Why I think Marrone should be fired...

[FireChan]

Not sure I totally get what you're saying. I wish Marrone would bail on Hackett. Not sure I see how you get to that point.

 

My line for Pegula himself actually wanting to fire Marrone is 9 wins. 8 gets muddy. I would be willing to bet Pegula keeps Marone if we are 9-7. Not saying I agree with that, but I think that's most likely. If he gets 9 games he will be on the chopping block the next year and on a short leash. Any and all regression from that point would be held against him, and rightfully so.

 

I think Hackett is dunzo this season regardless. To retain Hackett we probably need 10 wins, a playoff appearance and/or playoff win. He will be rightfully scapegoated this year to give Marrone one more shot. That is if Marrone puts employment over loyalty. If he doesn't, they both get the boot.

 

I don't totally agree with all of this, but just what I think will be the most likely scenario.

 

I am saying that you can make the exact same argument in reverse. You can say Hackett made EJ look bad, or EJ made Hackett look bad.

[C.Biscuit97]

Greg Roman had 1 year experience when they went to Colin Kap as the QB. You should probably take him off the list.

 

Good point. I trust Harbaugh more than Marrone to help out though. But you're correct. My mistake.

 

Unlike Kyle and Mike Shanahan, you know, the guys whose praises you were singing in the OP?

 

Kyle was Mike's puppet. Shanahan was an offensive genius.

[Garranimal]

This move allows everyone to see if the problem was truly EJ or others. If they continue to perform badly you can start looking at other area. However, if they offense really takes off there will be a lot EJ needs to process.

Trade EJ and some picks for Tom Brady. Bill B supposedly liked EJ and I think Tom would be very interested in moving to a team with any talent on it, which this Bills team has. Brady on this team changes everything dramatically. hell, throw in Orton!

[C.Biscuit97]

Evidence for how that makes him a bad coordinator?

 

Does this mean that Rex Ryan is a really bad coach too?

 

I'd say he is more of the exception to the rule. Ryan also has a way deeper NFL background as he worked forever before he got his first DC job.

 

So he is an exception to the daddy boy's coaches but comparing his background to Hackett's is just silly.

[FireChan]

Good point. I trust Harbaugh more than Marrone to help out though. But you're correct. My mistake.

 

 

 

Kyle was Mike's puppet. Shanahan was an offensive genius.

 

An offensive genius who had one good year outside of the Elway era with the second overall pick QB, whose career Shanny proceeded to ruin, then went 3-13, benched QB's at random, and got in pissing contests with his owner until they fired him. You're barking up the wrong tree here.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Trade EJ and some picks for Tom Brady. Bill B supposedly liked EJ and I think Tom would be very interested in moving to a team with any talent on it, which this Bills team has. Brady on this team changes everything dramatically. hell, throw in Orton!

 

He could buy a house in buffalo so he wouldn't need to worry about bad hotels!

 

Wonder what they think they've got in Gorropolo other than an upgrade over Mallett

[Gugny]

Mike Shanahan was only a genius because he took the Denver job that had a great front office. With the O-line they put together and Elway, I think it's pretty clear that the head coach didn't have much, if anything, to do with the success of the team.

 

I find it funny, C.B., that you always like to say how Belichick would have been nothing without Brady ... even though he went to the playoffs without Brady.

 

Yet, you claim a guy like Mike Shanahan is an offensive genius.

 

Let me guess ... Terrell Davis, Mike Anderson and Olandis Gary were all stellar running backs, too, right?

[Orton's Arm]

I just see this as Kelly Holcomb all over again. And I think EJ has more potential than JP. Mularkey got fired and then the Bills actually got a decent season out of JP.

 

EJ certainly has a lot of blame to shoulder. But a lot of this offense has regressed since Gailey left. The oline. Stevie Johnson looks like the guy he was under Gailey and not what he was last year in SF. Spiller was one of he best weapons in the NFL under Chan.

 

Why is it not crazy to think that maybe coaching is holding this team back?

 

> I just see this as Kelly Holcomb all over again. And I think EJ has more potential than JP.

 

The parallels are there. Losman got benched after the first four games of his second season. Just like Manuel. Both Losman and Manuel have great physical tools. Strong arms, quick feet. Neither had established himself as a pocket passer in college. Neither QB has great accuracy. But Losman is less inaccurate than Manuel. Neither could process on-field information quickly or well. (But it's possible Losman was a little less horrendous than Manuel in that regard as well.)

 

They squeezed one good year out of Losman by focusing on what he did well (long bombs to Lee Evans) while de-emphasizing the things he wasn't good at (just about everything else). It also helped that they simplified the offense. I'm not sure how they're supposed to do that with Manuel. If you were to start listing the things he does well, that list would consist of . . . ? Also, it's not like they can realistically simplify the offense much more than they already have.

 

But even if you could somehow squeeze that one good year out of Manuel, so what? In no way, shape, or form is Manuel the long-term answer. If you're looking for a short-term stopgap, Kyle Orton gives us that already.

[dave mcbride]

I'd say he is more of the exception to the rule. Ryan also has a way deeper NFL background as he worked forever before he got his first DC job.

 

So he is an exception to the daddy boy's coaches but comparing his background to Hackett's is just silly.

 

I can't think of a more misused phrase than "the exception that proves the rule." If there is an exception, there is no rule. The phrase only makes sense when applied to rules like this one: "No parking Monday thru Saturday." The missing day proves that there is an exception (Sunday) to the rule (no parking), which has a built-in limitation.

 

The point is that you're saying there is a rule that has an exception, which means that the rule doesn't exist. At all.

Edited September 30, 2014 by dave mcbride

[C.Biscuit97]

 

 

I can't think of a more misused phrase than "the exception that proves the rule." If there is an exception, there is no rule. The phrase only makes sense when applied to rules like this one: "No parking Monday thru Saturday." The missing day proves that there is an exception (Sunday) to the rule (no parking), which has a built-in limitation.

 

The point is that you're saying there is a rule that has an exception, which means that the rule doesn't exist. At all.

 

Fair. But there's no comparison to their NFL backgrounds. None.

[dave mcbride]

Fair. But there's no comparison to their NFL backgrounds. None.

 

I could go on, and in fact I will. Wade Phillips is a damn good coach, albeit not a perfect one. Jim Mora Jr. is at the the top of the heap of college coaches right now; he's built UCLA into a powerhouse. He's gone 23-8 there, and they were 10-16 the two years before he arrived. He also got the NFC championship game in his first season with the Falcons.

Edited September 30, 2014 by dave mcbride

[Orton's Arm]

I can't think of a more misused phrase than "the exception that proves the rule." If there is an exception, there is no rule. The phrase only makes sense when applied to rules like this one: "No parking Monday thru Saturday." The missing day proves that there is an exception (Sunday) to the rule (no parking), which has a built-in limitation.

 

The point is that you're saying there is a rule that has an exception, which means that the rule doesn't exist. At all.

 

That phrase is based on an archaic meaning of the word "proves." The word "prove" once meant "to test" or "to challenge the strength of." If people started talking about "the exception that tests or challenges the rule," it would make considerably more sense.

[Mango]

 

 

I am saying that you can make the exact same argument in reverse. You can say Hackett made EJ look bad, or EJ made Hackett look bad.

 

I'm what some around here would call an EJ apologist, and think he gets too much of the blame, but deserves blame none the less. However he has his deficiencies and think he is indeed a project that needs patience. I am not thrilled with the benching. 14 games isn't enough. Pat Kirwan eluded to something similar.

 

That doesn't put them blame squarely on either. They make eachother look worse. However one (Hackett) is more or less in a relatively high level management position so I am less willing to look past his deficiencies.

 

I still don't understand your line of thinking. I think it is far to simplistic for a very intricate and complicated game. Just because one sucks doesn't mean the other is good.

[dave mcbride]

That phrase is based on an archaic meaning of the word "proves." The word "prove" once meant "to test" or "to challenge the strength of." If people started talking about "the exception that tests or challenges the rule," it would make considerably more sense.

Excellent point, but you know as well as I do that no one uses in that sense! In any event, if there are exceptions to a rule, then logically there is no rule.

Edited September 30, 2014 by dave mcbride

[GG]

No one yet has answered the question of why the Bills ran a grown up offense when Tuel & Lewis were starters.

[dave mcbride]

No one yet has answered the question of why the Bills ran a grown up offense when Tuel & Lewis were starters.

 

They're the exceptions that prove the rule.

[Gugny]

No one yet has answered the question of why the Bills ran a grown up offense when Tuel & Lewis were starters.

My theory is that they had a built in excuse for failure. At best, it would work and they would win games. At worst, the QBs would fail and it would be because they suck and that they're backups.

 

Wins = great gameplan and gutsy moves by coaching staff

Losses = not the coaches' fault that the QBs sucked; after all, they're just backups.

 

It's not as easy to just let it fly when your rookie starter is in there.

[C.Biscuit97]

Benching does not necessarily equal "bailing".

 

C Biscuit97, I am have behind EJ all the way, but I still think this is actually a very wise move on Marrones' part. I know it has been referred to elsewhere, but the "body language" of the the skill players on that offense last Sunday was screaming frustration, with the QB. Sure, it is Marrone's job to develop the QB (or to make sure it is being done), but he also has responsibility to the other guys on that roster, and not to be too corny, but to Bills fans, to not write off a season, 4 games in, because one guy is seemingly holding them back.

 

I also don't buy into the whole narritive, as the national media seems to be writing it, that the Bills are necessarily "writing off" EJ Manuel. They have a tough match-up next week against the Lions, and EJ did nothing the last two weeks to suggest that he would be able to play well, with the kind of pass rush that the Lions bring. Who knows if Orton will fare much better? But they have to try something...

 

Buftex, you're one of my favorite posters and are always rational. I hope this is the case. I hope that Manuel sits back and will shine the next opportunity he gets. Personally, I think you learn best when on the field. I feel this is a desperate move for Marrone.

 

I think we should have EJ a proven NFL OC (Hackett was our QB coach last year too!). I love this team but it doesn't know how to develop young QBs. The anti-Bills move would have been to stay with EJ through his ups and downs. But it is what it is. Thanks to the good responses in this thread. It helped me vent and I feel a lot better now. I would love for this to be the thread we can laugh at when we make the playoffs. But I've seen how this story ends too often.

[FireChan]

I'm what some around here would call an EJ apologist, and think he gets too much of the blame, but deserves blame none the less. However he has his deficiencies and think he is indeed a project that needs patience. I am not thrilled with the benching. 14 games isn't enough. Pat Kirwan eluded to something similar.

 

That doesn't put them blame squarely on either. They make eachother look worse. However one (Hackett) is more or less in a relatively high level management position so I am less willing to look past his deficiencies.

 

I still don't understand your line of thinking. I think it is far to simplistic for a very intricate and complicated game. Just because one sucks doesn't mean the other is good.

 

I think its also far too simplistic to think if one sucks, that means they all suck.

[All_Pro_Bills]

Not sure I totally get what you're saying. I wish Marrone would bail on Hackett. Not sure I see how you get to that point.

 

My line for Pegula himself actually wanting to fire Marrone is 9 wins. 8 gets muddy. I would be willing to bet Pegula keeps Marone if we are 9-7. Not saying I agree with that, but I think that's most likely. If he gets 9 games he will be on the chopping block the next year and on a short leash. Any and all regression from that point would be held against him, and rightfully so.

 

I think Hackett is dunzo this season regardless. To retain Hackett we probably need 10 wins, a playoff appearance and/or playoff win. He will be rightfully scapegoated this year to give Marrone one more shot. That is if Marrone puts employment over loyalty. If he doesn't, they both get the boot.

 

I don't totally agree with all of this, but just what I think will be the most likely scenario.

I'd be extremely surprised if Pegula comes in with some results based metrics to determine whether or not to retain the current coaching staff. I'd expect it to be based more of whether or not the program is headed in the right direction or not. Is there improvement and can we expect it to continue given another year of the same system with the same management and coaching staff?

 

From a business perspective I think Marrone did more to prove his worth by making the decision to let Manuel sit and go with Orton now rather than later. Instead of being whishy-washy and waiting until the decision made itself later, at a time when it would be irrelevant to the outcome of the season, he made the decision now with 12 games left while there is a good chance to win enough to qualify for the post-season.

 

Orton's performance will also give us some benchmarks to evaluate EJ. You remove one component from a system that is not functioning properly. If the system then performs correctly with that one component replaced you can assume that part was the cause of the faulty system operation. If Orton struggles then we're left with the quandry of trying to figure out if the new QB is as bad, if the OC is the problem, or if its the fault of the other players in the offense.

 

My expectation is that after a couple games its going to be obvious to even the most casual observer that the offense is much more productive in terms of yardage and points and Marrone's decision is going to be proven right. And I won't be left to watch the Bills for the remainder of the season thinking the only way we win is if the other QB plays worse than ours!

Edited September 30, 2014 by All_Pro_Bills