The Doug Whaley positives are taking huge hits.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

The Pegulas make coaching hires from the hip and overrule their football advisors. Doesn't that just sound great?

 

It would sound bad, but I don't think that's what happened. What is your evidence that it is what happened?

[Jobu]

The Pegulas make coaching hires from the hip and overrule their football advisors. Doesn't that just sound great?

 

Your schtick gets old and you come off as a buffoon.

[Dr. Who]

 

Actually, I don't ignore the fact that Rex has a "pretty consistent history of fielding good defenses"

I question the premise - that he has a "pretty consistent history of fielding good defenses"

 

Team ranks during Rex tenure as DC (Ravens) or HC (Jets, Bills) [scroll down]:

By one metric, Yards per Game, Rex has indeed had top-5 defenses from 2005-2008 with the Ravens and 2009-2011 with the Jets, top-10 defenses 2x (2012, 2014) and 11th one year (2013).

Sounds great.

 

But YPG are only one metric. Points per game is the other dominant metric - after all, to stop a team from winning, you must stop them from scoring points.

By that metric, Rex's record is more mixed: 10th, 1st, 22nd, 3rd with the Ravens; 1st, 6th, and most troubling, recently 20th (2x), 19th, 24th with the Jets, 16th this year with the Bills. Bottom half of the league the last 5 years.

 

When there's a big discrepancy between points per game, and yards per game, for a D, it bears close scrutiny. It means something. It might mean that the D is "all or nothing" - they get a lot of 3 and outs, but they also give up the big play, thus allowing points with not many yards. It could mean their ST sucks or their O gives up a lot of turnovers, leading to poor field position to defend. Or the fact that 5 of the 6 bad years on points per game are recent, could mean that OC's have "solved" Rex's D and figured out how to attack it. I simply haven't had the interest to dig into it.

 

I don't think it's entirely O turnovers to blame when Rex has a bad year (a claim Rex's staff has made, "Geno killed us with turnovers"), because Rex had a good year in 2005 (10th on points) when the Ravens were 28th in the Takeaway/Giveaway ratio and his best year (2008, #1 both categories) when the Ravens were mediocre (16ht) in T/G. This year with the Bills, a poor year defensively (20th on yards, 16th on points so far) the Bills are 10th in T/G. So I don't quite know what to make of that, but it's not quite as simple as "Rex needs a ball-hawking 2ndary" or "Rex's D takes the fall when the O sticks them in bad field position with turnovers" - that may contribute sometimes, but it's not the whole story.

 

The bottom line seems to be, Rex's history on D is actually spotty, and for the last 5 years in PPG it's been the bottom half of the league with no excuse about turnovers handy this year with the Bills.

 

I don't give Whaley no responsibility. I believe Rex was a group hire by Brandon, both Pegulas, and Whaley. I think he charmed them all and persuaded them all to buy into him. I don't understand what evidence anyone has to think otherwise. But I also think there's an ameliorating circumstance for Whaley: I think Rex persuaded Whaley by saying all the right things, claiming he's not a scheme guy, he's a football guy, just give him great football players and he'll put them into positions to succeed (this belief is supported by Rex's published words in his new-hire and spring pressers). Rex may even sincerely believe that about himself, but his actions this year as HC and defacto DC speak against that belief as matching reality. He ran an undisciplined team with no apparent accountability, and no apparent adjustments when he must have seen that the players weren't executing for whatever reason (late plays, lack of buy-in, unsuitability to scheme, injury).

Nice post. Reasonable conjecture and I think you are right in your surmise about the trajectory on Rex's defense and the ambiguity about his character.

Alas, not much there to inspire hope.

[Rob's House]

 

Actually, I don't ignore the fact that Rex has a "pretty consistent history of fielding good defenses"

I question the premise - that he has a "pretty consistent history of fielding good defenses"

 

Team ranks during Rex tenure as DC (Ravens) or HC (Jets, Bills) [scroll down]:

By one metric, Yards per Game, Rex has indeed had top-5 defenses from 2005-2008 with the Ravens and 2009-2011 with the Jets, top-10 defenses 2x (2012, 2014) and 11th one year (2013).

Sounds great.

 

But YPG are only one metric. Points per game is the other dominant metric - after all, to stop a team from winning, you must stop them from scoring points.

By that metric, Rex's record is more mixed: 10th, 1st, 22nd, 3rd with the Ravens; 1st, 6th, and most troubling, recently 20th (2x), 19th, 24th with the Jets, 16th this year with the Bills. Bottom half of the league the last 5 years.

 

When there's a big discrepancy between points per game, and yards per game, for a D, it bears close scrutiny. It means something. It might mean that the D is "all or nothing" - they get a lot of 3 and outs, but they also give up the big play, thus allowing points with not many yards. It could mean their ST sucks or their O gives up a lot of turnovers, leading to poor field position to defend. Or the fact that 5 of the 6 bad years on points per game are recent, could mean that OC's have "solved" Rex's D and figured out how to attack it. I simply haven't had the interest to dig into it.

 

I don't think it's entirely O turnovers to blame when Rex has a bad year (a claim Rex's staff has made, "Geno killed us with turnovers"), because Rex had a good year in 2005 (10th on points) when the Ravens were 28th in the Takeaway/Giveaway ratio and his best year (2008, #1 both categories) when the Ravens were mediocre (16ht) in T/G. This year with the Bills, a poor year defensively (20th on yards, 16th on points so far) the Bills are 10th in T/G. So I don't quite know what to make of that, but it's not quite as simple as "Rex needs a ball-hawking 2ndary" or "Rex's D takes the fall when the O sticks them in bad field position with turnovers" - that may contribute sometimes, but it's not the whole story.

 

The bottom line seems to be, Rex's history on D is actually spotty, and for the last 5 years in PPG it's been the bottom half of the league with no excuse about turnovers handy this year with the Bills.

 

I don't give Whaley no responsibility. I believe Rex was a group hire by Brandon, both Pegulas, and Whaley. I think he charmed them all and persuaded them all to buy into him. I don't understand what evidence anyone has to think otherwise. But I also think there's an ameliorating circumstance for Whaley: I think Rex persuaded Whaley by saying all the right things, claiming he's not a scheme guy, he's a football guy, just give him great football players and he'll put them into positions to succeed (this belief is supported by Rex's published words in his new-hire and spring pressers). Rex may even sincerely believe that about himself, but his actions this year as HC and defacto DC speak against that belief as matching reality. He ran an undisciplined team with no apparent accountability, and no apparent adjustments when he must have seen that the players weren't executing for whatever reason (late plays, lack of buy-in, unsuitability to scheme, injury).

I agree with the PPG concern, because I do think ypg alone has its limitations. I assume that TOs may have contributed the last couple of years, but I don't know that for sure. In any case, even with its limitations, I think being consistently top 10 in ypg shows he's at least competent and not the clueless boob many here make him out to be.

[FireChan]

 

It would sound bad, but I don't think that's what happened. What is your evidence that it is what happened?

I'm arguing that didn't happen. It's folks like JfH and 26CB who argue that it did.

 

Your schtick gets old and you come off as a buffoon.

Can't hear you, what was that?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

You've offered nothing that anyone who even casually follows the team didn't already know. When pressed for specifics you deflect. And condescending deflection is almost as pathetic as a grown man with a fanboy crush on a football exec.

 

If you have no factual basis to support your assertions I'll take your "study up, son" retorts as defiantly waving the white flag.

 

Dude, you obviously have no idea how ironic it seems when a guy who resorts to referencing opinions he disagrees with as "fanboy crush" or the like, complains about "condescending deflection".

If you want to have solid ground to complain about "condescending deflection" and maintain credibility, you might want to re-think your verbal strategies a trifle.

I agree with the PPG concern, because I do think ypg alone has its limitations. I assume that TOs may have contributed the last couple of years, but I don't know that for sure. In any case, even with its limitations, I think being consistently top 10 in ypg shows he's at least competent and not the clueless boob many here make him out to be.

 

He's not a clueless boob at all. He's a clever and charming man who knows football. It's (IMO) whether he's currently capable of building a dominant defense without specific personnel and being a winning HC that's open to question. And yes, I agree there's a case to be made that turnovers contributed to poor PPG his last years with the Jets - the Jets ranked 29th or 30th in T/G 2012-2014 - but despite all the fumbles, Taylor and the Bills offense have NOT been turnover machines this year.

[Rob's House]

 

Dude, you obviously have no idea how ironic it seems when a guy who resorts to referencing opinions he disagrees with as "fanboy crush" or the like, complains about "condescending deflection".

If you want to have solid ground to complain about "condescending deflection" and maintain credibility, you might want to re-think your verbal strategies a trifle.

Horse ****. You and others have made comments I haven't agreed with and I discussed them logically with no condescension.

 

When someone throws out conjecture as fact and then refuses to support said conjecture after being asked multiple times, and consistently does so with the purpose of defending the same person, it appears to me that the person is a fanboy who is not interested in the truth or the discussion thereof, but rather to defend his fanboy crush.

 

If you can't grasp the distinction that's your problem, not mine.

[BillsVet]

One wonders what it would take for any of the pro-OBD/no debate faction to change their mind on the team.

 

And why does it take hundreds of posts per week to defend their position?

[GunnerBill]

One wonders what it would take for any of the pro-OBD/no debate faction to change their mind on the team.

 

And why does it take hundreds of posts per week to defend their position?

 

I am pro-Whaley. That does not mean defending the organisation at all cost.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Horse ****. You and others have made comments I haven't agreed with and I discussed them logically with no condescension.

 

When someone throws out conjecture as fact and then refuses to support said conjecture after being asked multiple times, and consistently does so with the purpose of defending the same person, it appears to me that the person is a fanboy who is not interested in the truth or the discussion thereof, but rather to defend his fanboy crush.

 

If you can't grasp the distinction that's your problem, not mine.

 

Absolutely, you discuss logically and rationally at times and I enjoy many of my discussions with you or I wouldn't engage.

 

IMO, though, you do have a tendency to toss around condescending dismissal like "Whaley fan boys" relatively indiscriminately, which makes it ironic (and puts you in a falling credibility zone) when you accuse others of condescension. Free advice, take it or leave it. You dismissing it really doesn't create any problems for me at all.