Conflict Between Bills' Front Office and Marrone?

[26CornerBlitz]

I futilely tried to find the WGR segment when HOF Joe DeLamielleure was on the show. He was talking about his approach to scouting offensive linemen prospects. He said the first thing he watches is their feet. He didn't care how strong the player was. He felt that if the player didn't have quick feet he wouldn't draft that player. For him that was a disqualifier. He also said that he watched to see how the player uses leverage when blocking and adjusting to the players in front of him. He favored players that wrestled because they knew how to employ leverage and quickly react to the person they were going against. .

 

Joe talked about how he trained in the offseason. He was an NFL perennial racketball champion. He felt that playing racquetball and having to quickly react was an excellent way to prepare for playing on the line. His general thought was that athleticism was more critical than massive size.

 

Howard Simon specifically asked him about Kujo. He felt that he was simply too slow footed to play. His recommendation to salvage him was to get him to focus on developing quicker feet by playing racquetball and doing activities that will help improve his lack of athleticism.

 

It was a fascinating discussion about his perspective on scouting linemen compared to the Bills' approach of focusing on bigger is better. A tenet that Nix strongly held to when drafting players at all positions, including qb.

 

Joe D's main point was he looks for knee benders as opposed to waist benders in Offensive Lineman. He didn't think to much of Kouandjio because he's a waist bender.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

It makes zero sense to put that out in public.

 

Agreed. Even if it's truth, there's some things there's no benefit in saying. If the media is prodding, just say "I think I covered that, is there another question?"

 

What makes me throw up a little in my mouth is this quote Here from Browns WR Gordon about Manziel:

"I think he's got enough, he's got what we need right now to move forward and pull off these last three wins," Gordon told Breer. "He's willing to do anything, extend a play, and make something out of nothing. That mindset isn't in everybody. A lot of guys will quit, take a sack or throw the ball away. That's not what he does."

 

Substitute "Orton" for "A lot of guys" and that's basically why some of us would like to see if EJ's learnt anything, because a QB who will quit on a play is not going to do enough with our offense to beat GB or NE

[section122]

 

 

Hmmm, I think successful coaches or even coaches who are perceived as steering the ship in the right direction don't get second-guessed by the front office

 

Jim Harbaugh disagrees.....

[JC2002]

Agreed. Even if it's truth, there's some things there's no benefit in saying. If the media is prodding, just say "I think I covered that, is there another question?"

 

What makes me throw up a little in my mouth is this quote Here from Browns WR Gordon about Manziel:

"I think he's got enough, he's got what we need right now to move forward and pull off these last three wins," Gordon told Breer. "He's willing to do anything, extend a play, and make something out of nothing. That mindset isn't in everybody. A lot of guys will quit, take a sack or throw the ball away. That's not what he does."

 

Substitute "Orton" for "A lot of guys" and that's basically why some of us would like to see if EJ's learnt anything, because a QB who will quit on a play is not going to do enough with our offense to beat GB or NE

 

Actually throwing the ball away is not quitting on a play thats just stupid taking neither is taking . If Manziel doesn't learn how to throw the ball or away or take a sack he wont be the QB for long

 

Substitute every top QB in the league for "a lot of guys"

[chris heff]

 

 

If you have an OL and qbs that can't execute plays in the tough red zone areas then how is it the coaches fault? The talent level is simply not adequate enough to get the job done. Being successful in the red zone is not about brilliant play calling or outsmarting the opposition. It's more about going head to head against the opponent. We are typically overmatched in the matchups.

OL has regressed under this staff. Wood, Pears, and Urbick were at least adequate under previous staff. Spiller was on his way to being a force. Johnson regressed to the point he got traded. I don't want to hear the excuse that Gailey's offense coverd up their weaknesses, because if he could do that why the hell can't this staff?

 

A prime example of the ineptitude of the offensive coaching is a formation in the Cleveland game. Forth and one, I formation with Dixon as up back and Watkins at tailback. Never seen that formation before haven't seen it since. I may have slow eyes and lack to mental acumen to process information (this was established a number of pages ago), but I know that for that to be successful you had to have run Watkins from that formation. Make the D worry about him running a sweep, because it had been done before.

[YoloinOhio]

 

 

Hmmm, I think successful coaches or even coaches who are perceived as steering the ship in the right direction don't get second-guessed by the front office

"second guessed" would have been to the term used 2 months ago had Marrone told them he wanted Orton after the Houston game, like he did, and the FO disagreed and pushed back. The scenario posed to him this week, I believe, isn't second guessing which QB is better fit to win, but which priority takes precedent if/when the playoffs are no longer viable. Short term (team record) or long term (player evaluation). No one even knows if Whaley would choose the latter. Marrone acknowledged that it could happen, given the job of the GM. It seems common sense, to me. Edited December 13, 2014 by YoloinOhio

[JohnC]

OL has regressed under this staff. Wood, Pears, and Urbick were at least adequate under previous staff. Spiller was on his way to being a force. Johnson regressed to the point he got traded. I don't want to hear the excuse that Gailey's offense coverd up their weaknesses, because if he could do that why the hell can't this staff?

 

A prime example of the ineptitude of the offensive coaching is a formation in the Cleveland game. Forth and one, I formation with Dixon as up back and Watkins at tailback. Never seen that formation before haven't seen it since. I may have slow eyes and lack to mental acumen to process information (this was established a number of pages ago), but I know that for that to be successful you had to have run Watkins from that formation. Make the D worry about him running a sweep, because it had been done before.

 

Watkins and Woods do get open more often than many people think. There are for sure tight windows to throw to but an average starting NFL qb should be completing those passes. My central point on my excessive (irritating to many) posts on this subject matter is that the problems associated with our offense are mostly attributable to the deficiency at qb and on the OL. The fundamental problem has little to do with schemes or innovating play calling but rather to a lack of talent.

 

The defensive approach of Pettine last year compared to Schwartz's defense are very different from a schematic and philosophical standpoints. Yet both coordinators ran very successful defenses. Why? Simply because of the collective superb talent of the unit. That situation doesn't apply to our flaccid offensive unit.

 

Too many people are over-analyzing something that is obvious to anyone who watches the games. The Bills are not at this time good enough. It becomes most noticeable when they play teams good teams. The bottom line is the Bills are not yet good enough to be a serious team. They are certainly getting better. However, anyone with a penny's worth of objectivity realizes that they still have a lot of work to do to become a wild-card playoff contender. .

Edited December 13, 2014 by JohnC

[Sisyphean Bills]

Watkins and Woods do get open more often than many people think. There are for sure tight windows to throw to but an average starting NFL qb should be completing those passes. My central point on my excessive (irritating to many) posts on this subject matter is that the problems associated with our offense are mostly attributable to the deficiency at qb and on the OL. The fundamental problem has little to do with schemes or innovating play calling but rather to a lack of talent.

 

I don't want to argue about this with you, John, but I wanted to suggest that this may be too sides of the same coin.

 

Let's start with the situation. Buffalo was down and it was late in the 4th quarter. Everyone on the planet knew that they needed to push the ball down the field. Absolutely no mysteries as to what the Bills had to do.

 

Hackett spreads the field and puts the QB in the shotgun. Again, there is no doubt what the Bills are trying to do here. So what is the play design?

 

The WRs all run vertical techniques down the field. Every single one of them. The read is man-coverage. One of the slot receivers dips his hips and sprints past the press coverage and is immediately open, the DB is beaten as the WR has taken his inside hip. The WRs eyes are on the goal post and he's pulling away like he wants to be Usain Bolt.

 

Rewind and watch the snap again. The defense is in an overload blitz. Hence the clear man-coverage. The Bills by formation have zero chance of picking up the free runners at the QB. Nobody is there to block. It cannot be blocked. The defense wins 100 out of 100 times. At the snap, an absurd attempt to slide the protection may be on (I assume) but it means the interior of the line whiffs on the pressure up the gut too. (The C and G look like they are standing in a swimming pool and react glacially to the guys flying past them.)

 

The QB has just enough time to get rid of it. Usain Bolt hits full stride. Two defenders are about to pile drive the QB. He gets the pass off to a spot. The WR runs through that spot and keeps on flying. He's wide open, but it's completely irrelevant. He'll be 8 yards further down field when the ball hits the turf.

 

Does that sound bad? Familiar?

 

Now imagine watching variations on that exact same play called on four straight downs. The ball gets turned over on downs and the other team just takes a knee.

 

Enter the blame game. Is it the QBs fault the chuck and duck pass isn't anywhere close to a completion? Sure. He didn't throw to the right spot. Is it the OL's fault that their block like a sieve? Sure. They whiffed and looked like garbage. But they never had a chance in the first place. More were coming than blocking. Was it the WR's fault? Maybe. Whatever happened the WR and QB were not on the same page. Running a 15 or 20 yard route before getting his head around was simply NEVER going to happen.

 

In my opinion, the coaching cannot be seriously defended here. No coach is going to call the perfect play every time. But few play callers are going to simply refuse to adjust and continue to call plays right into the strength of the defense. The defense dared the Bills to use the flats or the middle of the field and the Bills simply refused to take it. Perhaps one could say Hackett didn't expect them to keep on blitzing and thought they might get that 4 or 5 seconds to attack down the field. But that's sort of like refusing to water your crops because you've decided the drought can't go on much longer. If you want to call it a plan, you have to admit it is a bad plan.

[JohnC]

I don't want to argue about this with you, John, but I wanted to suggest that this may be too sides of the same coin.

 

Let's start with the situation. Buffalo was down and it was late in the 4th quarter. Everyone on the planet knew that they needed to push the ball down the field. Absolutely no mysteries as to what the Bills had to do.

 

Hackett spreads the field and puts the QB in the shotgun. Again, there is no doubt what the Bills are trying to do here. So what is the play design?

 

The WRs all run vertical techniques down the field. Every single one of them. The read is man-coverage. One of the slot receivers dips his hips and sprints past the press coverage and is immediately open, the DB is beaten as the WR has taken his inside hip. The WRs eyes are on the goal post and he's pulling away like he wants to be Usain Bolt.

 

Rewind and watch the snap again. The defense is in an overload blitz. Hence the clear man-coverage. The Bills by formation have zero chance of picking up the free runners at the QB. Nobody is there to block. It cannot be blocked. The defense wins 100 out of 100 times. At the snap, an absurd attempt to slide the protection may be on (I assume) but it means the interior of the line whiffs on the pressure up the gut too. (The C and G look like they are standing in a swimming pool and react glacially to the guys flying past them.)

 

The QB has just enough time to get rid of it. Usain Bolt hits full stride. Two defenders are about to pile drive the QB. He gets the pass off to a spot. The WR runs through that spot and keeps on flying. He's wide open, but it's completely irrelevant. He'll be 8 yards further down field when the ball hits the turf.

 

Does that sound bad? Familiar?

 

Now imagine watching variations on that exact same play called on four straight downs. The ball gets turned over on downs and the other team just takes a knee.

 

Enter the blame game. Is it the QBs fault the chuck and duck pass isn't anywhere close to a completion? Sure. He didn't throw to the right spot. Is it the OL's fault that their block like a sieve? Sure. They whiffed and looked like garbage. But they never had a chance in the first place. More were coming than blocking. Was it the WR's fault? Maybe. Whatever happened the WR and QB were not on the same page. Running a 15 or 20 yard route before getting his head around was simply NEVER going to happen.

 

In my opinion, the coaching cannot be seriously defended here. No coach is going to call the perfect play every time. But few play callers are going to simply refuse to adjust and continue to call plays right into the strength of the defense. The defense dared the Bills to use the flats or the middle of the field and the Bills simply refused to take it. Perhaps one could say Hackett didn't expect them to keep on blitzing and thought they might get that 4 or 5 seconds to attack down the field. But that's sort of like refusing to water your crops because you've decided the drought can't go on much longer. If you want to call it a plan, you have to admit it is a bad plan.

 

It doesn't matter what the play call is. The qb is looking at the defensive setup and needs to change the call at the line of scrimmage. Even on designated long pass plays there are hot reads where the receiver cuts the route short in order to bail out the qb who is facing more defenders rushing than blockers. There is nothing unique or radical going on with the scenario you are describing.

 

Even when the OL is outnumbered that doesn't mean that the rushing defenders should be able to go full blast without at the minimum being chipped. Our OL is atrocious at adjusting for stunts. Why do you think Richardson was relegated to the bench? He was probably the worst guard in the league, just as his predecessor, Brown, was last year. Because of his slow reactions the defenders kept stunting in his area because they knew that he couldn't make the adjustment. It's not just a physical issue, it's also a mental issue. If you don't know who to switch to then the opposition is going to repeatingly pore through your area of responsibility.

 

You watch the same games that I do. Too often our linemen simply whiff on plays allowing the defender(s) to go unfettered and crash in to our immobile qb. Again, if the called play is not suitable for the defensive alighnment then the qb has various options to counter the mismatch.

 

No one is suggesting that the OC is a genius who is going to call plays that outsmart the defense. This is the NFL where talent goes against talent. However, with Buffalo, especially on offense, because of the limitations of the qb and OL they are to put it bluntly overmatched.

 

Do you want to know what makes an OC smarter? A good qb who is capable of proficiently executing plays. Do you want to know what makes the OC even smarter? Having a competent qb having a good OL in front of him that can capably pass and run block. You'll be amazed how much smarter the OC will get with better players

 

I'm not trying to be stubborn for the sake of being a contrarian. But the fundamental problem with our offense is the gross lack of talent on the line and with the person taking the snaps. Coaching is certainly important but the central problem is due to talent levels more than coaching adequacy.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Just so you know, I am fully aware that putting headphones on a revolving door and calling it the coaching staff hasn't worked.

 

Regardless, I do think the very inexperienced Nate Hackett is getting his lunch eaten by defensive staffs around the NFL.

[JohnC]

Just so you know, I am fully aware that putting headphones on a revolving door and calling it the coaching staff hasn't worked.

 

Regardless, I do think the very inexperienced Nate Hackett is getting his lunch eaten by defensive staffs around the NFL.

 

I understand your feelings regarding Hackett. Your position is a prevailing view and it is a reasonable position to take. I just believe that it is very difficult to fairly assess Hackett and Marrone with such glaring deficiencies on offense. When this staff puts together its offensive game plan the issue isn't only where are the vulnerabilities of the opponent's defense but overshadowing that issue is what is our offense capable of. What does it matter if the right play is called if the qb and OL can't execute the play?

 

K-9 has very often pointed out on numerous posts that there are plenty of plays available to Watkins and Woods that the qb simply ignores. I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment. When watching the games both players are not reluctant, especially Woods, in expressing their frustrations.

 

I strongly believe that if the personnel on offense is upgraded the appraisal of Hackett will correspondingly increase. I'm nost suggesting that he is an upper tier OC but I don't think Hackett is as much of a hack (bad pun) as you and many others think he is.

Edited December 14, 2014 by JohnC

[reddogblitz]

Hmmm, I think successful coaches or even coaches who are perceived as steering the ship in the right direction don't get second-guessed by the front office

 

Wade Phillips was a successful coach in 1999.

[The Big Cat]

I'm genuinely curious how willing you'll be to reconsider these assertions if the Bills pull off a win Sunday.

I would love to have to face that reality. But I just don't see it happening.

 

Okay. Well?

[section122]

Okay. Well?

 

There is your signature win 26.

 

[OldNMBillsFan]

Wade Phillips was a successful coach in 1999.

 

Mr. Wilson told Wade to get ride of the special teams coach, the Bills special teams that year was worst in the league. Wade refused, so Wilson fired him. He wasn't fired for the teams record or the direction of the team.

Edited December 14, 2014 by OldNMBillsFan

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

Can you explain exactly how he is his crony from Syracuse?? Maybe when RB was in high school as a kid he followed Syracuse and watched Marrone play, but that's about the closest their paths crossed, other than yes RB was born in the same city that Marrone played college at and eventually coached in the same city over 25 years after Brandon left as a kid. But hey when you're on a vendetta, don't let facts get in the way of making a point.

 

Both comments are 100% on the money my friend. Marrone was a Brandon crony from Syracuse.

 

 

[The Big Cat]

There is your signature win 26.

 

 

I don't anticipate a satisfying result from any of this.

 

We'll be back to calling for Marrone's head after a series of questionable calls by the referees block a playoff berth in Foxboro two weeks from now.