dave mcbride Posted December 15, 2005 Posted December 15, 2005 Yes he did. But the core of the line (until Wolford left) were all guys from Ringo's tutelage. John Davis was the last cog that made that line dominant. 533337[/snapback] the bills offense really took off in 89, though, especially the running game. i certainly don't mean to denigrate ringo, but if bresnahan were inferior, one would expect that the line would decline in its play. it didn't -- it became much better. in particular, certain players became a lot better in 90 and 91 -- (i.e., ballard).
SDS Posted December 16, 2005 Posted December 16, 2005 Say what we may about Marv's game day coaching abilities, no one can ever deny his key role in keeping a locker room full of HOFers locked in on a goal and more often than not, supplanting personal ideals for that goal on game day. Marv's teams were always prepared (save one helmetless day) and never gave up. Well, it all depends on your definition of "prepared". We were never as prepared as our opponent in those 4 Super Bowls. In fact, the longer the "prep" period - the more we got hammered. But, yes - during the regular season our cast of Hall of Famers were prepared. A great backhanded compliment to Marv's coaching abilities was that he was a good administrator and is commended for keeping his teams together. You can call it backhanded if you want, but that is who he was. He was a head coach that players loved to play for but he is also the guy who stood and watched Jim Kelly throw pass after pass against the Giants in SB 25... Personally, I would have traded a little of the man love for Marv, for someone who was up the task on those January Sundays. A good GM is a good administrator who can delegate the operating functions to people in charge of the departments. A good GM doesn't need to dominate the draft, when the team has solid personnel directors. A good GM doesn't need to personally handle contract negotiations, when there's a crack legal team in how. A good GM doesn't need to dictate all player decisions, when the coaches are the ones dealing with the lugs on the field. You all get the picture. 533070[/snapback] The HC/GM dynamic is what you want to make of it. You can have administrators, personnel guys, money men, football coaches, or any combination in-between. As long as it works. The question is - who, after being out of the game for a decade, would he bring in to provide stability? Despite the constant pissing and moaning about cronyies - that is the name of the game in this business. If Marv's charter is to bring order to the chaos - then that is not done with new, unproven, unfamiliar people. That can only be accomplished by hiring friends and former colleagues you know and trust. So, who is in Marv's pool that is still alive, still available, and ready to work in Buffalo and for how long?
Tcali Posted December 16, 2005 Posted December 16, 2005 Great, but he actually wrote in the USA Today, after the Houston game,"the Bills have the Best Defense in the NFL" 533107[/snapback] L O L--dont confuse us with the facts--we are having too much fun!
GG Posted December 16, 2005 Author Posted December 16, 2005 The question is - who, after being out of the game for a decade, would he bring in to provide stability? Despite the constant pissing and moaning about cronyies - that is the name of the game in this business. If Marv's charter is to bring order to the chaos - then that is not done with new, unproven, unfamiliar people. That can only be accomplished by hiring friends and former colleagues you know and trust. So, who is in Marv's pool that is still alive, still available, and ready to work in Buffalo and for how long? 533706[/snapback] Marv went outside his circle to bring in Wade as DC, remembering how Denver's D bottled up a very potent offense in the AFC champ game, so I don't necessarily think that he'll automatically reach for the over the hill gang. I would imagine Dwight Adams may come back if Levy got the spot, but who else would Levy need in his GM capacity? Would he keep John Guy as the pro director? Dunno. All the other front office guys are Wilson people. I'm guessing that the coaching staff remains stable, with Mularkey having a bit more input into the team operations. The confrontation that I would want to see is Levy & Wyche
SDS Posted December 16, 2005 Posted December 16, 2005 Marv went outside his circle to bring in Wade as DC, remembering how Denver's D bottled up a very potent offense in the AFC champ game, so I don't necessarily think that he'll automatically reach for the over the hill gang. I would imagine Dwight Adams may come back if Levy got the spot, but who else would Levy need in his GM capacity? Would he keep John Guy as the pro director? Dunno. All the other front office guys are Wilson people. I'm guessing that the coaching staff remains stable, with Mularkey having a bit more input into the team operations. The confrontation that I would want to see is Levy & Wyche 533747[/snapback] But when he hired Wade, his charter wasn't "stability" it was "hire a DC"... Big difference. If you are suggesting that the coaching staff remains intact and just adding the aura of Marv around OBD, well, then I have no idea where you are coming from. How does Mularkey still get a vote of confidence? What has he done to deserve MORE responsibility? What about Clements? Gray? I don't see it... If you are going to bring Marv in to change something, well then - everyone is going to expect something to change more significantly. I think that goes beyond the war room and who brings in the free agents. Removing TD can't be THAT much addition by subtraction.
obie_wan Posted December 16, 2005 Posted December 16, 2005 Yes he did. But the core of the line (until Wolford left) were all guys from Ringo's tutelage. John Davis was the last cog that made that line dominant. 533337[/snapback] sorry to burst your bubble- but that OL without Wolford was not dominant, but it was better conditioned than most defenses they faced. (However, it was light years ahead of the current version) What made the offense sucessful was the no huddle aspect which wore down the defenses they faced. When operating under a standard huddle formation, the Bills offense was inconsistent. Fortunately, Marchibroda recognized this shortcoming and found a creative way to get better production out of an average line.
Buckeye Eric Posted December 16, 2005 Posted December 16, 2005 The idea of having Marv come back in any capacity is pure fantasy.
nick in* england Posted December 16, 2005 Posted December 16, 2005 The idea of having Marv come back in any capacity is pure fantasy. 533876[/snapback] Agreed. Can we now move on?
GG Posted December 16, 2005 Author Posted December 16, 2005 sorry to burst your bubble- but that OL without Wolford was not dominant, but it was better conditioned than most defenses they faced. (However, it was light years ahead of the current version) What made the offense sucessful was the no huddle aspect which wore down the defenses they faced. When operating under a standard huddle formation, the Bills offense was inconsistent. Fortunately, Marchibroda recognized this shortcoming and found a creative way to get better production out of an average line. 533853[/snapback] Which part of "until Wolford left" is ambiguous?
GG Posted December 16, 2005 Author Posted December 16, 2005 But when he hired Wade, his charter wasn't "stability" it was "hire a DC"... Big difference. If you are suggesting that the coaching staff remains intact and just adding the aura of Marv around OBD, well, then I have no idea where you are coming from. How does Mularkey still get a vote of confidence? What has he done to deserve MORE responsibility? What about Clements? Gray? I don't see it... If you are going to bring Marv in to change something, well then - everyone is going to expect something to change more significantly. I think that goes beyond the war room and who brings in the free agents. Removing TD can't be THAT much addition by subtraction. 533815[/snapback] You have to restore stability before you can address continuity. It's not a deeply held secret that TD runs a very compartmentalized organization. He is of firm belief that he and his personnel people better serve the team by making the player decisions, and letting coaches do the work with the players handed down to them. But, you don't have to go far to hear stories of TD not listening to coaches' input on what players are really needed to fit the system. Some can be explained away as competitive grumblings by people who were let go, but if you hear enough of the same story from different people, maybe there is a fire somewhere amid that smoke. It would not be much of an issue, if after 5 years it would show success. However, I am not aware of many cases where that model has been very successful. To me, the call for Scott Pioli is just as laughable, because a big part of Pats' re-emergence is that Pioli wouldn't consider making a personnel decision without heavy input and blessing from Belichick. As to Mularkey's vote of confidence, I look at it from the same position. Has he had the right players for what he needs to win, and more importantly did he get the players that were requested and could have been reasonably obtained, but denied by the front office? I don't know. But in the mood I'm in, I'm likely to take a bad guess. You also have to ask if Mularkey would have hired Gray from the start if given that choice.
Recommended Posts