K-9 Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 Ha ha, we agree on that. That is my issue with him. I would be fine not dressing Williams if what he does well isn't what this team does worst. This is a bad example but it would be different if the Bills signed MW because he was a great situational pass rusher. If that were the case I would be okay with Marrone saying "we are better off without him" because the Bills have plenty of guys filling the pass rushing duties. I don't know that our receivers can get any more open as frequently as they already are, with or without Williams. I think Williams would be just one more open guy our QBs have a tendency to miss down there. GO BILLS!!!
Kirby Jackson Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 I don't know that our receivers can get any more open as frequently as they already are, with or without Williams. I think Williams would be just one more open guy our QBs have a tendency to miss down there. GO BILLS!!! Maybe so but he provides a physical presence that the others don't. MW has size. He brings the jump ball into play and can also win a contested back shoulder throw (he was a basketball player). He uses his body positioning better than the others and that is crucial by the goal line.
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 Maybe so but he provides a physical presence that the others don't. MW has size. He brings the jump ball into play and can also win a contested back shoulder throw (he was a basketball player). He uses his body positioning better than the others and that is crucial by the goal line. Yup. And if the pass is going to be inaccurate, he's got a little extra range to compensate. But clearly there's more than one person who isn't happy with MW and doesn't believe he can contribute to the offense.
Kelly the Dog Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 Yup. And if the pass is going to be inaccurate, he's got a little extra range to compensate. But clearly there's more than one person who isn't happy with MW and doesn't believe he can contribute to the offense. Why do you say that? If that one person is Marrone?
FireChan Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 Here's some speculation on MW. -Mike Williams leaked the "Marrone has blank cancer" story -Mike Williams leaked the "go ahead and fire me" story -Mike Williams told Vincent Jackson all of our play calls in the Tampa preseason game In all seriousness, is it possible that MW was one of the more vocal QB mutineers? Combined with the "my agent tried to get me traded behind my back" baloney, maybe Marrone thinks he's a malcontent.
TheFunPolice Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 This is the crux of my issue with the coaching staff. The play calling is what it is but the formations and packages are my major issue. I can't figure out why so many snaps are allocated to Lee Smith, Chris Gragg and Frank Summers? I can't figure out why you would use a spot on a guy to be your 5th best ST cover guy when there is a guy not dressed that has caught 8 TDs in multiple seasons? You are last in red zone offense and are playing Lee Smith in that area. Shockingly, it isn't working. I would think that a team that is last in red zone offense would ask, "what can we do to improve this?" The answer shouldn't involve Lee Smith being on the field. Even if they dress MW and only play him inside the red zone you are better off than with Larry Dean. The fact remains that you are last in RZ offense. I know that you are saying that in jest but the irony is that his ego may be his fatal flaw. That hard line mentality works when you have the resume to fall back on. I am sort of kidding... A friend of mine is a HUGE Syracuse sports fan/alum of the school and he is always telling me stories about St. Doug's time there and how he was known as a taskmaster Basically the only debate Marrone wants to have is whether he's very right or just really right lol I mean the guy calls himself St. Doug... He has an incredible ego I think of him as Parcells without the resume but for some reason I still like him anyway. I think his quiet aggression rubs off on the team.
4merper4mer Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 That's the fundamental nature of the coach/player relationship. Or are you suggesting that the players should all have equal say about how to run a team? As much as I'd like to see that clusterphuck someday, I don't think we ever will and for good reason. GO BILLS!!! This is called circular logic. Coach makes decision, team sucks, team probably would have sucked even more if the coach made the other decision because he is the coach. I don't think anyone is saying players or fans should make the decisions, just that the coach should in this case has been making bad decisions and easily seen ones at that. That is the fundamental nature of the coach/fan relationship. I hope Marrone succeeds. I also hope to wake up and see the sky has turned purplish green with swirls just for one day because I think it would look neat.
Kirby Jackson Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 Here's some speculation on MW. -Mike Williams leaked the "Marrone has blank cancer" story -Mike Williams leaked the "go ahead and fire me" story -Mike Williams told Vincent Jackson all of our play calls in the Tampa preseason game In all seriousness, is it possible that MW was one of the more vocal QB mutineers? Combined with the "my agent tried to get me traded behind my back" baloney, maybe Marrone thinks he's a malcontent. If that were the case he most certainly would have been released (think the Keyshawn Johnson situation in Tampa). If you have a locker room cancer and are not dressing him anyways there would be zero incentive to keep him on your roster. This holds especially true with his contract structure.
Kirby Jackson Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 (edited) It looks like Jay Skurski has been reading our thread: Edited November 12, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 Why do you say that? If that one person is Marrone? I have to believe that if Marrone were unhappy with him, but Hackett really wanted him in the offense, Marrone would acquiesce.
Kelly the Dog Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 I have to believe that if Marrone were unhappy with him, but Hackett really wanted him in the offense, Marrone would acquiesce. Maybe. First of all though, I wouldnt doubt that Hackett lobbied hard for Mike Williams to be active and play. He probably wants all his weapons. Williams was running with the ones and expected to play. Marrone decided at last minute he wanted other guys active at different positions. IMO, that was a huge miscalculation. I believe that Marrone is much more of a factor in the philosophy, game planning, players who play, than we think, and even some playcalling. I think he and Hackett think alike for the most part. Every playcall goes through him and he decides some plays late in games, too, I'm pretty sure.
eball Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 I really don't want to believe Marrone is so arrogant he would let a personal beef get in the way of playing a player who could provide immediate benefit in the most crucial of areas (red zone). It's just not intellectually reconcilable. He has to think the players out there give them a better chance -- it's the only thing that makes any sense. Any why aren't any of these wonderful local reporters asking Marrone that question? If they are, what's his answer?
K-9 Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 (edited) This is called circular logic. Coach makes decision, team sucks, team probably would have sucked even more if the coach made the other decision because he is the coach. I don't think anyone is saying players or fans should make the decisions, just that the coach should in this case has been making bad decisions and easily seen ones at that. That is the fundamental nature of the coach/fan relationship. I hope Marrone succeeds. I also hope to wake up and see the sky has turned purplish green with swirls just for one day because I think it would look neat. Sure you do. And your circular logic argument makes ZERO sense. For better or worse, the buck stops at the coach's desk. Period. You cannot have the inmates running the asylum. That is a lesson in linear logic. Anyone with even a cursory background in team sports should be able to grasp that simple concept. There is NOTHING democratic about the coach/player relationship. And that's as it should be. If the Bills end up sucking the rest of the way, it'll be Marrone losing his job anyway, not Mike Williams. So cheer up. GO BILLS!!! Edited November 12, 2014 by K-9
4merper4mer Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 Sure you do. And your circular logic argument makes ZERO sense. For better or worse, the buck stops at the coach's desk. Period. You cannot have the inmates running the asylum. That is a lesson in linear logic. Anyone with even a cursory background in team sports should be able to grasp that simple concept. There is NOTHING democratic about the coach/player relationship. And that's as it should be. If the Bills end up sucking the rest of the way, it'll be Marrone losing his job anyway, not Mike Williams. So cheer up. GO BILLS!!! I do hope Marrone succeeds because I want the Bills to win I am not arguing about who is in charge. I am pointing out that you seem to think because the coach made the decision it is automatically correct because he is the one who makes decisions. I don't think it is correct.
FireChan Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 I do hope Marrone succeeds because I want the Bills to win I am not arguing about who is in charge. I am pointing out that you seem to think because the coach made the decision it is automatically correct because he is the one who makes decisions. I don't think it is correct. He's not saying it's correct. He's saying the coach believes it's correct, and what the coach says, goes. Period.
K-9 Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 (edited) I do hope Marrone succeeds because I want the Bills to win I am not arguing about who is in charge. I am pointing out that you seem to think because the coach made the decision it is automatically correct because he is the one who makes decisions. I don't think it is correct. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I only maintain that right or wrong, it's the coach that makes the decisions. Period. Not the players, not the fans, the coach. And he will rise and fall on those merits alone. What I object to is snarky bullschit and the obsessive need to denigrate another player simply because the fans' preferred player is the one being scratched. Especially when that player has been playing well and contributing in big ways. GO BILLS!!! Edited November 12, 2014 by K-9
voodoo poonani Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 I just want to go on the record saying the Chiefs loss was NOT on Hackett IMO. Missed open receivers in the end zone -> that's on KO Fumble/Touchback -> great play by Chiefs player, poor handling by BB Fumble by McKelvin -> all McK TD on 4th and 1 -> WTF happened?!
C.Biscuit97 Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 I just want to go on the record saying the Chiefs loss was NOT on Hackett IMO. Missed open receivers in the end zone -> that's on KO Fumble/Touchback -> great play by Chiefs player, poor handling by BB Fumble by McKelvin -> all McK TD on 4th and 1 -> WTF happened?! There are excuses every game. In today's NFL, if you struggle to score 20 points, that's on the OC. I would give him a pass for the KC game if this wasn't the norm for our offense.
first_and_ten Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 I just want to go on the record saying the Chiefs loss was NOT on Hackett IMO. Missed open receivers in the end zone -> that's on KO Fumble/Touchback -> great play by Chiefs player, poor handling by BB Fumble by McKelvin -> all McK TD on 4th and 1 -> WTF happened?! All those things are reasons that contributed to the loss. I have to disagree with your statement about Hackett though. When the Bills ran the ball down the field and had a second and two from the three yard line, why did he decide to start throwing at that time? He now decides to out-think himself against the number one rated pass defense. Why? That series screamed for RUN!!!!..When the Jets had a depleted secondary, he runs and runs some more, but now he decides it's time to pass? I was dumbfounded. Also, why the urgency to throw 4 balls into the endzone on the last series from the fourteen? Perplexing to say the least.
Wayne Cubed Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 There are excuses every game. In today's NFL, if you struggle to score 20 points, that's on the OC. I would give him a pass for the KC game if this wasn't the norm for our offense. C'mon, seriously? If Bryce Brown doesn't fumble the ball and Kyle Orton hits Chandler in the endzone that's 14 points right there and would have put them at 21 points. If Kyle hits Sammy or Hogan at the end of the game that's another 7. Is it fun being absolutely miserable, serious question?
Recommended Posts