GG Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 Restructure Mario and you'd be fine. Cut McK. Draft another LB and we'd be cooking again. He's due to make $15 million in 2016, and Kyle is set to make $6 million in 2016. Tough to restructure both and keep them happy. If it were that easy, Tenn & Detroit would have kept their DLs intact to maintain the defensive scheme.
BuffaloBillsForever Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) And probably 9-7 or higher this year. Oh no! Actually I projected them(on record here) at 9-7/8-8 at their highest ceiling (if injuries are not a problem) and NOT making the playoffs for the 16th straight year prior to the season. You are preaching to the wrong guy bro. Edited December 24, 2015 by BuffaloBillsForever
GG Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 And probably 9-7 or higher this year. Oh no! Correct - 9-7 or 10-6 this year, and a collapsing defense next year.
FireChan Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 Correct - 9-7 or 10-6 this year, and a collapsing defense next year. And instead we got a collapsing defense this year, with all the same dead money. Not ideal. Actually I projected them(on record here) at 9-7/8-8 at their highest ceiling (if injuries are not a problem) and NOT making the playoffs for the 16th straight year prior to the season. You are preaching to the wrong guy bro. With Rex? Or with retaining a 4-3?
BuffaloBillsForever Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 Correct - 9-7 or 10-6 this year, and a collapsing defense next year. The educated football fans didn't have them at 10-6 this year. Where did you get that?
FireChan Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) He's due to make $15 million in 2016, and Kyle is set to make $6 million in 2016. Tough to restructure both and keep them happy. If it were that easy, Tenn & Detroit would have kept their DLs intact to maintain the defensive scheme. You could've kept one happy (probably Mario) and replaced Kyle if need be. Edited December 24, 2015 by FireChan
GG Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 And instead we got a collapsing defense this year, with all the same dead money. Not ideal. I'm not arguing that they didn't underperform this year. The argument is which coach & scheme would best set the team for a perpetually strong defense and winning program. Mario Williams signing is Exhibit A of how not to build a team. You are always better off giving the big free agent money to guys you develop in your own scheme. Signing big ticket FAs rarely works out for the new team, because chances are the signee is there for the paycheck more than the team. The educated football fans didn't have them at 10-6 this year. Where did you get that? Based on the talent, last year's record and the schedule, it's not out of whack to think they could get to ten wins this year.
BuffaloBillsForever Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 With Rex? Or with retaining a 4-3? That would be in the context of every move with the big ones being - Rex and the casuals raving about the additions of Clay, McCoy and Felton. The Hughes re-up and the bashing of drafting Darby (who I raved about).
FireChan Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) I'm not arguing that they didn't underperform this year. The argument is which coach & scheme would best set the team for a perpetually strong defense and winning program. Mario Williams signing is Exhibit A of how not to build a team. You are always better off giving the big free agent money to guys you develop in your own scheme. Signing big ticket FAs rarely works out for the new team, because chances are the signee is there for the paycheck more than the team. Based on the talent, last year's record and the schedule, it's not out of whack to think they could get to ten wins this year. Well, let's break that down. The argument is which coach & scheme would best set the team for a perpetually strong defense and winning program. If we're using Schwartz' history, we should also use Rex's. He has no history of a perpetual winner. Usually having strong defenses, I'll give you, but that comes with the cost of drafting or signing HoF talent, as well as the continuous use of high picks on the defense. Go look at Jets drafts from 2010 to 2014. Defensive players in the first and/or second round every year. In 2013, they drafted two in the first round. So the benefits of being able to allocate resources by having a perpetually strong defense doesn't apply to a RR regime. Compared to Schwartz, the costs for maintaining a DL in a Rex regime is at least 2 first rounders and their eventual extensions. Not so different, huh? You are always better off giving the big free agent money to guys you develop in your own scheme. Signing big ticket FAs rarely works out for the new team, because chances are the signee is there for the paycheck more than the team. I can sympathize with this view point, but almost all players are in it for the paycheck. Let's not delude ourselves. Just by "developing" players doesn't mean they aren't trying to get paid. I'll close with the argument that a big free agent can be the difference between a playoff push and 8-8. That's what Lesean McCoy was supposed to be this season. He wasn't an FA, but he was a marquee player we signed to a huge extension. Maybe it'll work out and maybe it won't, but without signing him, our offense would've been in even more trouble this year, which would've doomed a potentially good defensive season. Sometimes, you gotta roll the dice. Edited December 24, 2015 by FireChan
GG Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 Well, let's break that down. The argument is which coach & scheme would best set the team for a perpetually strong defense and winning program. If we're using Schwartz' history, we should also use Rex's. He has no history of a perpetual winner. Usually having strong defenses, I'll give you, but that comes with the cost of drafting or signing HoF talent, as well as the continuous use of high picks on the defense. Go look at Jets drafts from 2010 to 2014. Defensive players in the first and/or second round every year. In 2013, they drafted two in the first round. So the benefits of being able to allocate resources by having a perpetually strong defense doesn't apply to a RR regime. Compared to Schwartz, the costs for maintaining a DL in a Rex regime is at least 2 first rounders and their eventual extensions. Not so different, huh? You are always better off giving the big free agent money to guys you develop in your own scheme. Signing big ticket FAs rarely works out for the new team, because chances are the signee is there for the paycheck more than the team. I can sympathize with this view point, but almost all players are in it for the paycheck. Let's not delude ourselves. Just by "developing" players doesn't mean they aren't trying to get paid. I'll close with the argument that a big free agent can be the difference between a playoff push and 8-8. That's what Lesean McCoy was supposed to be this season. He wasn't an FA, but he was a marquee player we signed to a huge extension. Maybe it'll work out and maybe it won't, but without signing him, our offense would've been in even more trouble this year, which would've doomed a potentially good defensive season. Sometimes, you gotta roll the dice. Are you arguing that Schwartz has had a better track record in fielding top defenses than Rex?
FireChan Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) Are you arguing that Schwartz has had a better track record in fielding top defenses than Rex? No. I'm just arguing that Rex has no history of perpetual success, due to a variety of factors, one of the major ones being that he fields top defenses by funneling huge amounts of valuable draft picks into it. And without checking to see if that was also the case during Schwartz's tenures, maybe that would've helped him maintain more top defenses. Edited December 24, 2015 by FireChan
Peter Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 I have defended Mario for his entire time in Buffalo - up until this year. Scheme in no way explains or justifies Mario quitting on his team and collecting a huge paycheck to do walk throughs in games. Rex has had his back. It is a shame that Mario continues to through his coaches under the bus in Mario's desperate attempt to justify his lack of production. No. I'm just arguing that Rex has no history of perpetual success, due to a variety of factors, one of the major ones being that he fields top defenses by funneling huge amounts of valuable draft picks into it. And without checking to see if that was also the case during Schwartz's tenures, maybe that would've helped him maintain more top defenses. In football, it sort of helps to have good football players.
FireChan Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 I have defended Mario for his entire time in Buffalo - up until this year. Scheme in no way explains or justifies Mario quitting on his team and collecting a huge paycheck to do walk throughs in games. Rex has had his back. It is a shame that Mario continues to through his coaches under the bus in Mario's desperate attempt to justify his lack of production. In football, it sort of helps to have good football players. In football, it's kinda easy to be labeled a "defensive genius" when you are constantly handed great players on defense at the expense of the rest of the team. And surprise surprise, what unit sucked year in and year out of Rex's tenure in NY?
Peter Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) In football, it's kinda easy to be labeled a "defensive genius" when you are constantly handed great players on defense at the expense of the rest of the team. And surprise surprise, what unit sucked year in and year out of Rex's tenure in NY? Mario took his money and stopped playing. That is on Mario. If you are saying Rex is not a great defensive mind, we disagree 100%. As for coaches and their reputations, of course it helps in football and in every other sport to have good players. Bill Belichick is an absolute genius . . . . . . in large measure because he has Tom Brady as his QB. He is still a great coach, but it certainly helps to have the most important position on the team settled for the past several years. Edited December 25, 2015 by Peter
GG Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) No. I'm just arguing that Rex has no history of perpetual success, due to a variety of factors, one of the major ones being that he fields top defenses by funneling huge amounts of valuable draft picks into it. And without checking to see if that was also the case during Schwartz's tenures, maybe that would've helped him maintain more top defenses. Why are you changing the argument? Which coach has has had a far greater degree of success in his wheelhouse? Why hasn't Schwartz been able to maintain high performance from his defenses if it's so easy to plug & play people into his scheme? Edited December 24, 2015 by GG
FireChan Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) Why are you changing the argument? Which coach has has had a far greater degree of success in his wheelhouse? Why hasn't Schwartz been able to maintain high performance from his defenses if it's so easy to plug & play people into his scheme? Changing the argument? The argument is which coach & scheme would best set the team for a perpetually strong defense and winning program. Rex has had perpetual strong defenses. Not perpetual winning programs. Because of reasons stated above. My argument is that Jim could have maintained stronger defensive performances if he got the assets allocated to his defenses like Rex did. Also, Jim Schwartz took over the worst team in NFL history as an HC. Rex took over a 9-7 roster. Let's not pretend like they had equal circumstances. Edited December 24, 2015 by FireChan
NoSaint Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) No. I'm just arguing that Rex has no history of perpetual success, due to a variety of factors, one of the major ones being that he fields top defenses by funneling huge amounts of valuable draft picks into it. And without checking to see if that was also the case during Schwartz's tenures, maybe that would've helped him maintain more top defenses. Haynesworth, suh, fairly, ansah, kearse etc.... on the line... Pacman was a top pick. Griffin at safety was a first. Hes gotten plenty of top talents. They both need top guys at key spots. We just have the guys for Schwartz already is the issue. Edited December 24, 2015 by NoSaint
GG Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 Haynesworth, suh, fairly, ansah, kearse etc.... on the line... Pacman was a top pick. Griffin at safety was a first. Hes gotten plenty of top talents. They both need top guys at key spots. We just have the guys for Schwartz already is the issue. Correct, there's little argument that under Schwartz the 2015 defense would have been better. But based on past history, it would have fallen very quickly. To me one defense needs world class DLs, the other needs one smart player to set the plays.
FireChan Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) Correct, there's little argument that under Schwartz the 2015 defense would have been better. But based on past history, it would have fallen very quickly. To me one defense needs world class DLs, the other needs one smart player to set the plays. And All-Pro 3-4 DE's? Or HoF CB's? Edited December 24, 2015 by FireChan
BuffaloBillsMagic1 Posted December 24, 2015 Posted December 24, 2015 At this point there is no way Rex can be brought back unless we r willing to completely tear apart our expensive and talented defensive players. Time for Arecibo to move on.
Recommended Posts