Bills offer DC job to Bates!

[apuszczalowski]

Why is it when someone says something positive or optimistic they are considered being a cheerleader and dreaming, But when they say something negative they are being realistic.

 

PEOPLE THIS IS A NEW COACHING STAFF. WE HAVEN'T EVEN HIT FREE AGANCY AND THE TEAM IS ALREADY WRITTEN OFF AS LOSERS

 

We can't beat bellichik cause he is so great. Saban is the second coming in Miami, and manginni is going to be great cause he worked for BB. If you think BB is SUCH A GREAT COACH, go join a pats board and continue to pray to him there. Maybe we have the next Belichik, who knows. It seems no one wants to find out cause he does not have a career winning record coaching the bears and lions

[timmyk12]

Why is it when someone says something positive or optimistic they are considered being a cheerleader and dreaming, But when they say something negative they are being realistic.

 

PEOPLE THIS IS A NEW COACHING STAFF. WE HAVEN'T EVEN HIT FREE AGANCY AND THE TEAM IS ALREADY WRITTEN OFF AS LOSERS

 

We can't beat bellichik cause he is so great. Saban is the second coming in Miami, and manginni is going to be great cause he worked for BB. If you think BB is SUCH A GREAT COACH, go join a pats board and continue to pray to him there. Maybe we have the next Belichik, who knows. It seems no one wants to find out cause he does not have a career winning record coaching the bears and lions

585120[/snapback]

 

If the Jets were so great why did Fairchild pick the Bills over them anyway?

[dry martini]

If the Jets were so great why did Fairchild pick the Bills over them anyway?

585136[/snapback]

 

 

"Don't be surprised" if Ralph offered him tons more money.

[apuszczalowski]

If the Jets were so great why did Fairchild pick the Bills over them anyway?

585136[/snapback]

 

What does my post have to do with Fairchild coming to the bills overthe jets

[Dan Gross]

The coaches are important.  I agree that not being enamored with them isn't important.  If the reason is that they appear likely to not do a good job, that is important.  I feel that way, so I don't think things are going along well.  I guess the question has to be why aren't you enamored with the coaches?  Is it the Count Chocula thing? 

585070[/snapback]

 

Give it up. Coaches generally are available either because:

1. They were fired from a previous job, which generally means they are a "proven loser" (your words).

2. They are coordinators/college head coaches with no NFL head coaching experience.

 

If a coach is coaching well, teams generally try to keep them (duh).

 

There are rare exceptions, like a "proven winner" who quits/retires is lured out of retirement. Those guys will never end up in Buffalo, because while you can argue back and forth whether Ralph will pay more than minimum wage for a coach, he's not going to pay the top buck. Regardless, these "proven winner" types are drawn to more glamorous jobs/locations. Retired coaches like to coach near where they retired to, which is usually the south. They pick where they want to go based on how it suits them, generally regardless of money.

 

Regardless, just like there are no guarantees that a "proven loser" will win here, there are no guarantees that a "proven winner" will win here either. Even the highly touted Parcells has won 1 playoff game in his last 6 years coaching, and his teams have been up-and-down. Shall I even bring up Jimmy Johnson? There has yet to be a coach who has won a Super Bowl with two different teams, but yet there have been winners of Super Bowls who fit into the two categories above. Now Holmgren may change that next weekend, but if he had come here and done the same things he had done in Seattle, he wouldn't have lasted three years before the "general populace" here would have been calling for his head as well...

 

There's no magic formula. For every Kotite, there's a Belichick. For every "Parcells," there's a Bobby Ross. There are "good" coaches that lose and "bad" coaches that win in certain situations. You look at the current situation and see no reason to believe they will succeed. I look and also see no reason to believe they will fail. I won't go so far as to beg for your patience while we wait for the team to actually play against another team, but can't we at least see what the 2006 Buffalo Bills team will be comprised of (or at least where we'll start from) before you decide that it's automatic that we'll be no better than 3-13 for the next three years?

[nero47]

Give it up.  Coaches generally are available either because:

1. They were fired from a previous job, which generally means they are a "proven loser" (your words).

2. They are coordinators/college head coaches with no NFL head coaching experience.

 

If a coach is coaching well, teams generally try to keep them (duh).

 

There are rare exceptions, like a "proven winner" who quits/retires is lured out of retirement.  Those guys will never end up in Buffalo, because while you can argue back and forth whether Ralph will pay more than minimum wage for a coach, he's not going to pay the top buck.  Regardless, these "proven winner" types are drawn to more glamorous jobs/locations.  Retired coaches like to coach near where they retired to, which is usually the south.  They pick where they want to go based on how it suits them, generally regardless of money.

 

Regardless, just like there are no guarantees that a "proven loser" will win here, there are no guarantees that a "proven winner" will win here either.  Even the highly touted Parcells has won 1 playoff game in his last 6 years coaching, and his teams have been up-and-down.  Shall I even bring up Jimmy Johnson?  There has yet to be a coach who has won a Super Bowl with two different teams, but yet there have been winners of Super Bowls who fit into the two categories above.  Now Holmgren may change that next weekend, but if he had come here and done the same things he had done in Seattle, he wouldn't have lasted three years before the "general populace" here would have been calling for his head as well...

 

There's no magic formula.  For every Kotite, there's a Belichick.  For every "Parcells," there's a Bobby Ross.  There are "good" coaches that lose and "bad" coaches that win in certain situations.  You look at the current situation and see no reason to believe they will succeed.  I look and also see no reason to believe they will fail.  I won't go so far as to beg for your patience while we wait for the team to actually play against another team, but can't we at least see what the 2006 Buffalo Bills team will be comprised of (or at least where we'll start from) before you decide that it's automatic that we'll be no better than 3-13 for the next three years?

585189[/snapback]

Ditto's

[Buftex]

Joe Gibbs would not have gone back to coach anyone but the skins, and Parcells can no longer be re.lied upon to stay long enough to get the super bowl win.

 

As for others to interview, I can't think of anyone else with a proven track recordin the NFL that was available.

 

Most of the other HC's hired were previously assistant's and guys like sherman, haslett, and others were not hired by those teams either. I don't believe it was all about the money.

 

Yes, businesses are set up to make a profit, to get the most bang for the buck, but I have watched many teams throw their money around like drunken sailors and reached the holy grail, like Miami, Jets, Redskins, etc. Money doesn't always bring the desired results, whther spent on coaches or players.

585022[/snapback]

 

 

Oh, I know that Gibbs or Parcells would have never come to Buffalo, my point was, the Bills don't even try to get big, high profile guys, because (dare I say it, and offend all of the "realists") Ralph would just never pay them enough.

 

Chuck Knox (and Lou Saban part 2) was Ralphs' one HC hire that had a winning track record coming in. In 46 years, the Bills have had 14 head coaches. Only one had a successful reputation coming in. The rest were unsuccessful retreads, and unproven assistants. When Knox took the Bills to consecutive playoff appearences in 1980 and 1981, and wanted to be compensated, he was shown the door...

 

Another guy that might have been had, in the last 5 years, was Mike Holmgren. He has been on shaky ground in Seattle for about 3 or 4 years, and I just heard him this week, saying that he likely would have left Seattle, or the game altogether, if the right situation had come along...

 

Again, I am not as pissed about the Jauron hire as most, and I hardly think his record in Chicago precludes him from having success in Buffalo. I like the Fairchild hiring. I am fairly certain we will have a first time DC, when the dust settles. I just can't believe that there are those who can't see that Ralphs' reluctance to pay coaches the going rate, is affecting who our coaches will be.

 

The truth, as they say, is out there~!

[alg]

Indeed buftex, the history is there for all to read...

 

[BADOLBILZ]

I look and also see no reason to believe they will fail.  I won't go so far as to beg for your patience while we wait for the team to actually play against another team, but can't we at least see what the 2006 Buffalo Bills team will be comprised of (or at least where we'll start from) before you decide that it's automatic that we'll be no better than 3-13 for the next three years?

585189[/snapback]

 

You are such a trooper, but the best coached teams do most of the winning in the NFL today. All other factors are just too equal. Dick Jauron could succeed, my point is that we have been repeatedly sold a line of BS that guys like Williams and Mularkey were better than they appeared on the surface, and they were exactly what they appeared to be. They were what they were and that's the norm in the history of Bills hirings. Marv was the ONLY exception, but he was coaching in a different era, when talent ruled and teams could win for long periods of time with the same nucleus of star players.

 

There are never any guarantees, but Ralph's idea of re-energizing the franchise is usually hiring someone who was moderately succesfful to unsuccessful and expecting a miracle, instead of picking a brilliant young coach, a great college head coach or a proven winner at HC. Let's not forget, Williams and Mularkey were luke warm candidates at best, and Williams only really escaped Jeff Fisher's shadow when he went to Washington. You can act like good candidates don't come up, but Ken Whisenhunt is there, Kirk Ferenz is there and Martz, Sherman, Dan Reeves were right there too. They could fail too, but they are much more promising based on track record. It's common sense, and for some reason Ralph can't get his head around that.

[Dan Gross]

You can act like good candidates don't come up, but Ken Whisenhunt is there,

 

Yeah, those Pittsburgh OC's make great coaches... Besides, you'd like them to wait until after the super bowl to get the assistants?

 

Kirk Ferenz is there

Could be a Nick Saban, could be a Steve Spurrier, or Pete Carroll,

 

and Martz, Sherman,

Both took Super Bowl teams and rode them for all they were worth, then tanked them. Doesn't show "as much" with Martz, but 4 of his games every year were against the Niners and Cards, and Seattle's been hot/cold as well. Outside of the Super Bowl appearance with Vermeil's team, the only playoff game he won was against a divisional foe...Heck, even Williams out-coached him. Neither of these guys have proven that they can take a losing team and make winners out of them. In fact, they've only proven that they can't even maintain a winning team...Don't know how that's a "proven winner." Heck, in that list of candidates you forgot to mention Bill Callahan...he took a team to a Super Bowl under the same circumstances as the above two, doesn't that make him a "proven winner?"

 

Dan Reeves were right there too.

With his last team he had one great season and a bunch of mediocre-at-best seasons. Sounds like our current coach...besides, other "smarter" teams had a chance at him as well, why did the Texans take a "newbie" over a proven winner like him?

 

They could fail too, but they are much more promising based on track record.  It's common sense, and for some reason Ralph can't get his head around that.

586258[/snapback]

 

Belichick's "track record" was as a great coordinator who couldn't handle being a head coach. Cowher was a reasonable, but not particularly outstanding defensive coordinator. The Eagles were lambasted for hiring Andy Reid when there were other candidates with a "winning track record" available. Face it, it's a crapshoot.

[Kultarr]

You are such a trooper, but the best coached teams do most of the winning in the NFL today.  All other factors are just too equal.  Dick Jauron could succeed, my point is that we have been repeatedly sold a line of BS that guys like Williams and Mularkey were better than they appeared on the surface, and they were exactly what they appeared to be.  They were what they were and that's the norm in the history of Bills hirings.  Marv was the ONLY exception, but he was coaching in a different era, when talent ruled and teams could win for long periods of time with the same nucleus of star players.

 

      There are never any guarantees, but Ralph's idea of re-energizing the franchise is usually hiring someone who was moderately succesfful to unsuccessful and expecting a miracle, instead of picking a brilliant young coach, a great college head coach or a proven winner at HC.  Let's not forget, Williams and Mularkey were luke warm candidates at best, and Williams only really escaped Jeff Fisher's shadow when he went to Washington.  You can act like good candidates don't come up, but Ken Whisenhunt is there, Kirk Ferenz is there and Martz, Sherman, Dan Reeves were right there too.  They could fail too, but they are much more promising based on track record.  It's common sense, and for some reason Ralph can't get his head around that.

586258[/snapback]

 

I'll never understand how anyone could pass over Charlie Weis for Mike Mularkey.

[jahnyc]

I agree. I think C. Weiss would have been a difference maker and could have had great success with the Bills. I recall reading recently that the reason Weiss was not hired may have been related to his health. I think I read it on ESPN.

[Kultarr]

I agree.  I think C. Weiss would have been a difference maker and could have had great success with the Bills.  I recall reading recently that the reason Weiss was not hired may have been related to his health.  I think I read it on ESPN.

586596[/snapback]

 

If you look at Charlie Weis's career, he has always been a difference maker. He's like a coaching Midas.

 

Donahoe said around the time he hired Mularkey that he went with someone he didn't know well the first time, so the second time he wanted to go with someone more familiar. Familiarity won over coaching greatness. Brilliant.

[PromoTheRobot]

I'll never understand how anyone could pass over Charlie Weis for Mike Mularkey.     

586588[/snapback]

You forget the circumstances of MM's hiring. The Pats were still in preparations for the Super Bowl. Meanwhile most of the other coaching candidates were getting hired.

 

It was a huge gamble for TD to wait for Weis and Crennell. If they did, then Weis and Crennel had TD over a barrell. There were no other legitimate HC candidates if Weis/Crennell wanted to play hard ball. Also, consider the favor they would be doing for Belichick if the DELIBERATELY toyed with the Bills and then said "never mind!"

 

That is the problem for coordinators on Super Bowl teams. Hiring season goes on while they are still prepping for the big game. The "Oh-why-didn't-we-hire-Weis" lament is not that simple.

 

PTR

[Kultarr]

You forget the circumstances of MM's hiring.  The Pats were still in preparations for the Super Bowl.  Meanwhile most of the other coaching candidates were getting hired. 

 

It was a huge gamble for TD to wait for Weis and Crennell.  If they did, then Weis and Crennel had TD over a barrell.  There were no other legitimate HC candidates if Weis/Crennell wanted to play hard ball.  Also, consider the favor they would be doing for Belichick if the DELIBERATELY toyed with the Bills and then said "never mind!"

 

That is the problem for coordinators on Super Bowl teams.  Hiring season goes on while they are still prepping for the big game.  The "Oh-why-didn't-we-hire-Weis" lament is not that simple.

 

PTR

586626[/snapback]

 

Still, were we really going to "miss out" on Mularkey? Who else was hot to trot for him? TD had gone the distance before and still managed to landed Triple-G. And, frankly, to land Weis, it would've been worth it to give up a draft pick or two.

[Dan Gross]

Still, were we really going to "miss out" on Mularkey?  Who else was hot to trot for him?  TD had gone the distance before and still managed to landed Triple-G.  And, frankly, to land Weis, it would've been worth it to give up a draft pick or two.

586639[/snapback]

 

It's not just the head coach though, it's also the assistants. The ranks generally get thin the longer you wait....I really think that's a large part of what happened with Williams' first coaching staff. Though the people he picked were on the top of the "currently available" list, there's no knowing how many names happened to be above the chosen coaches in Greggo's "ideal" situation that had already been hired while the Bills waited to talk to Marvin Lewis....

[Lori]

It's not just the head coach though, it's also the assistants.  The ranks generally get thin the longer you wait....I really think that's a large part of what happened with Williams' first coaching staff.  Though the people he picked were on the top of the "currently available" list, there's no knowing how many names happened to be above the chosen coaches in Greggo's "ideal" situation that had already been hired while the Bills waited to talk to Marvin Lewis....

586728[/snapback]

Valid point.

 

And while I never joined the tar-and-feathers brigade chasing after Mularkey, I'm not real fond of him right now -- that "I'm coming back... umm, maybe not" routine he pulled cost the Bills a week's worth of interviews.

[Kultarr]

It's not just the head coach though, it's also the assistants.  The ranks generally get thin the longer you wait....I really think that's a large part of what happened with Williams' first coaching staff.  Though the people he picked were on the top of the "currently available" list, there's no knowing how many names happened to be above the chosen coaches in Greggo's "ideal" situation that had already been hired while the Bills waited to talk to Marvin Lewis....

586728[/snapback]

 

Mostly agree, but it isn't completely impossible to start putting the staff in place before the head coach officially signs. Also, my personal druthers, I wouldn't mind going 1 year with, say, a suboptimal (or green) OC or RB coach, if I had the peace of mind that I had one of the top 5 head coaches out there locked up. In other words, I'd rather start at the top and have a great head coach first and then fill in the staff (including replacing people not up to the challenge) later, than the other way around. If the head coach is bumbling his way around, it's quite likely that the staff is going to look bad too. (Actually, that applies not only to football.)

[Dan Gross]

Valid point.

 

And while I never joined the tar-and-feathers brigade chasing after Mularkey, I'm not real fond of him right now -- that "I'm coming back... umm, maybe not" routine he pulled cost the Bills a week's worth of interviews.

586736[/snapback]

 

I would think he wasn' alone in the blame game. Feels more to me like Ralph refused to "let him quit" (effectively refused to talk settlement). Could be too that he couldn't get anyone to answer his own calls as he hunted for candidates to replace the assistants that were already gone. It was clear that Mularkey was kept, but on a short leash. Who wants to sign up for that kind of insecurity? Who also knows what kinds of threats, etc. his family felt after it was announced that he was staying...

 

I really don't think it was as simple as Mularkey "dragging things out."