A Few Thoughts About The Game, in no particular order.....

[34-78-83]

That cannot be it. That would be the most stupid reason ever. You don't play your best OG because he's the only backup C? That's insane.

 

Pretty sure it is ... can't be 100% certain though

Early on in the process ( the line starting to struggle after game 2 or so) this was a factor mentioned by both Marrone and Chris Brown. Then it appeared they wanted to give Richardson some time in there to see if he could develop at least to a serviceable level, and then that failed. Maybe some indecision followed that until the move was finally made. The delay may have been also affected by the fact that Urbick is not Doug's "guy"/

[Kelly the Dog]

 

 

Pretty sure it is ... can't be 100% certain though

Early on in the process ( the line starting to struggle after game 2 or so) this was a factor mentioned by both Marrone and Chris Brown. Then it appeared they wanted to give Richardson some time in there to see if he could develop at least to a serviceable level, and then that failed. Maybe some indecision followed that until the move was finally made. The delay may have been also affected by the fact that Urbick is not Doug's "guy"/

I think that is coach speak or just rationalization for Chris Brown and Marrone. Again, that cannot be the actual reason. No NFL team would do that.

 

That's like in the movie "Two For The Road" where they lost the car keys and William Daniels wouldn't use the spare set because if they lost them, they'd no longer have a spare set.

[34-78-83]

I think that is coach speak or just rationalization for Chris Brown and Marrone. Again, that cannot be the actual reason. No NFL team would do that.

 

That's like in the movie "Two For The Road" where they lost the car keys and William Daniels wouldn't use the spare set because if they lost them, they'd no longer have a spare set.

when there is no #2 option at Center and (at the time) you feel you have another player who may be on equal ground with your only back up option, I can certainly see why ANY team would do it that way. Thus the real issue is that Richardson didnt develop on the fly the way they had hoped. Center can be argued to be the 2nd most crucial position on an offense, with the line calls and adjustments involved and such. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this. JMO

[Kelly the Dog]

Then you put a backup center on the practice squad. And call him up if woods is hurt for more than a partial game. You don't sacrifice half of your season with pitiful OG play knowing full well you have a better OG on the bench just in case your C gets hurt. That is really crazy. Just my opinion, too. But I don't think anyone does that, sits a better player at an important position that is killing your run and pass game just because you worry about your third center.

[34-78-83]

Then you put a backup center on the practice squad. And call him up if woods is hurt for more than a partial game. You don't sacrifice half of your season with pitiful OG play knowing full well you have a better OG on the bench just in case your C gets hurt. That is really crazy. Just my opinion, too. But I don't think anyone does that, sits a better player at an important position that is killing your run and pass game just because you worry about your third center.

I would agree but my point in there (maybe I wasn't clear enough) is that they didn't know at the time that Urbick was better.... And they liked what they were seeing from the new kid in practice and gave him a shot.... thinking he was on the same level as Urbick. Then that didn't pan out.

[Kelly the Dog]

 

I would agree but my point in there (maybe I wasn't clear enough) is that they didn't know at the time that Urbick was better.... And they liked what they were seeing from the new kid in practice and gave him a shot.... thinking he was on the same level as Urbick. Then that didn't pan out.

Got ya. I gave them the benefit of the doubt because obviously we don't see the practices. I heard Morris and Marrone talking about Richardson and saying that they had to completely teach him how to play OG in the pros because the Baylor offense was so different from what they wanted him to do, and that he was progressing nicely (although they said the same thing about Cujo) and you can't totally believe anything they say as far as what they really think about players.

 

I also used to think it was a stretch to believe that Marrone is a stubborn grudge keeper. But now I believe it's very possible. I think he showed it with MWilliams. I think he showed it with Urbik. I think he showed his stubbornness with Tuel. I think he is doing it with Lee Smith.

[A Dog Named Kelso]

 

I never understood your continuous hostile fixation on Spiller. For you he has become a symbol for the ineptitude of this befuddled organization. If you want to get upset at a draft selection you should be more outraged with the Torrell Troup selection in the second round of that draft. He was an undersized nose tackle who had a history of back problems. When he played for us he like he was an undersized nose tackle with a history of back problems. That should irritate you much more than the productive Spiller.

 

 

I think the hostility comes from the fact that really the team was flush with RB talent. That pick could have been used for another position of value. That along with the switch to the 3-4 was a set up for failure(could have used the first round pick on a defensive player suited to the new scheme). Spiller has talent and in a vacuum the pick is a good choice; however, one needs to look at the selection and consider all the factors involved with the decision of that pick.

 

Again, it's about poor strategic planning. Yes, Spiller was drafted by a prior GM and coaching staff with a different strategic vision. But the incoming GM and coaching staff did little to maximize the value of this asset. Either tailor your offense more around what you have in him, or trade him for assets that better fit your scheme and strategy. Instead, Whaley has allowed Marrone to slam Spiller into a lumbering and unathletic group of interior linemen, minimizing his skills and maximizing his exposure to serious wear and tear. Poor strategic deployment of assets that falls on both men's shoulders.

 

I totally agree with this. The problem for this team is the constant changing of schemes and continually finding and releasing personnel to fits new schemes. I understand the need for an overall vision to ones team but one of the reason, I believe, for so much failure of HCs in the NFL is this bring my scheme with me instead of maximizing talent and working schemes already in play when they take over.

 

The Pears experiment has been an abject failure to this point. The Marrone theory of playing your five best players regardless of position, which doesnt seem to be shared by his contemporaries as far as I can see, has just not worked. I can't honestly say he harbors grudges against players but it seems to be possible with his treatment of a few, including Urbik, which clearly has not worked. His insistence on Lee Smith and Gragg instead of an extra WR (it's his offense, not Hackett's) is IMO a complete failure.

 

He does do good things, too, and the story of the season has yet to be written.

I believe this probably is a college idea that works against less talent defenses. But in the Pros this is a silly idea. Again, there current asset is Spiller as a feature back who works better from screens and linemen movement which this line can not do. This is an example of throwing out something that was working well under the previous coaching staff to implement your "vision". A good HC should incorporate what was working from the before and fix what was broken. Then over time can work on incorporating their "vision". Unfortunately, more often, then not they throw out everything and start from scratch.

 

Then you put a backup center on the practice squad. And call him up if woods is hurt for more than a partial game. You don't sacrifice half of your season with pitiful OG play knowing full well you have a better OG on the bench just in case your C gets hurt. That is really crazy. Just my opinion, too. But I don't think anyone does that, sits a better player at an important position that is killing your run and pass game just because you worry about your third center.

Also, the likely hood they get injured in the same game is remote. If Wood goes down you move Urbik in .... if Urbik goes down you then and these other players as a stop gap. They woud need to look for another back up center either way.

[Dibs]

That cannot be it. That would be the most stupid reason ever. You don't play your best OG because he's the only backup C? That's insane.

 

And it is directly opposed to Marrone's stated beliefs that you put your best 5 guys on the field(also said he doesn't believe that line continuity was that important.....or at least not as important as having the best 5 on the field).

 

My guess would be that Urbik simply doesn't look as good as the other OGs(or their potential)......particularly in practice/camp. In essence, perhaps Urbik plays better than he technically looks.

[GunnerBill]

I believe, for so much failure of HCs in the NFL is this bring my scheme with me instead of maximizing talent and working schemes already in play when they take over.

 

And the success of good coaches is not doing this. It is interesting that neither Pettine nor Schwartz arrived in Buffalo and said "my scheme - screw the talent". Pettine arrived with a reputation as a "3-4 guy" and yet we had 4 down linemen on the majority of snaps last year. Schwartz arrived with a reputation as a guy who plays the wide 9 and lots of zone coverage and actually this last game against Cleveland was the first time I've really seen us do a lot of those things consistently in our defensive game plan. They have been there in other games but they have not been the staple of the defense.

 

They are bright coaches they came in, saw the talent the Bills had, and adjusted their schemes to fit. That, for me, is coaching. Saying "this is my concept, these are the core principles of my scheme now how can I acheive success with these given the talent I have available and how can I tailor the scheme to suit my talent."

Edited December 4, 2014 by GunnerBill

[Kelly the Dog]

 

 

And the success of good coaches is not doing this. It is interesting that neither Pettine nor Schwartz arrived in Buffalo and said "my scheme - screw the talent". Pettine arrived with a reputation as a "3-4 guy" and yet we had 4 down linemen on the majority of snaps last year. Schwartz arrived with a reputation as a guy who plays the wide 9 and lots of zone coverage and actually this last game against Cleveland was the first time I've really seen us do a lot of those things consistently in our defensive game plan. They have been there in other games but they have not been the staple of the defense.

 

They are bright coaches they came in, saw the talent the Bills had, and adjusted their schemes to fit. That, for me, is coaching. Saying "this is my concept, these are the core principles of my scheme now how can I acheive success with these given the talent I have available and how can I tailor the scheme to suit my talent."

Good post. And another reason why Marrone and Hackett are not doing so well.

[A Dog Named Kelso]

Good post. And another reason why Marrone and Hackett are not doing so well.

Agreed ... They have not maximized the talent on this team. In fact, the opposite, They hide or removed individuals that have had success to implement "Their scheme". We can argue over Fitz and whether we believe he was good enough or not, but there is no denying he was able to get the ball into the end zone more. We can also argue if Stevie was a number one receiver or not, but he was able to accumulate yards. You can argue whether Urbik is a quality guard or not but he see clearly superior to what was there during the first 8 weeks. With that you can argue wether Gailey's line play was really good or if Fitz made it look good, but regardless it had more success than what is instituted now. And there is certainly talent that has be shown by Mike Williams while in Tampa ... so what has happened there?

 

If you go with the assumption that Gailey's scheme's for Offense and O-Line play were average to above average and that the Defensive was a serious problem why come in and change the average to above average because it does not fit your scheme? Even the a casual fan could see the issue with the team under Gailey was the defense so, why not try and keep all the offensive pieces in place until that was fixed and slowly, after the Freshmen coach has had success implement gradual changes?

 

Obviously some of this is on the GM but in a collaborative environment, which they claim to have, it is on the coach to tell the GM what he needs to do that have success early on.

[truth on hold]

Funny stuff on Watkins. He's definetly not 100 percent.

 

Agree on Spiller, Bryce Brown is trash.

so much for the injury excuse

 

"Watkins also dismissed that he's any more banged up than any other NFL player this time of year.

 

"Later in the year, defenders read your body language, how you come off the ball," Watkins said. "There's some things I got to switch up. That comes with just changing your game up. If you do the same thing for nine or 10 weeks, people can figure out how you do things."

 

http://www.nfl.com/n...ugh-rookie-wall

Edited December 4, 2014 by JTSP