Kelly the Dog Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Doug Marrone got a team with the worst OL in the league and the worst starting qb in the league to a 9-7 record. What more do you want? He got the team to play to its talent level. For that accomplishment many people are characterizing him as a befuddled fool. Yet the same HC who is unmercifully being maligned is the person that the organization wanted back.None of that is true. He got an average line and made it one of the worst. Orton is not at all the worst QB in the league, he just wasn't very good and Marrone made him worse. And the organization really didn't want him back with his demands, which is him, so they didn't want him back. One thing they could have done is exactly what Chan did. Spread the field so teams didn't play everyone in the box, and get an extra Cb or two on the field instead of a blitzing or run stuffing lb. Get the ball to your playmakers. Chan was getting the offense to move the ball with Stevie, Donald Jones and guys like Derek Hagan for a few games. They had way less talent than the team does now. Orton can get the ball out fast enough.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) What creative strategy would you have employed to compensate for linemen who couldn't block and move anda qb who couldn't play? If you are in a race with a horse that is lame how do you compensate for its limitations? The results you get are attributable to the horse's deficiencies not the instruction the jockey got before the race. Marrone took the best strategy under the circumstances he was subjected to. He took a more conservative approach on offense and relied on his defense to keep his team in games. Some may consider it an uncreative response but in reality it was a prudent approach to take. What could be more foolish tha asking your OL and qb to do things that they are incapable of? No matter what creative strategy you advocate for it will not work unless the OL and qb positions are dramatically upgraded. Success in this league is predicated on talent level, not about genius strategy concocted by some svengali coach who magically devises a plan to compensate for his team's glaring weaknesses. Doug Marrone got a team with the worst OL in the league and the worst starting qb in the league to a 9-7 record. What more do you want? He got the team to play to its talent level. For that accomplishment many people are characterizing him as a befuddled fool. Yet the same HC who is unmercifully being maligned is the person that the organization wanted back. A quick controlled passing game that emphasized getting the ball in your playmakers hands in space would have been ideal IMO. Your QB was pretty accurate but couldn't deal with pressure & your OL couldn't hold up. This would have made the most sense. They should have spread the field to run the ball, not clogged it up. Dare I say, they should have run an offense similar to Chan's?? Edited January 10, 2015 by Kirby Jackson
dave mcbride Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 None of that is true. He got an average line and made it one of the worst. Orton is not at all the worst QB in the league, he just wasn't very good and Marrone made him worse. And the organization really didn't want him back with his demands, which is him, so they didn't want him back. One thing they could have done is exactly what Chan did. Spread the field so teams didn't play everyone in the box, and get an extra Cb or two on the field instead of a blitzing or run stuffing lb. Get the ball to your playmakers. Chan was getting the offense to move the ball with Stevie, Donald Jones and guys like Derek Hagan for a few games. They had way less talent than the team does now. Orton can get the ball out fast enough. Their line talent was horrible, and Wood physically declined. Nothing a coach can do about that. Henderson was bad too, although there is some hope for him. Anyway, their line talent wasn't average, and it was worse than last year due to decline from age and illness/injury (Glenn). Marrone wasn't a bad coach, but it seems that more and more people here think he was because of how he left.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Their line talent was horrible, and Wood physically declined. Nothing a coach can do about that. Henderson was bad too, although there is some hope for him. Anyway, their line talent wasn't average, and it was worse than last year due to decline from age and illness/injury (Glenn). Marrone wasn't a bad coach, but it seems that more and more people here think he was because of how he left. He wasn't a bad coach but he was a bad offensive coach. His offense regressed.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Their line talent was horrible, and Wood physically declined. Nothing a coach can do about that. Henderson was bad too, although there is some hope for him. Anyway, their line talent wasn't average, and it was worse than last year due to decline from age and illness/injury (Glenn). Marrone wasn't a bad coach, but it seems that more and more people here think he was because of how he left. It was average. Second in the league in rushing last year. I know they had way more attempts but they still were not the worst. Far from it. He MADE them the worst. The Pears idea, which is 100% Marrone's fault, because he doesn't believe in continuity was an unqualified disaster. It hurt Henderson tremendously. He played Henderson at LT all through OTAs and trying camp and preseason and then moved him to RT right at the season. He benched Urbik for no reason then moved him from right to left when he played him. He put a woefully unprepared Richardson in even though Marrone himself said they had to completely start from scratch with him and teach him new techniques. The woefully ill prepared guards hurt the centers and tackles. Then he played two three tight ends and bunch formations BEGGING other teams to crowd the line and blitz and create more confusion for the line. Marrone was a disaster and I had been saying these and other things the entire season, not just after he left.
JohnC Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 A quick controlled passing game that emphasized getting the ball in your playmakers hands in space would have been ideal IMO. Your QB was pretty accurate but couldn't deal with pressure & your OL couldn't hold up. This would have made the most sense. They should have spread the field to run the ball, not clogged it up. Dare I say, they should have run an offense similar to Chan's?? Orton was done as a player before he even belatedly joined the roster. There was s short quick burst when he was injected as a starter but he quickly faded. Regardless how inept the OL was he couldn't make plays, even in the short passing game. There was nothing left in the small corroded tank he broughto the organization.
Beerball Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 What creative strategy would you have employed to compensate for linemen who couldn't block and move and a qb who couldn't play? If you are in a race with a horse that is lame how do you compensate for its limitations? The results you get are attributable to the horse's deficiencies not the instruction the jockey got before the race.Marrone took the best strategy under the circumstances he was subjected to. He took a more conservative approach on offense and relied on his defense to keep his team in games. Some may consider it an uncreative response but in reality it was a prudent approach to take.What could be more foolish tha asking your OL and qb to do things that they are incapable of? No matter what creative strategy you advocate for it will not work unless the OL and qb positions are dramatically upgraded. Success in this league is predicated on talent level, not about genius strategy concocted by some svengali coach who magically devises a plan to compensate for his team's glaring weaknesses.Doug Marrone got a team with the worst OL in the league and the worst starting qb in the league to a 9-7 record. What more do you want? He got the team to play to its talent level. For that accomplishment many people are characterizing him as a befuddled fool. Yet the same HC who is unmercifully being maligned is the person that the organization wanted back.overmatched but creative offenses from HS on up disagree with everything you are saying.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Orton was done as a player before he even belatedly joined the roster. There was s short quick burst when he was injected as a starter but he quickly faded. Regardless how inept the OL was he couldn't make plays, even in the short passing game. There was nothing left in the small corroded tank he broughto the organization.He was 19th in QB rating and completed 64.2% of his passes. That isn't the worst in the league. It needs to improve but that wasn't the worst. If he would have been put in a better position to succeed perhaps it would have been even better.
JohnC Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) None of that is true. He got an average line and made it one of the worst. Orton is not at all the worst QB in the league, he just wasn't very good and Marrone made him worse. And the organization really didn't want him back with his demands, which is him, so they didn't want him back. One thing they could have done is exactly what Chan did. Spread the field so teams didn't play everyone in the box, and get an extra Cb or two on the field instead of a blitzing or run stuffing lb. Get the ball to your playmakers. Chan was getting the offense to move the ball with Stevie, Donald Jones and guys like Derek Hagan for a few games. They had way less talent than the team does now. Orton can get the ball out fast enough. Orton was the worst starting qb in the NFL. If he wasn't then who was? Linemen who played for Chan, such as Urbik and Pears, were functional players at best. They were declining minmalist players who should not be on a professional roster. The organization wanted Marrone back before he demanded conditions that were unacceptable to the organization. He wasn't willing to stay under the current circumstances so he exercised his option to leave. What is wrong with that? There were philosophical differences that couldn't be bridged with the front office. Leaving was the right thing for him to do and the right thing for the organization. There is nothing nefarious or devious about his actions. You can talk about the glory days of Chan Gailey but what was his record? Overall Marrone was on a more upward trajectory with the team he was coaching than was Gailey. Let me refresh your memory that Chan Gailey was let go. He was 19th in QB rating and completed 64.2% of his passes. That isn't the worst in the league. It needs to improve but that wasn't the worst. If he would have been put in a better position to succeed perhaps it would have been even better. Sometimes it is better to trust your eyes than to rely on stats. A large chunk of his positive stats were a result of end of the game prevent defenses allowing him to throw underneath and run the clock. Kyle Orton was a shadow of a capable NFL qb. He was well aware that he had nothing left in his small tank. He did the right thing in retiring immediately after the season concluded. Edited January 10, 2015 by JohnC
bobobonators Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 What creative strategy would you have employed to compensate for linemen who couldn't block and move and a qb who couldn't play? If you are in a race with a horse that is lame how do you compensate for its limitations? The results you get are attributable to the horse's deficiencies not the instruction the jockey got before the race. Marrone took the best strategy under the circumstances he was subjected to. He took a more conservative approach on offense and relied on his defense to keep his team in games. Some may consider it an uncreative response but in reality it was a prudent approach to take. What could be more foolish tha asking your OL and qb to do things that they are incapable of? No matter what creative strategy you advocate for it will not work unless the OL and qb positions are dramatically upgraded. Success in this league is predicated on talent level, not about genius strategy concocted by some svengali coach who magically devises a plan to compensate for his team's glaring weaknesses. Doug Marrone got a team with the worst OL in the league and the worst starting qb in the league to a 9-7 record. What more do you want? He got the team to play to its talent level. For that accomplishment many people are characterizing him as a befuddled fool. Yet the same HC who is unmercifully being maligned is the person that the organization wanted back. How many OL on this team were here during the Gailey era? Was the O-line this bad during that era? How many OL did we draft last year at relatively high positions? What was Marrone's "specialty"? And what was the result? None of these questions need an answer. We all already know the answers.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) Orton was the worst starting qb in the NFL. If he wasn't then who was?Linemen who played for Chan, such as Urbik and Pears, were functional players at best. They were declining minmalist players who should not be on a professional roster.The organization wanted Marrone back before he demanded conditions that were unacceptable to the organization. He wasn't willing to stay under the current circumstances so he exercised his option to leave. What is wrong with that. There were philosophical differences that couldn't be bridged with the front office. Leaving was the right thing for him to do and the right thing for the organization. There is nothing nefarious or devious about his actions.You can talk about the glory days of Chan Gailey but what was his record? Overall Marrone was on a more upward trajectory with the team he was coaching than was Gailey. Let me refresh your memory that Chan Gailey was let go.Marrone made demands. They said no. So he quit. Those demands are Doug Marrone. The 2014 Doug Marrone didn't exist anymore. They didn't want the 2015 Doug Marrone. If he didn't make demands they would likely have accepted that 2014 version of him, although I have my doubts. The point is, by Marrrone making demands and not getting them and then quitting, that is today's Doug Marrone, and they didn't want him. He wanted more power and wasn't willing to stay with what he had before. Just taking the records of the two coaches is ridiculous IMO. And I of course know all about you are what your record says you are. If chan Gailey had this year's Doug Marrone team and coached the way he did, which was to leave the defense alone and just work the offense, I think we are 10-6 or 11-5 and we make the playoffs. He would have gotten so much more out of Watkins, Woods, Spiller, Goodwin, MWilliams, and even Orton and EJ than Marrone did, and would have gotten more out of the crappy line. Conversely, if you put Doug Marrone on the Chan teams of 2011 and 2012 with the crappy defenses and the players he had to work with, I think we win three games. I couldn't even imagine how bad we would be with no defense and no offense. Marrone would get nothing out of Stevie, Donald Jones, Ruvell Martin and the like. Although Ryan Nuefeld would have become the focal point of the offense. Edited January 10, 2015 by Kelly the Dog
JohnC Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) Marrone was a disaster and I had been saying these and other things the entire season, not just after he left. Marrone got an 8-8 caliber of team to play at an 8-8 level. (The New England game was a default game.) Doug Marrone is far from being an upper tier HC. But he is a solid coach who got a flawedly constructed team play to its talent level. How many OL on this team were here during the Gailey era? Was the O-line this bad during that era? How many OL did we draft last year at relatively high positions? What was Marrone's "specialty"? And what was the result? None of these questions need an answer. We all already know the answers. Who drafted the players? Edited January 10, 2015 by JohnC
Kelly the Dog Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Marrone got an 8-8 caliber of team to play at an 8-8 level. (The New England game was a default game.) Doug Marrone is far from being an upper tier HC. But he is a solid coach who got a flawedly constructed team play to its talent level. The defense was a 13 win team and the offense was a 3 win team. And he did nothing for the defense. That is how they are an 8-8 team.
Green Lightning Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Who care how he leaves? Whether he texted his departure or whether he held an inauthentic sobbing press conference what difference does it make? The notion that the fans and players feelings are hurt are non-sensical. The NFL is a business in which players, coaches, front office staff members are constantly on the move. The HC had an opt-out clause in his contract that he exercised. What's wrong with that? Players have free agent categories and front office and coaches have expiring contracts and opt out options that are often exercised. Doug Marrone felt that for him the situation was untenable. So he left. What is worse than leaving in such a situation is staying in such a situation. The former HC did what was right for him and what was right for the organization. He should be credited for acting on his beliefs instead of letting the situation fester into a bigger problem at a later time. Wrong. It a matter like this, style counts. Mass texting, trash talking,clandestine PR wars and slinking out of town with $4 mil in unearned dollers is not how a leader acts. It's how a selfish, untrustworthy egotist acts. In the end, he didn't do what's best for himself because he is exposed as a man with severe character issues and as someone you don't trust with coaching an NFL franchise. He pocketed $4 mil at the expense of his reputation. Like Mastershake, I'm done with trashing DM, but please no revisionist views of a good guy just doing what's best for himself.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 A decent offensive coach makes this offense with all its troubles significantly better.
Wayne Cubed Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Orton was the worst starting qb in the NFL. If he wasn't then who was?. Brian Hoyer. Josh McCown. Geno Smith. Blake Bortles Kirk Cousins/RGIII All played much much worse.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Brian Hoyer. Josh McCown. Geno Smith. Blake Bortles Kirk Cousins/RGIII All played much much worse. You can add in Glennon as well. Dalton? Cutler? Fitz? There are a bunch of guys that are worse. If you want to use the "eye test" instead of stats how could you POSSIBLY even argue that Bortles was better?
JohnC Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 Marrone made demands. They said no. So he quit. Those demands are Doug Marrone. The 2014 Doug Marrone didn't exist anymore. They didn't want the 2015 Doug Marrone. If he didn't make demands they would likely have accepted that 2014 version of him, although I have my doubts. The point is, by Marrrone making demands and not getting them and then quitting, that is today's Doug Marrone, and they didn't want him. He wanted more power and wasn't willing to stay with what he had before. Just taking the records of the two coaches is ridiculous IMO. And I of course know all about you are what your record says you are. If chan Gailey had this year's Doug Marrone team and coached the way he did, which was to leave the defense alone and just work the offense, I think we are 10-6 or 11-5 and we make the playoffs. He would have gotten so much more out of Watkins, Woods, Spiller, Goodwin, MWilliams, and even Orton and EJ than Marrone did, and would have gotten more out of the crappy line. Conversely, if you put Doug Marrone on the Chan teams of 2011 and 2012 with the crappy defenses and the players he had to work with, I think we win three games. I couldn't even imagine how bad we would be with no defense and no offense. Marrone would get nothing out of Stevie, Donald Jones, Ruvell Martin and the like. Although Ryan Nuefeld would have become the focal point of the offense. I don't understand the vilification of Doug Marrone. He had major philosophical differences with the GM and front office. You can disagree with his approach toward building a roster compared to the front oficce's approach. His differences with Whaley couldn't be reconciled. So instead of letting the situation fester and get worse he exercised the buy out option in his contract. What is wrong with that? Instead of characterizing him as a traitor he should be applauded for acting on his principles. There is nothing wrong with him opting out. As I stated before it was the right thing for him to do and it was in the best interest of the organization. The glorification of the Gailey era is a revisionist view of his failed tenure. Again, if he was such an innovative HC why was he let go? You can "what if" yourself about Chan Gailey being in Marrone's situation until you are exhausted. It means little. Based on the record Marrone outperformed Gailey. That's what it is about. You need not to forget it when you are resorting to your "what if" arguments that prove little. Brian Hoyer. Josh McCown. Geno Smith. Blake Bortles Kirk Cousins/RGIII All played much much worse. I'll glady take every qb on that list over Orton. You can add in Glennon as well. Dalton? Cutler? Fitz? There are a bunch of guys that are worse. If you want to use the "eye test" instead of stats how could you POSSIBLY even argue that Bortles was better? There isn't a team in the NFL who wouldn't take the rookie Bortles over Orton as their starter. Orton was finished as a player before he even played for us. Bortles has potential to be a franchise qb. Preferring Orton over Bortles, regardless of the stats, is a position I find difficult to understand. But you are entitled to your opinion as am I.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 I don't understand the vilification of Doug Marrone. He had major philosophical differences with the GM and front office. You can disagree with his approach toward building a roster compared to the front oficce's approach. His differences with Whaley couldn't be reconciled. So instead of letting the situation fester and get worse he exercised the buy out option in his contract. What is wrong with that? Instead of characterizing him as a traitor he should be applauded for acting on his principles. There is nothing wrong with him opting out. As I stated before it was the right thing for him to do and it was in the best interest of the organization.The glorification of the Gailey era is a revisionist view of his failed tenure. Again, if he was such an innovative HC why was he let go? You can "what if" yourself about Chan Gailey being in Marrone's situation until you are exhausted. It means little. Based on the record Marrone outperformed Gailey. That's what it is about. You need not to forget it when you are resorting to your "what if" arguments that prove little.It's a message board. There is not proof. I haven't bashed Marrone for leaving. I think it was smart by him. Not the same reasons you do but I think it was smart by him. For him. I just think he is an average coach all around, who did a few good things, as well as a lousy offensive coach and a vindictive SOB. There is no glorification of Chan. There is only serious thought of what he did making chicken salad out of chickenschitt on offense. Period. He produced an average offense with incredibly crappy players. Marrone produced an incredibly crappy offense with better players.
dave mcbride Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) It was average. Second in the league in rushing last year. I know they had way more attempts but they still were not the worst. Far from it. He MADE them the worst. The Pears idea, which is 100% Marrone's fault, because he doesn't believe in continuity was an unqualified disaster. It hurt Henderson tremendously. He played Henderson at LT all through OTAs and trying camp and preseason and then moved him to RT right at the season. He benched Urbik for no reason then moved him from right to left when he played him. He put a woefully unprepared Richardson in even though Marrone himself said they had to completely start from scratch with him and teach him new techniques. The woefully ill prepared guards hurt the centers and tackles. Then he played two three tight ends and bunch formations BEGGING other teams to crowd the line and blitz and create more confusion for the line. Marrone was a disaster and I had been saying these and other things the entire season, not just after he left. You seem to think that players don't decline physically. They do. Pears, regardless of the position he played, got worse physically. So did Wood (and Freddie, for that matter - he wasn't nearly as explosive this season). And I don't think it was coaching with Wood - he was getting ragdolled regularly. I'm not defending the offensive scheme, btw - it was bad. I'm just saying that these claims about players regressing doesn't factor in physical decline. It was real, at least in my opinion. Edited January 10, 2015 by dave mcbride
Recommended Posts