Saxum Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 Rex's issue is he wants to be a "Player's Coach" but needs to understand that sometimes he needs to kick butt to get the overpaid millionaires to perform when their contract is not up for renewal. The only player he seemed to use "Tough Love" approach was Carpenter.
Coach Tuesday Posted March 1, 2016 Posted March 1, 2016 Oh Marrone was an ass and there were issues with his team - it was far from perfect... but I felt we were heading in the right direction. Maybe I was desperate to be positive - I am not generally a "hater" - I don't know. I admit to not liking the Rex hire the moment it was announced but I gave him the benefit until Wembley. Too often I saw a team ill prepared to play. I think he needs greater consistency and focus to succeed. I can understand this take - but putting the Jax game on Rex seems extreme to me. The backup QB completely imploded in that game. Granted the defense shouldn't have struggled like it did, but almost all of the roster except 1 player performed reasonably well.
GunnerBill Posted March 1, 2016 Posted March 1, 2016 I can understand this take - but putting the Jax game on Rex seems extreme to me. The backup QB completely imploded in that game. Granted the defense shouldn't have struggled like it did, but almost all of the roster except 1 player performed reasonably well. It was a culmination of things by that point but also that is a game the team was built to win. Forget the turnovers, forget the previous 56 minutes... the team was built to be able when a team has to go 80 yards to score a touchdown to win in a 4 minute offense to stop them.... and it didn't.
The Big Cat Posted March 1, 2016 Posted March 1, 2016 It was a culmination of things by that point but also that is a game the team was built to win. Forget the turnovers, forget the previous 56 minutes... the team was built to be able when a team has to go 80 yards to score a touchdown to win in a 4 minute offense to stop them.... and it didn't. Sure, but the phantom PI on Robey turned everything around. Call it an excuse if you want to dismiss it out of hand. But the defense had them dead to rights.
Augie Posted March 1, 2016 Posted March 1, 2016 Sure, but the phantom PI on Robey turned everything around. Call it an excuse if you want to dismiss it out of hand. But the defense had them dead to rights. We need a new season to start so I can try to put that recurring nightmare behind me. The most painful event of my season....
FireChan Posted March 1, 2016 Posted March 1, 2016 (edited) Sure, but the phantom PI on Robey turned everything around. Call it an excuse if you want to dismiss it out of hand. But the defense had them dead to rights. For what it's worth, I thought that was one of the defense's best performances all year. They ended up holding the Jags to 14 points not off triple streaking TO's on our own 20, and put up 7 on their own. Not much more you can ask of a defense in today's NFL unless they are insanely good. Edited March 1, 2016 by FireChan
The Big Cat Posted March 1, 2016 Posted March 1, 2016 For what it's worth, I thought that was one of the defense's best performances all year. They ended up holding the Jags to 17(?) points not off triple streaking TO's on our own 20, and put up 7 on their own. Not much more you can ask of a defense in today's NFL unless they are insanely good. They played well enough to win, but people can't help but get stuck on the fact given the chance TO WIN they didn't. Baffling PI, safety coming up lame, doesn't matter, Bortles' go ahead TD is all they remember. NEVERMIND the fact that the touchdown created only a three point deficit, which was too much for our QB to overcome, even with all three timeouts AND the two minute warning.
FireChan Posted March 1, 2016 Posted March 1, 2016 (edited) They played well enough to win, but people can't help but get stuck on the fact given the chance TO WIN they didn't. Baffling PI, safety coming up lame, doesn't matter, Bortles' go ahead TD is all they remember. NEVERMIND the fact that the touchdown created only a three point deficit, which was too much for our QB to overcome, even with all three timeouts AND the two minute warning. Yes, but you know why that is. The expectation last year was not our defense playing well enough to give us a chance vs. the Jags. It was our defense outright winning us games. The Titans performance was closer to the expectation, strictly for the game sealing stop. As one poster eloquently put it, someone in that locker room needed to scream that this defense was not elite around midseason. But that was our, and the Bills', expectations. Edited March 1, 2016 by FireChan
Hapless Bills Fan Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 (edited) They played well enough to win, but people can't help but get stuck on the fact given the chance TO WIN they didn't. Baffling PI, safety coming up lame, doesn't matter, Bortles' go ahead TD is all they remember. NEVERMIND the fact that the touchdown created only a three point deficit, which was too much for our QB to overcome, even with all three timeouts AND the two minute warning. Cat, is it possible for you to step back and take a look at the fundamental contradiction in what you're writing? "They played well enough to win" - what does that phrase even mean? We lost! The fact is winning teams, find a way to seal the deal. If you have a 4th Q lead, your D needs to do whatever it takes to keep it. If you're in a position to generate a lead, your O has to generate the points. Neither side of the ball gets a pass. The O didn't play "well enough to win" because they didn't score the points. The D didn't play "well enough to win" because they didn't stop the opponent from scoring the points. You don't play "well enough to win" if...your team lost. Edited March 2, 2016 by Hopeful
3rdand12 Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 I do not think the camp with the defense being told to take it easy on offense because they were overwhelming them did them any favors. Yes there were trying to compare QBs and they had both most of WRs and RBs out at different points but the starting defense barely got reps and it showed. Obviously there was a disconnect between the players and coaches; I think there may have been some contradictory coaching instructions given. The coaches and players should have been asking more questions and those who were making the calls/adjustments on defense on coaching and field should have been working harder to make sure scheme was understood. The disconnect was obvious when they went under stress. very well said all around. lets consider the 1st patriots game? What is the over-under on someone being convinced to change their mind about something in this thread? I'll go with zero. Fairly inflexible with your thinking aren't you? ; )
The Big Cat Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 Cat, is it possible for you to step back and take a look at the fundamental contradiction in what you're writing? "They played well enough to win" - what does that phrase even mean? We lost! The fact is winning teams, find a way to seal the deal. If you have a 4th Q lead, your D needs to do whatever it takes to keep it. If you're in a position to generate a lead, your O has to generate the points. Neither side of the ball gets a pass. The O didn't play "well enough to win" because they didn't score the points. The D didn't play "well enough to win" because they didn't stop the opponent from scoring the points. You don't play "well enough to win" if...your team lost. I COMPLETELY AGREE Winning teams tend to have quarterbacks who can at least match a three point deficit with 2:16 remaining and all three time outs. So...?
hondo in seattle Posted March 2, 2016 Posted March 2, 2016 Rex's issue is he wants to be a "Player's Coach" but needs to understand that sometimes he needs to kick butt to get the overpaid millionaires to perform when their contract is not up for renewal. The only player he seemed to use "Tough Love" approach was Carpenter. Rex doesn't try to be a "Player's Coach." He tries to be an effective coach who brings out the best in his players. For him, loyalty and caring are elements of effective coaching. He's been called a "Player's Coach" because he listens and cares more than some other NFL coaches. Is that a bad thing? Many of his former players have stated that he succeeded in bringing out their very best. Then again, there have been some rumblings that he's been a little lax with discipline issues. Player's Coaches have won in the NFL (e.g. Pete Carroll) and disciplinarians have won in the NFL. Neither approach is necessarily bad. I'm not sure 'kicking butt' is a proven leadership technique, though I do worry sometimes if Rex is a little too understanding of performance issues sometimes. It's really hard to say because we're not in the locker room. We're not privy to the one-on-one conversations Rex (or his coordinators and position coaches) have with players.
Recommended Posts