jahnyc Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 I don't understand firing all of these assistant coaches and the coordinators and keeping MM. 1. MM has not show much as HC. This is not Parcells. Can it really be suggested that the poor play of the offense and the defense was somehow not related to MM's performance as HC (i.e., it was the fault of the assistant coaches)? Makes no sense to me. 2. What coordinator or assistant coach would come to Buffalo knowing that MM was almost fired and could be replaced next year (possibly by Levy)? 3. Were all of the defensive assistants not up to par? I know the defense had a poor year, but do you wipe away the two years prior when the defense performed well?
Dawgg Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 The answer is simple: Donahoe put this franchise in a bind by signing MM to a 5-year deal. Firing him would require the Bills to pay his salary for the next 3 years. Assistant coaches generally have shorter and more managable contracts. While many franchises are willing to eat that cost (see 49ers, Bears, Redskins), Ralph Wilson generally doesn't. I don't understand firing all of these assistant coaches and the coordinators and keeping MM. 1. MM has not show much as HC. This is not Parcells. Can it really be suggested that the poor play of the offense and the defense was somehow not related to MM's performance as HC (i.e., it was the fault of the assistant coaches)? Makes no sense to me. 2. What coordinator or assistant coach would come to Buffalo knowing that MM was almost fired and could be replaced next year (possibly by Levy)? 3. Were all of the defensive assistants not up to par? I know the defense had a poor year, but do you wipe away the two years prior when the defense performed well? 558182[/snapback]
MadBuffaloDisease Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 I don't understand firing all of these assistant coaches and the coordinators and keeping MM. 1. MM has not show much as HC. This is not Parcells. Can it really be suggested that the poor play of the offense and the defense was somehow not related to MM's performance as HC (i.e., it was the fault of the assistant coaches)? Makes no sense to me. MM is an offensive coach (insert joke here) so he has little to do with the defense. He was also doubling as OC for most of the season. I don't necessarily like him staying as HC, but he did pretty well as a rookie HC and I'd like to see who they add as assistants. 2. What coordinator or assistant coach would come to Buffalo knowing that MM was almost fired and could be replaced next year (possibly by Levy)? Uh, maybe someone looking to do a good job and possibly TAKE the HC'ing job if MM gets canned? 3. Were all of the defensive assistants not up to par? I know the defense had a poor year, but do you wipe away the two years prior when the defense performed well? I think there were other problems like 3rd downs, getting smoked by NE annually, late game collapses, etc.
jahnyc Posted January 7, 2006 Author Posted January 7, 2006 I understand, but if you fire MM next year, the team will be eating the costs of the new assistants that are not retained next year when the new coach want to hire his own assistants. MM is one of the lowest paid coaches in the NFL. Eating the last three years of his contract would not be significant compared to what other teams have been willing to do with much more highly compensated head coaches. Plus MM would likely find other employment, which would offset these amounts.
PromoTheRobot Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 There is also some thought that the Bills want to avoid looking like a complete coaching carousel. What decent coaching candidate would want to join a team knowing they could be fired in one season? PTR
Mark VI Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 Mularkey giggles, thinking to himself " These old photos of Wilson with the goat are gold, baby...Gold ! "
dogbyte Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 It show me that MM is willing to throw people under the bus to save his job. It shows that RW does not want to pay MM the last 3 years of his contract so he will put up with a toothless head coach. The only reason that Gray is still here is that their hoping that he gets a HC position so they do not have to pay him the rest of his contract
Adam Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 I don't understand firing all of these assistant coaches and the coordinators and keeping MM. 1. MM has not show much as HC. This is not Parcells. Can it really be suggested that the poor play of the offense and the defense was somehow not related to MM's performance as HC (i.e., it was the fault of the assistant coaches)? Makes no sense to me. 2. What coordinator or assistant coach would come to Buffalo knowing that MM was almost fired and could be replaced next year (possibly by Levy)? 3. Were all of the defensive assistants not up to par? I know the defense had a poor year, but do you wipe away the two years prior when the defense performed well? 558182[/snapback] Maybe by changing leadership, and most of the staff, we have, in essence, gotten rid of the Mularkey that has been here the past two seasons....in a way, people are a product of what they are subject to. Hopefully he's here for awhile, because that means the team will be doing well
BuffaloWings Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 The other thing to consider is that maybe the multiple duties of being an OC and HC really hampered Mularkey and, thus, the offense suffered for it. I always believe that a team either underachieves or just doesn't do well when a head coach also has the role of GM. Just look at Seattle - Holmgren gave up the GM duties and now the team is floursihing. I honestly believe that's because he can just focus on coaching and game-planning and not worry about shopping for his groceries. Mularkey/Levy need to find an OC that can build and run an effective offense and a DC that can run an effective defense. Mularkey might just be a good coach, but he probably just had too much on his plate this year.
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 That really doesn't matter as even if they fire Gray tomorrow, if he gets a job next week paying equal or more, the Bills are off the hook. Or are you suggesting the Bill's aren't going to fire Gray at all and will keep him if he doesn't get a head coach job to avoid paying him?? I think Gray is finished with the Bill's one way or another. I think he's being kept right now as it looks a little better when he's interviewing to list himself as currently employed as the def coord of the Bills as opposed to a recently fired coord. So the Bills are doing him a favor, with the understanding likely that if all of a sudden the person they are looking at is ready to sign, Gray would be immediately let go. That probably won't happen though as right now with all the changes going on, no one like a Caper,s Hasslett, etc will take a coordjob until all the head jobs are filled. So Gray hangs arounda couple more weeks, then is let go. The lower level copaches were let go now probably so they have a better change to find a new job which would save the Bills some money. Plus they aren't currently being interviewed for a head coach position. The only reason that Gray is still here is that their hoping that he gets a HC position so they do not have to pay him the rest of his contract 558208[/snapback]
Mikeleelop Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 some basic questions should have been answered before he was allowed to stay - will you use your best running back on 3rd down? - will you commit to the run and not try to trick/outsmart the defence all the time? those questions would tell me if MM is capable of being the coach of a strong willed team. the Bills were very soft this year, both defensively and offensively. That needs to change first. If MM agrees then he has a chance, otherwise next year will be more of the same
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 Good to see you didn't say; "This is not Belichick" as he didn't do any better than MM in his first two years at Cleveland, 6-10, 7-9, followed by 7-9, 11-5, 5-11 in years 3-5. 1983 was Parcells first year, and the Giants were 3-12-1 followed by 9-7 in 83. So MM actually has a better two year record than both these guys. Am I saying MM is better than these two? No, but I am saying he could be and no one knows. But I do know that if you keep changing coaches every two to three years, you'll likely never get anyplace! I don't understand firing all of these assistant coaches and the coordinators and keeping MM. 1. MM has not show much as HC. This is not Parcells. 558182[/snapback]
MDH Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 I've said it before and I'll say it again. This team had better win next year. If it doesn't keeping Mularkey on as HC was a huge mistake. It will turn next year into a lame duck year, one that doesn't help the team move forward at all. If Mularkey stumbles next year and gets fired at year end we'll have to wait 2-3 more seasons while the new coaching staff implements their systems and gets their feet under them. To me this is akin to developing a young QB. Why put off his development in a season that's likely to be a failure when you can get his feet under him right now. Next season could have been a "learning" season for a new coaching staff. As it is we'll likely have to wait two years for that "learning" season. If next year isn't a productive one this team's playoff drought is likely to last at least 8 years before a realistic shot at the playoffs can be achieved. This is so typical. The Bills never seem to want to build a foundation, it’s “try to win this year” even if it’s obvious that they aren’t capable to doing so. They end up finding stop gap solutions, that never actually enable them to win this year and only serves to stymie their future development. So the questions are, who actually thinks this team is capable of winning next year and what will it take for Mularkey to keep his job?
jahnyc Posted January 7, 2006 Author Posted January 7, 2006 I really think a fresh start was needed with the head coach as well. If you know that you have a great head coach, changing the assistants makes sense. If you have no idea how good a head coach you have, making these types of changes make little sense. While I like Marv, I hope this does not result in Marv becoming HC if the team stumbles at the start of next season.
Fan in San Diego Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 I think we need to get rid of more of the Offensive coaches as well. The TE and RB coach for starters.
Recommended Posts