FireChan Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 (edited) There are really no numbers that support Nate being the superior offensive coordinator. Gailey got more yards, more efficiently with worse players. I found some numbers. Has Nate Hackett ever called a game where the Bills finished with less than 10 points? Yes. Once, the TB game. Has Chan Gailey? Yes. 3 times in 2010. Twice in 2011. Twice in 2012. 7 times in 3 years we didn't score more than twice in game. Edited November 3, 2014 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 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. At the same time the Bills had 22 carries for 49 yards in that game. Gailey would have altered things in the running game to be more effective. Orton takes care of the football WAY better than Fitz ever did (or still does). I don't blame Gailey for turnovers nearly as much as Fitz. He has been the same turnover machine with and without Chan. He consistently has the costliest of turnovers as well. I just believe (and always did) that Chan was a really good OC. Unfortunately he had some fatal flaws as a HC (ie entrusting the defense to incompetent coordinators). If he would have had Schwartz or Pettine (and this talent) the team would be better off than they are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 I found some numbers. Has Nate Hackett ever called a game where the Bills finished with less than 10 points? Yes. Once, the TB game. Has Chan Gailey? Yes. 3 times in 2010. Twice in 2011. Twice in 2012. 7 times in 3 years we didn't score more than twice in game. Hackett's team has averaged .7 more points per game with FAR superior offensive talent and the benefit of a great defense with a large turnover differential. Gailey's teams put up points despite field position and the turnover battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 (edited) Hackett's team has averaged .7 more points per game with FAR superior offensive talent and the benefit of a great defense with a large turnover differential. Gailey's teams put up points despite field position and the turnover battle. What? Do you not remember the Bills averaging 4 takeaways a game in 2011 that directly coinciding with Gailey's very high outlier PPG stats? The averages don't tell the whole story. Edited November 3, 2014 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 What? Do you not remember the Bills averaging 4 takeaways a game in 2011 that directly coinciding with Gailey's very high outlier PPG stats? The averages don't tell the whole story. Gailey's teams are a -31 (thanks Fitz) and Hackett a plus 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 (edited) Gailey's teams are a -31 (thanks Fitz) and Hackett a plus 10. What were they in Gailey's wins? Do you think that there is a trade off with less turnovers, and less offensive production in yards? Edited November 3, 2014 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 (edited) What were they in Gailey's wins? Do you think that there is a trade off with less turnovers, and less offensive production in yards? I will give you that on the yards but the flip side of the argument would be why are they less than a point a game better with that field position and those skill players? Yards per play is probably the best measuring stick. If you think about the goal of each play is to gain as many yards as possible. Edited November 3, 2014 by Kirby Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 The Hackett defenders are right. Despite every player on offense regressing, he's doing a good job. We just need to get the right players to fit his "system." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 I will give you that on the yards but the flip side of the argument would be why are they less than a point a game better with that field position and those skill players? Yards per play is probably the best measuring stick. If you think about the goal of each play is to gain as many yards as possible. Our YPP has increased .4 from 2013 to 2014. That's with 4 games of EJ. Gailey's best YPP was 5.7 in 2011. So far, we have 5.2 in 2014 I expect it to be higher at seasons end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Our YPP has increased .4 from 2013 to 2014. That's with 4 games of EJ. Gailey's best YPP was 5.7 in 2011. So far, we have 5.2 in 2014 I expect it to be higher at seasons end. Thanks!! I didn't have a chance to go back through it. I expect it to continue to climb with KO at QB and Watkins being used regularly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 (edited) Our YPP has increased .4 from 2013 to 2014. That's with 4 games of EJ. Gailey's best YPP was 5.7 in 2011. So far, we have 5.2 in 2014 I expect it to be higher at seasons end. the spot where it gets tricky is comparing across different talent levels on the field. id think tie on paper goes to gailey on this. and sorry for calling you out earlier but these last few stats youve thrown up have been much more interesting! Edited November 3, 2014 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 the spot where it gets tricky is comparing across different talent levels on the field. id think tie on paper goes to gailey on this. and sorry for calling you out earlier but these last few stats youve thrown up have been much more interesting! No problem. I understand where you're coming from in regards to talent, but you can look at it another way. Gailey had a long-time vet QB running his system. We had the rookie EJ Manuel. Does that really favor Hackett? Gailey had a younger and more spry Jackson, as well as a relative unknown in CJ Spiller. We have an older Jackson, and a CJ Spiller that everyone and their mothers knows how to defend against. Does that really favor Hackett? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 No problem. I understand where you're coming from in regards to talent, but you can look at it another way. Gailey had a long-time vet QB running his system. We had the rookie EJ Manuel. Does that really favor Hackett? Gailey had a younger and more spry Jackson, as well as a relative unknown in CJ Spiller. We have an older Jackson, and a CJ Spiller that everyone and their mothers knows how to defend against. Does that really favor Hackett? its easy to paint it either way - but my personal opinion is i would take todays group if i had to pick one for my own team. we will see how the year plays out though. im not so far in the corner that id never embrace NH - just not buying him yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Our YPP has increased .4 from 2013 to 2014. That's with 4 games of EJ. Gailey's best YPP was 5.7 in 2011. So far, we have 5.2 in 2014 I expect it to be higher at seasons end. Where are you getting your stats from? We averaged 12 more yards (with 10 starts with EJ!) last year than this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Where are you getting your stats from? We averaged 12 more yards (with 10 starts with EJ!) last year than this year. Yards per play? PFR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixxxer Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Gailey's offense was soft, that worked on timing and finesse, that it would crumble going against strong defenses. The Jets games were an embarrassment to witness. The Jets, Niners and Texans toyed with us when we played them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 (edited) Gailey's offense was soft, that worked on timing and finesse, that it would crumble going against strong defenses. The Jets games were an embarrassment to witness. The Jets, Niners and Texans toyed with us when we played them. it was also that it was masking a QB with a weak arm, no WR talent, and middle of the pack blocking talent ---- so that might have something to do with good teams beating us. Edited November 3, 2014 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Gailey's offense was soft, that worked on timing and finesse, that it would crumble going against strong defenses. The Jets games were an embarrassment to witness. The Jets, Niners and Texans toyed with us when we played them. True. At the same time, that was probably the best offense we ever had against NE. IF we had this defense now, we would have beat the PAts multiple times under Gailey. it was also that it was masking a QB with a week arm, no WR talent, and middle of the pack blocking talent ---- so that might have something to do with good teams beating us. Haha. Very true too. Gailey settled for "talent." I would have loved to see him with this group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixxxer Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 it was also that it was masking a QB with a week arm, no WR talent, and middle of the pack blocking talent ---- so that might have something to do with good teams beating us. Having no talent never helps, but Gailey thought he could make it work without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Having no talent never helps, but Gailey thought he could make it work without it. like i said - i dont think he sat in a room and decided "you know what, im so good that we should just put some bums out there and show off what i can do" as much as "structurally we are looking at a team that will have short comings on the field - id rather they are on my side of the ball than the other" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts