Miyagi-Do Karate Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 Chan and jauron were the same kind of coach. They both could take 2-win talent and coach them up to 7 wins. But if you gave them 10-win talent, they'd still only get 7 wins.
NoSaint Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 Chan's problem was just that, he wanted to win with JAGs. When given the chance of improve on the position he refused. He loved to coach the no name brigade we had on offense and was an utter failure. I rather be conservative with talent than innovative without it. disagree - chan had to dedicate too many resources to a failing defense that swapped schemes every year he was here. i bet he wouldve loved to have more shiny toys to play with, but figured if it was him getting by with warm bodies, or george edwards doing it he would rather put the weight on himself.
Donald Duck Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 disagree - chan had to dedicate too many resources to a failing defense that swapped schemes every year he was here. i bet he wouldve loved to have more shiny toys to play with, but figured if it was him getting by with warm bodies, or george edwards doing it he would rather put the weight on himself. I agree, Gailey knew he could do more with less and the Bills D sucked
Kelly the Dog Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 The thing is Gailey knew how to setup an offense that would maximize his players strengths vs their weakness. I think he realized that if he tried to run the ball all the time he would have been stuffed a lot because of the poor players on that line, and he even had Levitre. Yea, I admit i hated Gailey because he thought Fitz was Tom Brady, and kept calling for 40 passes a game instead of even trying to setup a dominate pound the rock offense. Gailey kept trying to win with smoke & mirrors because all he had in his passing offense when he went with 4-5 WR sets was WR Stevie Johnson. The rest of the WR's were all scrubs and now gone from the roster. He realized the limitations of his O line, and QB, receivers and did the best he could with what he had. I didn't like Gailey the head coach trying to run the entire team and offense at the same time, and I currently think he is one of those guys better suited to just being an OC, running the offense, and calling offensive plays. Gailey wasnt like that. He barely had any control over the defense. He concentrated totally on the offense and let Wanny or Edwards control the entire defense. If anything, you could criticize him for not taking any control of the defense and ordering those guys to do something different when it wasn't working. He had nothing to do with those defenses, which he should have as head coach.
bobobonators Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 I agree, Gailey knew he could do more with less and the Bills D sucked Agreed. The Bills D was epically bad. From 2010 - 2012 the Bills D ranked 28th; 30th; and 26th in pts/game against. Unless you have an elite offense with an elite QB, you're not going to overcome that as a team no matter how creative you are on offense.
FireChan Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 Agreed. The Bills D was epically bad. From 2010 - 2012 the Bills D ranked 28th; 30th; and 26th in pts/game against. Unless you have an elite offense with an elite QB, you're not going to overcome that as a team no matter how creative you are on offense. What did Gailey's wonderous offense rank in giveaways?
Kirby Jackson Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 (edited) What did Gailey's wonderous offense rank in giveaways? The same place that Fitzpatrick always ranks? You really don't believe that Gailey would do a better job with this offense than Hackett? I don't think that Chan was a good head coach but he got a lot of production out of some pretty average players. He would work wonders with this offense IMO. He understood one basic philosophy that Hackett is missing. That is that if you are weak at something you do not throw extra bodies at it to make it less weak. You try to do the opposite to hide it. The Bills are not a good power running team because they are not good up front and the play design is poor. What Hackett does is adds the Lee Smith's and Frank Summers and tried to put more big bodies out there to compensate for that. When that happens the opposition has their base defense out there and 29 times out of 30 those LBs are better players than Summers and Smith. Hackett clogs the field with inferior big bodied players. What Chan used to do was bring in a bunch of receivers (who weren't good either) so that the defense would be forced to counter with defense backs. He would try to run the ball against dime defenses and there was a whole lot more space out there. Use the Bills as the example. Do teams have an easier time running the football with a FB and Brandon Spikes on the field or an extra WR and Robey on the field? Edited November 3, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
FireChan Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 (edited) The same place that Fitzpatrick always ranks? You really don't believe that Gailey would do a better job with this offense than Hackett? I don't think that Chan was a good head coach but he got a lot of production out of some pretty average players. He would work wonders with this offense IMO. He understood one basic philosophy that Hackett is missing. That is that if you are weak at something you do not throw extra bodies at it to make it less weak. You try to do the opposite to hide it. The Bills are not a good power running team because they are not good up front and the play design is poor. What Hackett does is adds the Lee Smith's and Frank Summers and tried to put more big bodies out there to compensate for that. When that happens the opposition has their base defense out there and 29 times out of 30 those LBs are better players than Summers and Smith. Hackett clogs the field with inferior big bodied players. What Chan used to do was bring in a bunch of receivers (who weren't good either) so that the defense would be forced to counter with defense backs. He would try to run the ball against dime defenses and there was a whole lot more space out there. Gailey's offense was designed around Fitzpatrick throwing 40 times a game. That's hiding your weaknesses? Gailey may have been better for this team for the first few weeks. Then he'd get figured out, and we'd lose by 40. Gailey, call that screen play again that has gotten blown up 5 times this game. Sure thing! Edited November 3, 2014 by FireChan
Kirby Jackson Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 (edited) Gailey's offense was designed around Fitzpatrick throwing 40 times a game. That's hiding your weaknesses? His offense was predicated on space. He had lousy skill players but found a way to get them in space. Stevie Johnson had 3 seasons over 1,000 yards, Spiller had by miles his best years, Jones and Nelson had some success and they aren't even in the league. Fitzpatrick threw for like 3,300 yards. If you have Gailey this teams talent the offense would be MUCH more effective. I just checked some numbers in regards to the running game: 2010: 401 carries for 1720 yards 4.29 YPC 2011: 391 carries for 1921 yards 4.91 YPC 2012: 442 carries for 2217 yards 5.02 YPC 2013: 546 carries for 2307 yards 4.23 YPC 2014 (extrapolated): 414 carries for 1582 yards 3.82 YPC Edited November 3, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
hondo in seattle Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 Agreed. The Bills D was epically bad. From 2010 - 2012 the Bills D ranked 28th; 30th; and 26th in pts/game against. Unless you have an elite offense with an elite QB, you're not going to overcome that as a team no matter how creative you are on offense. Gailey was one DC away from being a good coaching with a winning record. Had he a good DC and a good QB, he would have accomplished some fun things with the Bills.
FireChan Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 Gailey was one DC away from being a good coaching with a winning record. Had he a good DC and a good QB, he would have accomplished some fun things with the Bills. Big deal. I'm a good QB and a good DC away from being a good coach too.
Kirby Jackson Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 Big deal. I'm a good QB and a good DC away from being a good coach too. The Bills had more yards in 2011 & 2012 than last year and more than they are projected for this year. They did that with a worse QB and worse WR in a game that was slightly more restrictive to offenses.
FireChan Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 The Bills had more yards in 2011 & 2012 than last year and more than they are projected for this year. They did that with a worse QB and worse WR in a game that was slightly more restrictive to offenses. And what was their W/L?
Kelly the Dog Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 And what was their W/L? You really think the Gailey Bills would be the same if the team had this year's defense instead of the one they had? We easily could have made the playoffs if Gailey had these defenses. Partly his fault, although it's a lot easier to get Pettine or Schwartz when you have Mario and Dareus. Which Gailey had one year.
bobobonators Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 And what was their W/L? This is a circular conversation. If the premise is: Gailey knew how to run an offense more effectively with less talent than Hackett, what does W/L record have to do with it? We're not talking about Offense, ST and Defense, we're talking about offense and offensive play calling and nothing more.
FireChan Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 This is a circular conversation. If the premise is: Gailey knew how to run an offense more effectively with less talent than Hackett, what does W/L record have to do with it? We're not talking about Offense, ST and Defense, we're talking about offense and offensive play calling and nothing more. That's because the premise is idiotic. First of all, Gailey's play calling SUCKED. Does anyone remember averaging 5 YPC and going 5 wide with no RB's on 3rd and 1? Anyone? Anyone remember Spiller being winded? Fred's turn? And now the mystical offense. Gailey hit his lofty ranks in garbage time or against garbage opponents. 400 yards of offense against the Raiders and Chiefs who's combined record was 4-28? Woah! Down 30 to the Jets? No one's offense steps up more to cut the lead to 27 as time expires. But against some good opponents, Gailey's offense shriveled up and died. 49ers game? Seahawks? Was that the defenses fault for not scoring more than 3 points? To argue that Gailey would be good except for all of his faults is like arguing Pears would be good if he was shorter and better at blocking. Useless.
NoSaint Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 That's because the premise is idiotic. First of all, Gailey's play calling SUCKED. Does anyone remember averaging 5 YPC and going 5 wide with no RB's on 3rd and 1? Anyone? Anyone remember Spiller being winded? Fred's turn? And now the mystical offense. Gailey hit his lofty ranks in garbage time or against garbage opponents. 400 yards of offense against the Raiders and Chiefs who's combined record was 4-28? Woah! Down 30 to the Jets? No one's offense steps up more to cut the lead to 27 as time expires. But against some good opponents, Gailey's offense shriveled up and died. 49ers game? Seahawks? Was that the defenses fault for not scoring more than 3 points? To argue that Gailey would be good except for all of his faults is like arguing Pears would be good if he was shorter and better at blocking. Useless. it seems you are arguing just to argue at this point. ive seen you make good points before, but at this crossroads you are digging in the heels and just tossing stuff at the walls. the W/L record argument and now discrediting that he had less talent to work with somehow being discredited by losing to good teams.... you know and see the issues in this rebuttal.
Kirby Jackson Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 That's because the premise is idiotic. First of all, Gailey's play calling SUCKED. Does anyone remember averaging 5 YPC and going 5 wide with no RB's on 3rd and 1? Anyone? Anyone remember Spiller being winded? Fred's turn? And now the mystical offense. Gailey hit his lofty ranks in garbage time or against garbage opponents. 400 yards of offense against the Raiders and Chiefs who's combined record was 4-28? Woah! Down 30 to the Jets? No one's offense steps up more to cut the lead to 27 as time expires. But against some good opponents, Gailey's offense shriveled up and died. 49ers game? Seahawks? Was that the defenses fault for not scoring more than 3 points? To argue that Gailey would be good except for all of his faults is like arguing Pears would be good if he was shorter and better at blocking. Useless. There are really no numbers that support Nate being the superior offensive coordinator. Gailey got more yards, more efficiently with worse players.
FireChan Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 it seems you are arguing just to argue at this point. ive seen you make good points before, but at this crossroads you are digging in the heels and just tossing stuff at the walls. the W/L record argument and now discrediting that he had less talent to work with somehow being discredited by losing to good teams.... you know and see the issues in this rebuttal. The W/L argument was bad. You're right. Still, I'll contend that Chan only looked good on offense in 2011 because he got the cupcake schedule from being last in the division in 2010. Similar to how the Jets went 8-8 from 4-12 the last two years. Similar to Rex, Chan could out coach the Raiders/Jags/Romeo Crennel Chiefs. I don't disagree that Chan had his strengths. But there's a lot of revisionist history on his skills at "calling a game." I remember Chan abandoning the run down 7. He always wanted a shootout. While that may have won us a game or two more this year, it could have very well lost us one or two more. Imagine the Detroit game with Gailey at the helm, one more turnover and we were dead.
Fixxxer Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 disagree - chan had to dedicate too many resources to a failing defense that swapped schemes every year he was here. i bet he wouldve loved to have more shiny toys to play with, but figured if it was him getting by with warm bodies, or george edwards doing it he would rather put the weight on himself. And whose fault was that? It's on him, he was the HC, he's the one responsible to bring in his coordinators. Fact is, like many HCs, he didn't know squat about the other side of the ball so the plan was to draft defense and leave the mastermind to work with what was already there, except for Spiller, of course. Chan was on record saying that he could win with Fitzpatrick, it was his way of saying don't draft a QB, I'll get by with the smart vet.
Recommended Posts