Perhaps Dennison should adapt to the Bills existing offense.

[Zulu Cthulhu]

what was Lynns plan on defense? Who are his assistant coaches ? Those answers might not have made Pegula's feel confident Lynn is the man

Absolutely that's possible - and may well be why he didn't get the job. My point is a criticism of the OP suggestion. You don't hire a new set of coaches and then immediately hamstring them by saying: "oh by the way you need to continue the status quo on offense that the old guys we fired taught." That's ludicrous. What if Dennison et al donmt have the knowledge to teach such a scheme? Does the team really want to immediately cripple their incoming staff with directives on how to coach? That's how you go 8-8 every year, which is exactly what our "existing offense" has produced in the past. Dumb idea, in other words.

[Saxum]

Because Rex did it with our D and it set us back three years. Now we need to rinse and repeat on O simply because we are the Buffalo F'kin Bills and that's they way we screw **** up.

 

Apply to be Bills' mascot. You will fit right in.

[John from Riverside]

I dont know man.....doesnt the higher of McD feel the exact opposite of RR?

 

I hope this was a situation of doug w getting one more crack at really finding his guys and wanting to start fresh

[Thurman#1]

If Tyrod Taylor is retained, would it not be best to keep the same offense

that we've been running the past two years. Why scrap a top ten scoring

offense and instill a new one that will necessitate a learning curve.

 

 

 

Depends how he's kept.

 

If he's kept on his old contract, you're essentially saying he's your quarterback until someone else knocks him off. So you would want to build around his strengths and weaknesses. And this offense would be a very good place to start, with some tweaks, modifications and improvements, as much as seems reasonable.

 

Which seems to me to be yet another reason not to keep him if he doesn't re-negotiate and you have to pick up that option. Putting a young QB with more traditional skills in an offense built around Tyrod's would not be the best way to develop him.

 

On the other hand, if he re-negotiates you're saying we want to build for the long-term and that means bringing in other QBs and expecting them to take over as time passes. And if Tyrod improves hand over foot and beats them all out in the long-term, so much the better.

 

So in that case you'd be less concerned with keeping so much of the old offense together and would put in whatever Dennison was hired to bring in and install. And if you're doing that, you need to build an offense that would not be built around Tyrod's strengths, an offense built around a more traditional and efficient passing attack, though it should ideally be a balanced offense. You could keep some plays built around Tyrod's abilities but wouldn't build the whole attack around them.

Edited January 31, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

Do you consider Seattle, Denver, Dallas, and Pittsburgh modern football? I too want a more potent passing attack. I too don't want to rely on Watkins and TT bombs. But you can win a lot of games with a ground attack leading the way. Not the way I would do it, but you can not say it doesn't work.

 

 

Pittsburgh passed 58.96% of the time. Denver passed 59.80% of the time. Seattle 59.37%. That made them the 13th, 16th and 18th highest run:pass ratios in the league. They were absolutely not "leading the way with a ground attack."

 

All of those teams could run very effectively. Having an effective run game is certainly nothing to be scoffed at, in modern football or any other kind. But they passed a lot more than they ran.

 

In fact, there wasn't a team in the league that ran more than they passed this year. Dallas led the league with 48.7% run plays (Buffalo was #2), which makes sense when you've got a rookie behind center. Doubt they'll be doing the same thing three or four years from now, at least if Prescott is still thriving.

Edited January 31, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

Your right.

 

Let's just swing a deal for Matt Ryan or Aaron Rodgers.

 

 

 

Or, you know, obtain and develop a guy with the skill set to become a top ten or twelve guy in the passing game.

[John from Riverside]

 

 

 

Or, you know, obtain and develop a guy with the skill set to become a top ten or twelve guy in the passing game.

why not do both....and i dont mean the fantasy trade

[TANK2]

Couldn't Lynn, as HC, have hired a new DC to do that?

Yes but I think they just wanted an outside guy. I really didnt like the fact that all the players where backing him up. Lynn that is. Think they felt a little too comfortable with him. Nothing wrong with the fear of the unknown. Gonna keep people on their toes.

Edited January 31, 2017 by TANK2

[Thurman#1]

why not do both....and i dont mean the fantasy trade

 

 

 

The quick answer: because $30.5 mill guaranteed is insane for Tyrod, and then $10 mill more guaranteed if you keep him for another year is again wildly out of whack.

 

And beyond that, because Tyrod's style is likely to be different from most guys you can bring in. You can't tailor an offense around both.a Tyrod and a drop-back guy. Something would have to give.

[John from Riverside]

 

 

 

The quick answer: because $30.5 mill guaranteed is insane for Tyrod, and then $10 mill more guaranteed if you keep him for another year is again wildly out of whack.

 

And beyond that, because Tyrod's style is likely to be different from most guys you can bring in. You can't tailor an offense around both.a Tyrod and a drop-back guy. Something would have to give.

what exactly would that take?

 

this is a OC that went to the playoffs with Tim Tebow

[Zulu Cthulhu]

Yes but I think they just wanted an outside guy. I really didnt like the fact that all the players where backing him up. Think they felt a little too comfortable with him. Nothing wrong with the fear of the unknown. Gonna keep people on their toes.

What? An outside guy as HC? Sorry I'm not following you anymore. The OP's point was ludicrous, for reasons that I and a lot of others have said. I can't really follow what you're saying above but if your point is "they wanted an outside guy" then my initial point still stands - you don't impose a previous regime's strategy on a new coaching staff, especially when that previous regime produced thoroughly mediocre results.

[TANK2]

What? An outside guy as HC? Sorry I'm not following you anymore. The OP's point was ludicrous, for reasons that I and a lot of others have said. I can't really follow what you're saying above but if your point is "they wanted an outside guy" then my initial point still stands - you don't impose a previous regime's strategy on a new coaching staff, especially when that previous regime produced thoroughly mediocre results.

Well lets try to explain it. Outside guy. As in someone who hasnt worked for the Bills before. Someone who has a little different point of view on how things should be done. Somebody who has zero loyalty to any player or assistant coach currently in the organization. Somebody the players might not feel comfortable with due to their unfamilarity with said coach. There seems to be a heightened sense of fear amongst employees (players) when a new boss is brought in from another company as opposed to promoting from within. At least thats been my experience at any company I ever worked for. Fear tends to motivate people.

 

And who says they are scrapping the offense? What I read about Dennison in another thread is that hes adaptable to his personel. We may run an offense similar to last year. With a few new wrinkles. The blocking scheme is different but Ive heard more than one national guy say the players currently on the oline can handle that change.

 

On another note Im watching Basic Instict right now. Good god Sharon Stone and Jeanne Tripplehorn where off the charts smoking hot in that movie. Not sure who was hotter. Maybe I should start a poll.

Edited January 31, 2017 by TANK2