BillnutinHouston Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 If Whaley survives the off-season and stays as GM I think he fires Marrone. I tend to agree.
Gugny Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 That isn't really an argument is it? The Bills very gradual climb to having a solid roster can be summed up in one word. PARITY. Buddy Nix came in and hired Whaley and their objective was to build a team that was huge on both lines and physical. That's fine but not exactly exceptional as 5 year plans in the NFL go. Five years in and the all important QB situation is still at square 1. Like I said, Whaley has only been the GM for like 18 months, but it we are to assume he was more than a yes-man to Buddy then why only one QB drafted? A QB who looks miles away from good yet Whaley swears that he has "it". Yes....a GM is judged by his QB choices because there is no such thing as sustained success in the NFL without excellent QB play. I think too many people believe that there is an abundance of "excellent QBs" out there. There isn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NFL_starting_quarterbacks I was being generous and I counted 12 QBs in the league who I consider to be "consistently very good." Whaley has had 2 years to find a QB for a team that hasn't had one in almost 15. And it's his fault. I'm not buying that. It's not easy to find "that guy," and let's be real ... most GMs get lucky.
BillsVet Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 If Pegula is as smart as I think he is he will retain Brandon and give him a boost in pay to make sure that he is associated with his franchise for a very long time. The same Brandon who hired a HC without much input from the current GM as noted by a very credible poster earlier in this post? In doing so, he created a situation where the GM and HC aren't on the same page because the latter didn't get to hire his own guy. Which is why I can see now that Whaley makes moves and then those players, like Mike Williams, Bryce Brown, et al. don't play. There are too many factions at OBD and it's not like they were aligned before this. And you have none other to blame for this situation than the guy the Pegula's felt required to remove from football operations as one of their first decisions. Coincidence? I think not.
CardinalScotts Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 (edited) I have a feeling Marrone has already been told he will be back- and he should be. This dislike for him and someone we have never met is funny, or the Saint Doug comments. He's turning the culture LIKE it or NOT and I really question if some do like it. We seem content to do what we've done for 15 years - season ends fire the coach talk about the draft and then screw up our picks or more importantly screw up our first round pick OMG WE DONT HAVE IT TO SCREW UP Edited December 12, 2014 by CardinalScotts
26CornerBlitz Posted December 12, 2014 Author Posted December 12, 2014 I have a feeling he's already been told he will be back You sure that's not just indigestion?
chris heff Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 (edited) If I missed this being discussed else where, I appoligize. If there was not a conflict between Marrone and Whaley there should be now. Yesterday in Sully's article both Woods and Whatkins stated that throwing down field to the WRs in the Denver game was not in the game plan. So the plan was to not utilize a second round pick or a first rounder you traded up for. Think about that, arguably the two best play makers on the offense, whose jobs are to catch passes down field, not in the game plan. If I were Whaley I'd like an explanation. Edited December 12, 2014 by chris heff
NoSaint Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 If I missed this being discussed else where, I appoligize. If there was not a conflict between Marrone and Whaley there should be now. Yesterday in Sully's article both Woods and Whatkins stated that throwing down field to the WRs in the Denver game was not in the game plan. So the plan was to not utilize a second round pick or a first rounder you traded up for. Think about that, arguably the two best play makers on the offense, whose jobs are to catch passes down field, not in the game plan. If I were Whaley I'd like an explanation. thats been a big part of my questions with the offense. since the dougs arrived weve invested 2 1st round picks, a 2nd, a 3rd, a 4th, and a 6th (with a vet contract) at WR and a first on a qb at tight end we have a guy we were fine letting test the market and get no offers, lee smith, and gragg and we are 2-3 TE heavy, and using hogan a lot and a retired guy that joined the team the week before the season theres a weird disconnect. Chandler and hogan and orton can have roles and value - im not trying to portray them as worthless -- but its odd.
JohnC Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 (edited) The same Brandon who hired a HC without much input from the current GM as noted by a very credible poster earlier in this post? In doing so, he created a situation where the GM and HC aren't on the same page because the latter didn't get to hire his own guy. Which is why I can see now that Whaley makes moves and then those players, like Mike Williams, Bryce Brown, et al. don't play. There are too many factions at OBD and it's not like they were aligned before this. And you have none other to blame for this situation than the guy the Pegula's felt required to remove from football operations as one of their first decisions. Coincidence? I think not. You make the assumption based on threadbare information that Whaley wasn't involved in the hiring of Marrone. He was involved in the process. It wasn't a dictated decision, it was a collective decision which included his collaboration. I strenuously disagree with your position that Brandon is involved with the football operation. There is no doubt that the Wilson model was spearheaded through Littman with a very thin firewall between the football and business operations. They were to a great extent joined at the hip. If the finance boys nixed a personnel decision their decision was in force. That co-mingling organization structure no longer exists. Too many people are exaggerating the importance of the HC's decision regarding Mike Williams and how it supposedly challenges the authority of the GM. Let's put it in perspective. The Mike Williams deal was a fringe deal by the GM. He gave up I believe a 6th round pick. There are good reasons associated with performance, practice, attitude etc why the HC decided he shouldn't play. This notion that he is subverting the GM because of his playing decision regarding this problematic and fringe player is simply nonsensical. Let's be fair. There is no GM and HC in the league that are totally in accord. That is nearly impossible to achieve because each postion has a different perspective, long-term for the GM and short-term for HC. If you understand that dynamic then you can understand the different views by each on the qb issue. Marrone's position is reasonable from his HCing standpoint and Whaley's probable desire to see more of EJ this season from the GM perspective. The tension between the GM and HC that so many people are fretting over is not exceptional, it is the norm. I've said it many times and I will say it again: What this historically franchise doesn't need is another churning of HCs. It doesn't stabilize the situation, it reinforces instability. The substative problems associated with this team have more to do with roster limitations than it does with coaching issues. Marrone is presiding over an 8-8 calber team. When all is said and done he will have the team play up to its average talent level, most notably diminished because of the offense and qb I say this with a great deal of confidence that if and when Pegula gets outside eyes to evaluate the organization the end result will still have Brandon being retained in his current role. That role does not involve making direct football decisions. That is Whaley's responsibility. Edited December 12, 2014 by JohnC
bmur66 Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 Marrone Stays Whaley Stays Brandon strikes me as a suck hole. I guess it depends on what Mr. Pegula thinks
May Day 10 Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 (edited) to me, this team isnt improved. The AFC is strange due to the fact that you have the 4 worst teams in football residing in the Conference... and NFC teams who were supposed to be very good (CAR, NO, SF, CHI) are mediocre to poor... Skews the records toward .500 or better. The fact remains that the Bills are in the bottom 3rd of the Conference and each and every time they play a team at or above them in the standings they get knocked down. They beat Cleveland, but they are also in the same boat as the Bills propped up by weak schedule IMO. The fact that they lost the KC game, should have lost to Minnesota at home, and blew the Miami game like they did would make me furious if with the coaching staff if I were a GM. Especially a GM "auditioning" for a new owner. These squirrelly comments by Marrone also do indicate something is up... especially taking into account the pre-season "drama" As a fan base (me included) we have been lulled into submission with the "ultimate" goal of "just a playoff game before I die" mentality. I dont doubt the current coaching and management can get us there. Maybe even a puncher's chance of winning a playoff game someday. Pegula will have bigger visions IMO. He will want a well oiled championship football program here that is sustainable. We will see if he/we gets there. He will almost certainly be bringing someone in to evaluate and no doubt major changes will be made so get used to the idea. Edited December 12, 2014 by May Day 10
chris heff Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 thats been a big part of my questions with the offense. since the dougs arrived weve invested 2 1st round picks, a 2nd, a 3rd, a 4th, and a 6th (with a vet contract) at WR and a first on a qb at tight end we have a guy we were fine letting test the market and get no offers, lee smith, and gragg and we are 2-3 TE heavy, and using hogan a lot and a retired guy that joined the team the week before the season theres a weird disconnect. Chandler and hogan and orton can have roles and value - im not trying to portray them as worthless -- but its odd. I understand not being able to fix everything all at once. Guard and TE need to be a priority. Based on who was available and when Orton was a good pick up. A gamelan that does not include throwing down field is head scratching. Both Orton and Manuel have been vilified for not throwing down field and yet we have now learned, at least for one game it was not in the game plan. How is that possible?
NoSaint Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 I understand not being able to fix everything all at once. Guard and TE need to be a priority. Based on who was available and when Orton was a good pick up. A gamelan that does not include throwing down field is head scratching. Both Orton and Manuel have been vilified for not throwing down field and yet we have now learned, at least for one game it was not in the game plan. How is that possible? or the sammy was a decoy game? or a formation that included hogan, chandler, smith, boobie, and summers at one point? how do you sit down and settle on THAT group being your best shot of anything?
JohnC Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 I understand not being able to fix everything all at once. Guard and TE need to be a priority. Based on who was available and when Orton was a good pick up. A gamelan that does not include throwing down field is head scratching. Both Orton and Manuel have been vilified for not throwing down field and yet we have now learned, at least for one game it was not in the game plan. How is that possible? All qbs have the authority to change the call at the line of scrimmage when their wideouts have one on one coverage. Sometimes qbs decline to do so because they are more comfortable sticking with the called play or there isn't adequate protection to give them enough time to allow the play to develop. But the notion that Orton is not allowed to throw it down field because of the game plan is not accurate.
chris heff Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 All qbs have the authority to change the call at the line of scrimmage when their wideouts have one on one coverage. Sometimes qbs decline to do so because they are more comfortable sticking with the called play or there isn't adequate protection to give them enough time to allow the play to develop. But the notion that Orton is not allowed to throw it down field because of the game plan is not accurate. John, read Sully's column from yesterday. It's not conjecture by Sully, both Woods and Whatkins clearly stated that throwing the ball down field was not in the game plan. Again, how is that possible? Your right about QBs being able to change the play, but if they do it continuously, I don't think that would bode well.
papazoid Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 100% Brandon stays for at least 2 more years. 100% whaley stays for at least 1 year. 75% marrone stays, on the condition Hackett is replaced. if he says no to a new OC, then marrone goes. the future beyond 2015 of GM & coach will be decided by the new yet to be named football czar. brandons future will be decided by Kim.
26CornerBlitz Posted December 12, 2014 Author Posted December 12, 2014 100% Brandon stays for at least 2 more years. 100% whaley stays for at least 1 year. 75% marrone stays, on the condition Hackett is replaced. if he says no to a new OC, then marrone goes. the future beyond 2015 of GM & coach will be decided by the new yet to be named football czar. brandons future will be decided by Kim. Inside knowledge or conjecture?
chris heff Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 100% Brandon stays for at least 2 more years. 100% whaley stays for at least 1 year. 75% marrone stays, on the condition Hackett is replaced. if he says no to a new OC, then marrone goes. the future beyond 2015 of GM & coach will be decided by the new yet to be named football czar. brandons future will be decided by Kim. I think you are probably right. Marrone could be gone if he loses out.
JackKemp Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 Marrone will not start EJ if he has Orton available to him for three reasons: 1) Orton is the better player, 2) development of the offensive line will progress faster with the veteran, and 3) EJ is and will be a development project for some time and will not be ready to take over until the earliest in 2016. The front office tried to use EJ to market the team. Marrone is trying to change a loser culture into a winning culture. You can't do that with a QB who isn't ready yet. They were on different pages in that respect. That is where the conflict comes in to play.
Cash Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 On this we agree completely. Should we drop this Sunday then inexplicably drop one in Oakland, I would expect EJ to start in Foxboro. But not until then, I'll go on record and say that if we lose this Sunday AND Orton has a bad game, EJ starts the last 2 games.
dave mcbride Posted December 12, 2014 Posted December 12, 2014 John, read Sully's column from yesterday. It's not conjecture by Sully, both Woods and Whatkins clearly stated that throwing the ball down field was not in the game plan. Again, how is that possible? Your right about QBs being able to change the play, but if they do it continuously, I don't think that would bode well. I'm not defending that plan, but it may have been to a) control the time of possession and--more importantly--b) the Broncos pass rush is ferocious.
Recommended Posts