. It seems like everywhere that he has been they have gotten worse. The good news I guess is there aren't too many spots that we can drop. Edited January 7, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
juno999 Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 No, it isn't. Erroneous means wrong, and wrong can only be applied to fact-based statements, not opinions (thanks to their very nature). When you say Marrone isn't willing to make a change to his coaching staff, that's erroneous, given that he already has done so. To say my statement is erroneous based on Crossman needing to be fired is using poor terminology, since Crossman needing to be fired is an opinion. All I was pointing out to you is that your assertion that he won't fire one of his coaches is wrong. Based on what, exactly? My assertion was "He wouldn't fire Crossman." The Bills finished 30th overall in special teams. Fact. The Bills suck on special teams. My opinion but highly probable a fact as well. Fire Crossman. My opinion but based on this board highly approved. Keep Crossman. Fact but very controversial based on this board. Let me ask you this. What is your justification in keeping Crossman?
DOGNESS Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Bad omen. Hiring the Crossman in the first place was a big mistake based on his prior track record in the NFL. Keeping him after his special teams where again at the bottom of the league is even more mystifying. Apparently performance matters only if you arent a long time buddy of Marrone. This is a major blow to his credibility amongst the players and other coaches if special teams dont make a dramatic improvement next year.
NoSaint Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 bandit, ive got to ask at this point - youve bent over backwards trying to get after fans for being upset hes here, youve basically implied that short of multiple TD games for the opposition that you would never chalk up a loss to special teams -- at what point would you be upset about him being retained? if next year its even worse and they again say "need more players" will you take marrone at his word that crossman is a good special teams coach?
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 I think that it is much more than that. I really hope Marrone works out, not for any altruistic reasons, his failure would mean that the team continued to fail and I've had enough of that. The issue here with many is with one word that Marrone used often. Accountability. Accountability doesn't just fall on the players, it falls on the entire organization. When the season ended Marrone blamed the players for the ST failures. He may be 100% right but putting it on the players surely appears to duck accountability, doesn't it? The team needs core special team players according to the coach. Can you explain what this means? Is the team lacking the speed necessary? The strength? The desire? Something else? I find it very hard to believe that the Bills didn't have the necessary athletes to fill out special teams. If we suppose that they did lack the players then why didn't Marrone demand that HIS roster be filled out with the players necessary for the team to be competitive? So, it all comes down to one of the coach's favorite buzz words. Accountability. (which IMO is lacking here) I hear what you are saying, but I disagree. What people are really bothered by is not accountability, but allocating blame. In marrone's mind, the problem was the players, not the coach. So, I would think that means he will hold the players accountable, by, for example, cutting and replacing some of them. In the fans' eyes, the coach is to blame. By Marrone disagreeing with that, that is a disagreement on the root cause of the problem, not a failure of Marrone to be accountable.
thebandit27 Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 So, the players need to be accountable, but not the HC. Got it. Yeah, that's exactly what I said. I expect better from you Firing a position coach is meaningless, especially when his unit's underperformance pales in comaprison to the coordinator position in question here. Seems like many of the posters who defended the firing of Hiiliard mentioned the "bad" receiving roster performance, yet they describe the performance of Hackett as "near miraculous" despite the quality the passers on the roster. How can both be true? It makes no sense to fire a position coach for an underperforming unit that is totally dependent on another unit (QBs), when that unit's coaching is judged to be exemplary, given the circumstances. I think Hiliiard's firing had nothing to do with performance, but it was motivated by a personal disagreement with Marrone (who has said as much with his "different philosophy" mumbo jumbo). Likelwise, his refusal to keep his buddy the ST coach is also not based on performance, but personal reasons So, both major staff decisions by Marrone seem motivated by soemthing other than performance. That's not good decision making for a struggling first time NFL HC. So you're speculating on Hilliard? My assertion was "He wouldn't fire Crossman." The Bills finished 30th overall in special teams. Fact. The Bills suck on special teams. My opinion but highly probable a fact as well. Fire Crossman. My opinion but based on this board highly approved. Keep Crossman. Fact but very controversial based on this board. Let me ask you this. What is your justification in keeping Crossman? I made absolutely no justification for keeping Crossman; I just said that I understood why Marrone would want to give him another chance. bandit, ive got to ask at this point - youve bent over backwards trying to get after fans for being upset hes here, youve basically implied that short of multiple TD games for the opposition that you would never chalk up a loss to special teams -- at what point would you be upset about him being retained? if next year its even worse and they again say "need more players" will you take marrone at his word that crossman is a good special teams coach? That's a fair question. I would become outraged when ST became the greatest area of deficiency holding this team back. At the moment, it's simply a minor area for improvement given the state of the offense and defense, and it's relative impact on the game. As for your last question, of course not...and I don't expect both of those conditions to be met.
gobillsinytown Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 I think it's helpful to understand that these guys are human beings. It's harder to fire someone you like than it is to fire someone you don't personally know. How many of us in our careers know someone who is bad at their job but still keeps it because they're friends with the boss? It's a common problem in the NFL just as much as it is in the general workforce. The NFL has its fair share of hacks that have their jobs because of friendships with the coach or management, and I don't see the Bills as being any better or any worse than other teams. Losing magnifies these problems. When the Colts were winning with Manning, Bill Polian having his son on staff was thought of as "grooming his successor". When they started losing, it was "nepotism".
4merper4mer Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 I think it's helpful to understand that these guys are human beings. It's harder to fire someone you like than it is to fire someone you don't personally know. How many of us in our careers know someone who is bad at their job but still keeps it because they're friends with the boss? It's a common problem in the NFL just as much as it is in the general workforce. The NFL has its fair share of hacks that have their jobs because of friendships with the coach or management, and I don't see the Bills as being any better or any worse than other teams. Losing magnifies these problems. When the Colts were winning with Manning, Bill Polian having his son on staff was thought of as "grooming his successor". When they started losing, it was "nepotism". This is true but Polian didn't try to build a false bravado based reputation on "accountability" like Greggo Marrone WAS doing. I wonder what false premise #2 will be.
BuffaloBillsForever Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) "Don't confuse effort with results philisophical disagreements" Edited January 7, 2014 by BuffaloBillsForever
Billy in 4C Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Does anyone have stats on special teams effect on win-loss outcome? If we had one of our top 5 special teams units, would that have added another win or two? The defense was clearly better than in years past and the offense was about on par, but the special teams significantly dropped, where our record was about the same. I gotta think this held us back from taking a step up.
BuffaloBillsForever Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) Does anyone have stats on special teams effect on win-loss outcome? If we had one of our top 5 special teams units, would that have added another win or two? The defense was clearly better than in years past and the offense was about on par, but the special teams significantly dropped, where our record was about the same. I gotta think this held us back from taking a step up. When Chicago was putting out their top special teams units with Hester, I'd imagine that number would be higher when you put in context the field position and points scored off of kickoff and punt returns alone. Our special teams units I would gauge severly impacted 2 losses this year. In the context of 16 games thats too many! Other than Dan Carpenter in the field goal phase, special teams did not contribute in any way. Edited January 7, 2014 by BuffaloBillsForever
Rob's House Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 I think it's helpful to understand that these guys are human beings. It's harder to fire someone you like than it is to fire someone you don't personally know. How many of us in our careers know someone who is bad at their job but still keeps it because they're friends with the boss? It's a common problem in the NFL just as much as it is in the general workforce. The NFL has its fair share of hacks that have their jobs because of friendships with the coach or management, and I don't see the Bills as being any better or any worse than other teams. Losing magnifies these problems. When the Colts were winning with Manning, Bill Polian having his son on staff was thought of as "grooming his successor". When they started losing, it was "nepotism". I've thought of this, and honestly if I was in that position it would be really hard to fire a good friend. Of course, it would bother the hell out of me to dash the dreams of so many young players during cuts. Maybe there's a happy medium. Maybe he could create some kind of assistant coach position so he could keep his buddy on Ralph's payroll while allowing someone else to coach ST.
NoSaint Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 That's a fair question. I would become outraged when ST became the greatest area of deficiency holding this team back. At the moment, it's simply a minor area for improvement given the state of the offense and defense, and it's relative impact on the game. As for your last question, of course not...and I don't expect both of those conditions to be met. if im mischaracterizing here, i apologize, but it seems to be that.... i guess i still dont understand the sentiment that because there are problems on bigger units, that this one shouldnt be upsetting too. my personal take is that all 3 should be pushing forward at all times, not 1 by 1. If EJ plays like a probowler and the special teams plays the same it seems strange that only then will you be upset about the unit. in my head, if there are ways to make this a strength, why not give the offense shorter fields, the defense more cushion behind them etc... while they sort out there problems too.
thebandit27 Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 if im mischaracterizing here, i apologize, but it seems to be that.... i guess i still dont understand the sentiment that because there are problems on bigger units, that this one shouldnt be upsetting too. my personal take is that all 3 should be pushing forward at all times, not 1 by 1. If EJ plays like a probowler and the special teams plays the same it seems strange that only then will you be upset about the unit. in my head, if there are ways to make this a strength, why not give the offense shorter fields, the defense more cushion behind them etc... while they sort out there problems too. It's not that I'm not bothered by the ST play. It's that I don't see it as one of the team's biggest problems for all the reasons we've discussed. And I'm flabbergasted that so many people are so distraught over Crossman coming back...I just don't see it as a damning indictment of Marrone the way others do.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 It's not that I'm not bothered by the ST play. It's that I don't see it as one of the team's biggest problems for all the reasons we've discussed. And I'm flabbergasted that so many people are so distraught over Crossman coming back...I just don't see it as a damning indictment of Marrone the way others do. So based on what you have seen, if you were in Marrone's shoes what would you do? Would you give Crossman another season and if so why? If you would fire him I am assuming that it would be based on the performance of the ST unit this past season.
GA BILLS FAN Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) Brandon didn't hire Marrone. He had input, but I (and others here) have it on quite reliable info that the final call on the head coach was made by Nix & Whaley. Blame them if you think the hire was financially motivated (just so you know, it wasn't) Really ? . . . . I'm at a loss. . . . I don't get people who are constantly trying to take Brandon "off the proverbial hook" . . . . the guy sets policy and budget (at a minimum) which determines quality of HC you get as well as how much you can spend on personnel --- if he doesn't do that, what does he do ? --- not financially motivated ?? --- EVERYTHING about Brandon and this FO is financially motivated -- open your eyes --- I'll give you a quick list: (1) Toronto series (2) Renovating a 40-year old concrete stadium instead of building new (3) under spending the cap for past several years (4) HC salaries --- should I continue ? Edited January 7, 2014 by TXBILLSFAN
thebandit27 Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 So based on what you have seen, if you were in Marrone's shoes what would you do? Would you give Crossman another season and if so why? If you would fire him I am assuming that it would be based on the performance of the ST unit this past season. I'm not going to answer this question a third time, so I hope anyone that wants to ask it in the future understands... I'm not sure what I'd do if I were Marrone, as I'm not in the locker room or on the field to make an educated decision. If I'm to go purely on what I've seen, I'd probably part ways with him. That doesn't mean that I don't understand Marrone's position.
Recommended Posts