Bills submit rule proposal change on interviews

[Beerball]

6 hours ago, Gugny said:

If Daboll had a crappy day at the office for the AFCCG and it was because he was distracted by the interview process, then that's on McDermott, too.

 

They went out there and got their asses kicked in embarrassing fashion and they're going to add insult to injury by making excuses via this proposed rule change.

 

The coaching sucked.  Own it and get better.

I think they are trying to level the playing field for all coaches. It’s a stupid & ***** process as it now stands.  

[BillsShredder83]

3 hours ago, Jobot said:

 

Might have missed that, but was that the reason stated?

When I read the headline, my first thought goes the distraction aspect, and hadn't thought of the 'fairness to get hired' piece.

I mean even if they did think it was a distraction, they arent going to ay it in the media.  Its likely a combo of, "get good coordinators a fair shot", but also they felt like yes, it didnt allow them to put in 20hr days like alot of these coaches

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

To me seems tough on teams who are looking for new coaches  Meanwhile a team like the Bills or Miami who didn't make the playoffs are already planning for next season, but the team looking for a new coach has to wait a month.  Even the Bills while they were in the playoffs, I'm sure Beane had spent some time thinking about next season.

 

Does this only apply to existing coaches on teams?  What if a team wants to hire an out of work ex NFL coach or someone from the college ranks?   Do they still need to wait?  If not that's where all the new coaches will be coming from.

[letsgoteam]

7 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

I totally agree - I do not think the Bills were not prepared and I do not think the interview process caused them to be less prepared than usual.

 

I do think that with several WRs injured, but trying to go - that impacts and limits what a coach can install and what plays become available during a game.  We basically had an entire position group hurting throughout the playoffs.  Diggs had his back issue, Brown with the high ankle sprain, Beasley with the broken leg, and Davis with his high ankle sprain.

 

I think the limited aspect of the 4 of them had a bigger impact.

 

 

 

I agree with this. I have been thinking myself lately on how injured were the Bills WRs? McKenzie had an issue as well going into the playoffs as well. 

 

I doubt we will ever know unless they win a Super Bowl (it seems that teams give away a few more "secrets" of what was going on behind the scenes after winning one) or many years down the road, but I wonder what % the WRs truly were at during the playoffs.

[Paulus]

They should bar contact until after a team has been eliminated. 

[MJS]

7 hours ago, Jobot said:

 

Might have missed that, but was that the reason stated?

When I read the headline, my first thought goes the distraction aspect, and hadn't thought of the 'fairness to get hired' piece.

Yes. It is stated pretty clearly in the article. That's all Beane talks about.

[machine gun kelly]

12 hours ago, DCOrange said:

 

Yep, this won't work unless they propose pushing everything in the offseason back in addition to this change, and then it'll probably be viewed as too drastic a change for something that isn't really broken in the first place.

 

As I was flipping through this thread, I thought the same thing.  Owners are always in such a hurry to find their next guy, it seems like they would just find a coordinator or another coach, college coach, etc. to circumvent the proposed rule.  The only way to exact real change is all head coaching hires from anywhere cannot start until Black Monday including the entire interviewing process.  That levels the playing field for the avg. 7 new hires every year.

 

It will never happen as the owners will never go along with that change.  It’s too bad as that would be an excellent rule change.  Regarding the coaching of Daboll, that to me is overblown.  We held the Ravens to 3 pts., and you can say we were a little flat in the Colts game, but Allen like all good QB’s covered it up.  The ugly truth is the Chiefs were the far better team that day.  Besides, all four of our WR’s were injured.  That’s what brought us to the AFCCG.  Daboll can’t snap a finger and create a running game and excellent TE play.  The Chiefs didn’t care about those two facets and exploited it.

[BigBuff423]

15 hours ago, Ethan in Portland said:

If I recall, the Bills beat the Colts and Ravens, or did they go on a 3 game losing streak in the playoffs?  

The Bills played crap teams down the stretch and got beat by the second best team in the NFL on the road with a banged up WR roup and a serillus flawed front 7. It's not the coaches that can't rush the passer.  

 

As for the rule change. I have no problem with it.  Honestly they should just put a moratorium on hiring new coaches until after the SB for all teams. What is the rush?  

 

 

I'll respectfully disagree with your first point, as the Bills played the hardest schedule in the NFL across the span of the season and absorbed some tough injuries from beginning to end and STILL had the second best record in the league. I don't think any of the things you said were the "reasons" for the losses, while certainly they contributed to them. To me, the Bills the demonstrated all season they had the coaching to overcome those challenges - until the playoffs as the teams got better and competition intensified. JMO

[Ethan in Cleveland]

21 minutes ago, BigBuff423 said:

 

I'll respectfully disagree with your first point, as the Bills played the hardest schedule in the NFL across the span of the season and absorbed some tough injuries from beginning to end and STILL had the second best record in the league. I don't think any of the things you said were the "reasons" for the losses, while certainly they contributed to them. To me, the Bills the demonstrated all season they had the coaching to overcome those challenges - until the playoffs as the teams got better and competition intensified. JMO

So you are saying the Bills lost because Daboll and Frazier were preoccupied? It just doesn't make sense. My point was, wouldn't they have been preoccupied when they played the Colts and Ravens and won.

The Bills were injured, the Chiefs played better, the refs let the Chiefs manhandle our receivers, and the lack of pass rush cost them dearly.  The loss had nothing to do with Daboll and Frazier being HC candidates. 

All that said, I think they should not allow any coach or front office movement until after the SB. 

[BigBuff423]

1 hour ago, Ethan in Portland said:

So you are saying the Bills lost because Daboll and Frazier were preoccupied? It just doesn't make sense. My point was, wouldn't they have been preoccupied when they played the Colts and Ravens and won.

The Bills were injured, the Chiefs played better, the refs let the Chiefs manhandle our receivers, and the lack of pass rush cost them dearly.  The loss had nothing to do with Daboll and Frazier being HC candidates. 

All that said, I think they should not allow any coach or front office movement until after the SB. 

 

It's the highlighted portion I disagree with. The "nothing to do with" part of that statement. Of course the players and plays dictated the ultimate outcome of the game, but it was impacted by Daboll's fractured focus due to the interview process, IMHO. Frazier did fairly well until KC but that was exacerbated by an inept Offense. The front 4 not getting pressure is definitely a factor, but the Offense had an opportunity several times early to put KC on their heels and didn't execute to build on those opportunities. Again, JMO.

[Doc]

It might have had an impact.  No one can say definitively either way.  Just adopt this rule and be done with it so it's not an issue going forward.