Sisyphean Bills Posted May 3, 2008 Posted May 3, 2008 I don't care one way or the other about Jauron. In fact, if you go back into the archives here, you'll find that I was on the Mike Sherman bandwagon. But you said, "Look it up." So I did. I also talked to Chris Villarrial about Miller and Jauron while he was here. Is that "legit" enough for you? I don't understand your question. Did I say Chris Villarrial was not legit? No. On the other hand, you don't even mention what he said. So, are you just name dropping? You're welcome. I take it that means you aren't going to answer all my questions. I'd like one more attempt to set the record straight. Dick Jauron was hired as head coach of the Chicago Bears when Jerry Angelo was working in Tampa. Dick, like Wannstedt before him, at least as far as what I recall, was given both the head coach and personnel responsibilities. (No, I don't have his contract.) The Bears had no GM at this time. Jerry Angelo was hired later and was given overlapping responsibilities with Jauron as far as player personnel and staff. Unsurprisingly, this became a problem. I overstated that Jauron was in complete control; typically, these decisions are made by more than 1 person. Still, I find it disingenuous to read repetitious arguments that Jauron has no say in anything that happens in relation to the teams he coaches. I will adopt the party line though and assume that is true from now on. I don't really follow all the arguments about which QBs are "obvious busts" and which are not and who deserves a chance and who has had a chance and who sucks and doesn't deserve a chance and so on. I consider football a team sport and it is thus impossible to focus on a single position and lay all the blame at one player's feet. In the case of Cade McNown, who was more interested in chasing bleach blondes with larger bra sizes than IQs than being a QB, he was a major mistake as a 1st round pick. Anyway, it is all subjective unless the terms can be defined as to which QB sucks and which one doesn't. Since no one (and I don't mean you personally, Lori) will define terms, it's not worth debating.
ax4782 Posted May 3, 2008 Posted May 3, 2008 I don't understand your question. Did I say Chris Villarrial was not legit? No. On the other hand, you don't even mention what he said. So, are you just name dropping? I take it that means you aren't going to answer all my questions. I'd like one more attempt to set the record straight. Dick Jauron was hired as head coach of the Chicago Bears when Jerry Angelo was working in Tampa. Dick, like Wannstedt before him, at least as far as what I recall, was given both the head coach and personnel responsibilities. (No, I don't have his contract.) The Bears had no GM at this time. Jerry Angelo was hired later and was given overlapping responsibilities with Jauron as far as player personnel and staff. Unsurprisingly, this became a problem. I overstated that Jauron was in complete control; typically, these decisions are made by more than 1 person. Still, I find it disingenuous to read repetitious arguments that Jauron has no say in anything that happens in relation to the teams he coaches. I will adopt the party line though and assume that is true from now on. I don't really follow all the arguments about which QBs are "obvious busts" and which are not and who deserves a chance and who has had a chance and who sucks and doesn't deserve a chance and so on. I consider football a team sport and it is thus impossible to focus on a single position and lay all the blame at one player's feet. In the case of Cade McNown, who was more interested in chasing bleach blondes with larger bra sizes than IQs than being a QB, he was a major mistake as a 1st round pick. Anyway, it is all subjective unless the terms can be defined as to which QB sucks and which one doesn't. Since no one (and I don't mean you personally, Lori) will define terms, it's not worth debating. I hate jumping into these sorts of frackuses but on this one I'm going to. Everything that happened in Chicago is in the past. None of the QBs he had were good. Chandler was old enough to remember when Dinosaurs roamed the earth at the time he was playing in Chicago, and just because he played in a Super Bowl doesn't mean he was a great NFL QB. No one would say that Trent Dilfer was a great NFL QB and he won a Super Bowl, so try to keep your reality goggles on for just a moment. Grossman has been extremely inconsistent and was only a rookie in Jauron's last season as a coach. To say that the world should have been expected of Grossman at that time was ludicrous. Also, during his tenure, his QBs were getting hurt relatively more frequently than one would expect and none of those QBs was anything more than mediocre. He was not in charge of player personnel. He may have decided who plays, but he didn't control who they brought in in FA and in the draft. Also, Jauron proved he can be an exceptional coach in Chicago. In 2001, the team went 8-0 in games decided by 7 points or less. That requires good coaching and good defense. Now, looking at the present, let's see what Jauron has done. In his two years at the helm, the Bills have been a much better football team. Compared with Williams and Mularkey, Jauron is a fantastic coach. He gets his players to play hard every down and on a team that had 12 players each of whom had astared a game last year, we were still in the playoff hunt to the bitter end of the season. If Jauron was the one in charge of personnel here, he has done a heck of a job. However, he isn't. He's just the coach, just like he was in Chicago, and this year, if he can get the players to play at the same level that they did last year, Buffalo wins ten games and goes to the playoffs. You may not like the Jauron for your own personal reasons. So far you haven't made those clear. But using history from a completely different team in a completely different situation to say that Jauron is a bad coach now is a bit ridiculous. Norv Turner was a terrible coach for Oakland and Washington, but he did a pretty good job last year in San Diego. Maybe that has something to do with the players on those teams when Turner was the coach? But, I guess that's his fault anyway, right? So here's a few questions for you that maybe will clear some things up. What's the real reason you dislike Jauron? Because he doesn't play mind games like Parcells, and make all the players hate his guts? What did he do so poorly last season with half a defense filled with PS players while still winning 7 games? Will you say the same thing at the end of the season if Buffalo wins ten games? Eleven? Twelve? What if Buffalo makes the playoffs, will he still be a bad coach? What if they win the division? Go to the AFC Championship? Win the Super Bowl? Would you still say the same thing then? If so, hey, congratulations, you're a person of conviction. You have your beliefs and you stick to them. If not, you're a band wagon fan who will love Jauron when he's up and hate him when he's down. I guess that's all right to, but consistency counts for something. Perhaps if we all felt the way you do about Jauron we'd be Jets fans?
Sisyphean Bills Posted May 4, 2008 Posted May 4, 2008 So here's a few questions for you that maybe will clear some things up. What's the real reason you dislike Jauron? Do you mean personally? I never said I hated Jauron. Because he doesn't play mind games like Parcells, and make all the players hate his guts? Hunh? What did he do so poorly last season with half a defense filled with PS players while still winning 7 games? Who are the these so called practice squad players? Schobel, Tripplett, Williams, Kelsay, Whitner, McGee, Crowell are more than 1/2 the defense. Will you say the same thing at the end of the season if Buffalo wins ten games? Eleven? Twelve?What if Buffalo makes the playoffs, will he still be a bad coach? What if they win the division? Go to the AFC Championship? Win the Super Bowl? Would you still say the same thing then? All that would be great and an incredible change of spots. Are you guaranteeing this for this upcoming season?
Lurker Posted May 4, 2008 Posted May 4, 2008 I take it that means you aren't going to answer all my questions. What's the point. Even if I could exhume Mark Hatley and have a seance, or get Jerry Angelo to call you personnally...I'm doubtful you'd change your outlook. Que Sera, Sera...
ax4782 Posted May 4, 2008 Posted May 4, 2008 Do you mean personally? I never said I hated Jauron. Hunh? Who are the these so called practice squad players? Schobel, Tripplett, Williams, Kelsay, Whitner, McGee, Crowell are more than 1/2 the defense. All that would be great and an incredible change of spots. Are you guaranteeing this for this upcoming season? You didn't have to say that you disliked Jauron, because it was clear from your posts and your attitude that you hated him. And since you ducked the question, which was clearly asking why YOU, yes you, disliked him, you have confirmed the answer. The questions weren't hard or unclear, you just didn't want to answer them, so I'll pose them to you again. The second question too which you responded "hunh?" was contingent on the first. Do you not like him because he isn't a Parcels "in your face" kind of coach whose players don't like him? Easy enough to answer. As for the defense. Kyle Williams was NOT a starter. The only starters that were playing on D for most of the season were Schobel, Triplett, Kelsay, Whitner, Crowell. McGee was out for a total of four weeks last season with injuries too, IIRC. Whitner was also out for either three or four weeks as well. Kelsay was also out for a number of weeks, which is why Ryan Neill had to play. The only starters on defense that played every game last year were: Aaron Schobel Larry Triplett Angelo Crowell Players who replaced injuries in the secondary were: George Wilson (PS) Jon Corto (PS) John DiGiorgio (UDFA) John Wendling (PS) Ryan Neill (PS) Corey Mace (PS) There were others who came in only for a short time, but these four got significant playing time in the secondary. Such was the reason that our pass D was ranked 30th last year. Neill and Mace were called up while Kelsay, Denney, Al Wallace and Hargrove were out, leaving us with Schobel and Jason Jefferson as outside pass rushers. Thus, for a number of games, the MAJORITY of the defense were either UDFAs or PS players. I'm not saying they played poorly. They did not. They played admirably and kept the team in the playoff hunt, but some of that credit has to go to Jauron. He got all those players, who came in due to injury and were basically new to the system, and got them to play as a TEAM. That's how good teams win in the NFL. They all have some talent, but they play as a team and that is what Jauron has been able to do. He has been a good coach for this team and I have enjoyed watching them play under him. Much moreso than under Williams or Mularkey. Give him a real chance.
Dibs Posted May 4, 2008 Posted May 4, 2008 .....Kyle Williams was NOT a starter. I hate to do this but.....yeah he was a starter. 16 games. Not that I think it detracts from your point.....we were still riddled with injuries on the D all season....but I'm a stickler for accuracy.
ax4782 Posted May 4, 2008 Posted May 4, 2008 I hate to do this but.....yeah he was a starter. 16 games. Not that I think it detracts from your point.....we were still riddled with injuries on the D all season....but I'm a stickler for accuracy. Point taken. I can admit that I made a mistake there. I recalled that he appeared in 16 games, but I didn't think he had started all 16 games. Either way, that doesn't change my point, which you adequately pointed out. Thanks for the correction.
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted May 4, 2008 Posted May 4, 2008 When will Dick Jauron stop being a victim and emerge as the best coach ever? One hundred and twenty-six days, 12 hours.
Pyrite Gal Posted May 4, 2008 Posted May 4, 2008 For what? - When will Dick Jauron stop being a victim and emerge as the best coach ever? To answer your question directly, I am virtually certain that Jauron will never emerge as the best coach ever. However, I think that it is pretty clear looking at the Bills right here and right now that Jauron is a pretty good HC. My reasons for drawing this conclusion: 1. Jauron took over as HC of a team which had posted a 5-11 record and which performed so badly in the year before he got here that the GM got canned and the HC jumped ship. Being HC of the squad their record improved to 7-9. Does Jauron deserve all the credit for this? No. HCs routinely get too much credit for wins and too much blame for losing, However, as the highest ranking on field person and the main spokesperson for the team after a game (W or L) the buck does stop with him Like it or not when one looks at the only stat that really counts, Jauron did a good job his first year as HC of the Bills (and some would credibly say though ultimately I would disagree with them he did a VERY good job as HC given the disarray and relatively poor players and units he inherited. 2. The record did not improve in his second year and a couple of winnable games (Dallas) were loss. However, along with the sad reality of no improvement in the W/L the fact simply is that this team had more players on the IR than any other team in the league. Does this excuse the team having an inadequate record? No. However, the disruptions of this team were real and though ultimately there is no excuse for losing, they are a real world reason why this team did not perform as well as they should/could have. Producing the same record was at worst average and actually I think can reasonably be called a good coaching job. I am not saying that you should love how he coaches or love him, but I think on the face of it Jauron has done a average job at worst and actually a good job considering him working with a number of key factors he could not really control (players signed to longer term contracts and the injuries which were different enough as not to be indicative of any specific flaw like not warming up, etc). DJ is and likely will never emerge a great HC, but the simple fact is that for whatever reasons (he is a nice guy, he has learned from his failings in Chicago, dumb luck which is simply part of the game) he appears to be a good one. Am I satisfied with this. yes, for now, call me in a year when it is rational to draw conclusions about his work as a Bill HC.
1billsfan Posted May 4, 2008 Posted May 4, 2008 To answer your question directly, I am virtually certain that Jauron will never emerge as the best coach ever. However, I think that it is pretty clear looking at the Bills right here and right now that Jauron is a pretty good HC. My reasons for drawing this conclusion: 1. Jauron took over as HC of a team which had posted a 5-11 record and which performed so badly in the year before he got here that the GM got canned and the HC jumped ship. Being HC of the squad their record improved to 7-9. Does Jauron deserve all the credit for this? No. HCs routinely get too much credit for wins and too much blame for losing, However, as the highest ranking on field person and the main spokesperson for the team after a game (W or L) the buck does stop with him Like it or not when one looks at the only stat that really counts, Jauron did a good job his first year as HC of the Bills (and some would credibly say though ultimately I would disagree with them he did a VERY good job as HC given the disarray and relatively poor players and units he inherited. 2. The record did not improve in his second year and a couple of winnable games (Dallas) were loss. However, along with the sad reality of no improvement in the W/L the fact simply is that this team had more players on the IR than any other team in the league. Does this excuse the team having an inadequate record? No. However, the disruptions of this team were real and though ultimately there is no excuse for losing, they are a real world reason why this team did not perform as well as they should/could have. Producing the same record was at worst average and actually I think can reasonably be called a good coaching job. I am not saying that you should love how he coaches or love him, but I think on the face of it Jauron has done a average job at worst and actually a good job considering him working with a number of key factors he could not really control (players signed to longer term contracts and the injuries which were different enough as not to be indicative of any specific flaw like not warming up, etc). DJ is and likely will never emerge a great HC, but the simple fact is that for whatever reasons (he is a nice guy, he has learned from his failings in Chicago, dumb luck which is simply part of the game) he appears to be a good one. Am I satisfied with this. yes, for now, call me in a year when it is rational to draw conclusions about his work as a Bill HC. While Dick Jauron was and still is a calming and steadying influence as the Bills head coach, this does NOT mean that he is, was or will ever be a good NFL head coach. Jauron's coaching style will never lend itself to a team's goals of achieving greatness. He simply does not trust his offensive playmakers enough to make plays in the passing game. He's clearly much too afraid of the foward pass ending up in an interception. This is his fatal flaw as a head coach. The only way that Jauron saves his job is to allow Edwards the opportunity throw the ball to Lynch, Evans, Jackson, Hardy and Parrish when the defenses do not expect it. That would be on first and second downs, third and short. If he continues to not trust in his offensive players other than Lynch up the middle, Lynch left and Lynch right, he might as well pack his bags now. Our offense was a joke last season because Jauron failed to let the offense loose. Yes, his style will always get you around .500. But is that what we Bills fans are happy with now???? His style will NEVER beat any of the good teams. Good teams force you to beat them by taking what is called "RISKS", buy risks I mean attacking the opponent with the passing game as well as the running game. It's my opinion that that Dick Jauron will be fired if he does not change his "play not to lose, never take any chances, let the other team beat themselves" coaching style in 2008. Because this team will win no more than eight games and the mob will be finally significant enough that Wilson could not possibly think he will ever get this team to the promised land. No matter how nice and classy the guy is, breaking even every year isn't going to cut it for a team with a non-playoff streak as long as ours.
Lurker Posted May 4, 2008 Posted May 4, 2008 He simply does not trust his offensive playmakers enough to make plays in the passing game. He's clearly much too afraid of the foward pass ending up in an interception. This is his fatal flaw as a head coach. The only way that Jauron saves his job is to allow Edwards the opportunity throw the ball to Lynch, Evans, Jackson, Hardy and Parrish when the defenses do not expect it. That would be on first and second downs, third and short. If he continues to not trust in his offensive players other than Lynch up the middle, Lynch left and Lynch right, he might as well pack his bags now. Our offense was a joke last season because Jauron failed to let the offense loose. Yes, his style will always get you around .500. But is that what we Bills fans are happy with now???? His style will NEVER beat any of the good teams. Good teams force you to beat them by taking what is called "RISKS", buy risks I mean attacking the opponent with the passing game as well as the running game. It's my opinion that that Dick Jauron will be fired if he does not change his "play not to lose, never take any chances, let the other team beat themselves" coaching style in 2008. Because this team will win no more than eight games and the mob will be finally significant enough that Wilson could not possibly think he will ever get this team to the promised land. No matter how nice and classy the guy is, breaking even every year isn't going to cut it for a team with a non-playoff streak as long as ours. Ever thought that with marginal talent across half the 22 starters, a rookie QB and only one legit WR that a conservative game plan may have been the best approach to getting Ws in 2007? Yes, Fairchild called more than a few poor games, and I agree his reluctance to throw on first down was maddening. But the concept of keeping the game close by not forcing a square peg talent pool into a round hole game plan wasn't the major problem, IMO. In hockey, it's akin to playing the neutral zone trap and hoping you can capitalize on the other team's mistakes. It's a way for teams to pull out wins they have no business getting on the basis of talent alone. That said, with better talent (particularly on D), the Bills should have the freedom to take more chances this year. Jauron has said as much at every opportunity ("we have to score more") and basically put his head on the block if they don't. That's a pretty good motivator. (BTW, ever heard of a 'paragraph'?)
BillsVet Posted May 4, 2008 Posted May 4, 2008 At this point, Dick Jauron's greatest enemy is not any other team. It's himself. All too often in his coaching career, he's demonstrated an inability to win against better teams. The latest examples remain the Dallas and Denver games from last season. Those were perfectly winnable games which, because of incompetent coaching, went down as losses. What about 2006? Anyone recall the San Diego game when 2 timeouts were used to review a Peerless Price non-catch? Or losing at Detroit when Roy Williams ran roughshod over the secondary? Tennessee anyone in 2006? There is a trend here, and it's not going away. People talk about continuity, but if the HC is continually bad, little will change. Some will say it's DJ's lack of personnel. That may have been the case in 06 and parts of 07 but won't be that way in 08. Buffalo has been rebuilding since DJ became HC in 06 and this season, barring injuries to the entire team, I expect to see a playoff team. That's the worst case scenario. Anything less is unacceptable.
1billsfan Posted May 4, 2008 Posted May 4, 2008 Ever thought that with marginal talent across half the 22 starters, a rookie QB and only one legit WR that a conservative game plan may have been the best approach to getting Ws in 2007? Yes, Fairchild called more than a few poor games, and I agree his reluctance to throw on first down was maddening. But the concept of keeping the game close by not forcing a square peg talent pool into a round hole game plan wasn't the major problem, IMO. In hockey, it's akin to playing the neutral zone trap and hoping you can capitalize on the other team's mistakes. It's a way for teams to pull out wins they have no business getting on the basis of talent alone. That said, with better talent (particularly on D), the Bills should have the freedom to take more chances this year. Jauron has said as much at every opportunity ("we have to score more") and basically put his head on the block if they don't. That's a pretty good motivator. (BTW, ever heard of a 'paragraph'?) Jauron was conservative because of a lack of talent? To this I say, Marshawn Lynch had a pitiful 18 receptions last year. Yet Lynch had a better yards per catch average than Westbrook and LT and had the same yards per catch average as T.J. Houshmandzadeh and Hines Ward. Can you defend why Jauron decided not to use Lynch in the passing game when everyone knew he was a threat when catching the ball and proved it when given his limited chances? I don't think he truly believes his neck is on the line in 2008. Too many flowers have been tossed at his feet by the fans and media of this team for him to feel this way. I'll believe he's changed when I see it on Sunday's. Jauron's only seems motivated when he's playing the weak teams of the NFL, when he plays the big boys he's more than happy to keep the game close and lose. I laugh at his stupid press conferences after those games. "'I'm proud of our guys"..."They played hard"..."We just didn't get the breaks"..."Blah blah blah blah". I've had it with him. I can now only wait and hope he can change his style and actually beat the good teams in 2008. History says he won't do that.
BillsVet Posted May 4, 2008 Posted May 4, 2008 I laugh at his stupid press conferences after those games. "'I'm proud of our guys"..."They played hard"..."We just didn't get the breaks"..."Blah blah blah blah". I've had it with him. I can now only wait and hope he can change his style and actually beat the good teams in 2008. History says he won't do that. How about this gem after the season finale against Philly? "Offensively we did a pretty good job of not turning (the ball) over. I think the fact that we didn't turn the ball over today at all, and didn't have very many penalties in that football game, kept us in the game. Obviously, the fact that we don't score, we don't get it in the endzone, is the difference in the football game.
Pyrite Gal Posted May 4, 2008 Posted May 4, 2008 While Dick Jauron was and still is a calming and steadying influence as the Bills head coach, this does NOT mean that he is, was or will ever be a good NFL head coach. Jauron's coaching style will never lend itself to a team's goals of achieving greatness. He simply does not trust his offensive playmakers enough to make plays in the passing game. He's clearly much too afraid of the foward pass ending up in an interception. This is his fatal flaw as a head coach. The only way that Jauron saves his job is to allow Edwards the opportunity throw the ball to Lynch, Evans, Jackson, Hardy and Parrish when the defenses do not expect it. That would be on first and second downs, third and short. If he continues to not trust in his offensive players other than Lynch up the middle, Lynch left and Lynch right, he might as well pack his bags now. Our offense was a joke last season because Jauron failed to let the offense loose. Yes, his style will always get you around .500. But is that what we Bills fans are happy with now???? His style will NEVER beat any of the good teams. Good teams force you to beat them by taking what is called "RISKS", buy risks I mean attacking the opponent with the passing game as well as the running game. It's my opinion that that Dick Jauron will be fired if he does not change his "play not to lose, never take any chances, let the other team beat themselves" coaching style in 2008. Because this team will win no more than eight games and the mob will be finally significant enough that Wilson could not possibly think he will ever get this team to the promised land. No matter how nice and classy the guy is, breaking even every year isn't going to cut it for a team with a non-playoff streak as long as ours. I think your post shows the issue here in the words that you chose to express your thoughts. The first sentence says his work does note mean he is. was, or will ever be a GOOD NFL HC. In the second sentence it seems to want to support this conclusion by stating his coaching style will never achieve our goal of GREATNESS. This would seem to be a pretty rugged standard to set for the Bills in the specific context of the reality that they faced when Marv was hired to lead the decision making for hiring a new HC for the Bills after TD was canned and MM took a powder. I assume that the standard which you felt that Marv should have stuck too for hiring was to hire an HC whom he (you, the fans who agree with you) would judge as capable of achieving greatness. Only in this context could a judgment reasonably be rendered that he was the right HC even if the team's record demonstrably improved in his first year and the record held steady in the face of real world events like having more players on the IR than any other team in the NFL (again this is no excuse for failure as like it or not we simply failed, however though this is not an excuse to justify total forgiveness it is a real world reason which one can choose to ignore if you want to ignore reality). My sense is that you merge the two standards together as if they are the same thing (you can only be GOOD if I judge you can become GREAT) when though one can set whatever standard one wants (setting standards is what we fans are entitled to do even if they are unreasonable standards), this particular one would seem to me to virtually impossible to obtain unless one can see the future (last I saw no one could do this with an accuracy and consistency which far exceeded coincidence). Who is it that you think the Bills should have hired to be HC back when Marv was cleaning up the mess which TD left in the wake of his firing (when actually TD was hired to clean up a mess left in the wake of Ralph and Butler screwing up his leaving). IMHO GOOD and GREAT are two different things (do you disagree?). Even to the extent you want to claim that you are not GOOD unless you can become GREAT, then my question to anyone setting that standard would be who made you god? One only has to look at the real world of Marv's achievements in his first go round as an NFL HC to see that the past does not gaurantee the outcomes of the future. The question is not simply one of who achieved greatness before and he is the only one you should hire (by this standard you only want to hire Bill Parcells or maybe Joe Gibbs and everyone else is either a big risk or a silly move). You certainly would not hire someone like Sherman as some advocated. Perhaps NYG should not have hired Tom Coughlin (who actually did show every sign of being an idiot with the way he handled Carolina and in his initial record with NYG until they turned it around in the middle of last season). Will Jauron ever be great? I really doubt it (though I never would have guessed that Marv would make the HOF for his coaching work after his start turn at KC and even in the days of the Bickering Bills). However, I think that one is simply ignoring reality to not see that being HC of a team you inherited which: 1. finished 5-11, 2. who had an owner who had done a horrendous job with the loss of his last three GMs (do you think the canning of Polian, the desertion of Butler, and the canning of TD demonstrate anything beyond that the owner has clear weaknesses which hold us back 3. which still suffers on the field from a series of QB assessment/handling errors dating back to the handshake deal around Jimbo's retirement. is actually doing a pretty good job and roughly the maximum which could be achieved with a significant improvement in W/L his first year and holding his own at 7-9 in the face of the reality of events like: 1. the calling himself out in a make or break game in which he broke by the QB he inherited, 2. the continuing disarray lent to it by an owner who clearly feels that the current financial model of the NFL is so bad he has to be one of two votes of 32 against it 3. the presence of a media which continually demonstrates in the stances taken by the only sports radio station in town and voices in the media a dedication to flaming QB and other controversies so they can sell ads rather than objective reporting which does recognize the team's deficits (budget uncertainty and future ownership uncertainty depending upon the unknowable of when Ralph dies, the QB uncertainty, the relative youth of the team) but also the strengths ( (a promising corps of stars and potential stars, a rebuilding OL, the ship of state at least being righted from the 5-11 record, potential solutions for the unknowable of Ralph's death, and the relative youth of the team). Its fine to rag on Jauron for not having done a good job, but this opinion is easily ignored when it is depending upon past events as the main argument. Its harder to ignore if it acknowledges what I think is the reality that he has done a good job "merely" by overseeing the team's immediate improvement but claiming that their are real world indications that he has not changed the basics which stop him from being great. However, folks seem to want to make what I see as an inherently weak argument that the mere act of righting the ship of state against some really bad situations (the team which went to 5-11, Ralph sucking at hiring and holding GMs, a fiercely competitive league where significant chunks of the media does not share the team's goals of winning it all as highly as they value their own goals of selling ads) does not constitute good work because DJ will never be great. I doubt also he will be great (but stranger things have happened like Marv doing well enough to make the HOF after his disastrous start). I also recognize the reality that though he will probably never be great he has done a good job in his first two years. Just as with draftees, I think it is reasonable to really question any conclusions about judging an HC and his work with THIS team until after three years. The first time is just an episode good or bad. the second result MAY just merely be a coincidence. The third year though allows for a clearer assertion of events being a trend. I think DJ has some relatively clear challenges to overcome in his third year: 1. He needs to demonstrate something he has never shown which is hiring the right OC to work under his guidance to form a working offense. Can Schoenert do this? We will see. He does have some reasonable working parts to start with which actually are demonstrably better than what DJ inherited: A. An improved situation at RB (I would take Lynch/Jackson/Wright over McGahee/whatever any day) B. An OL finally showing signs of stability though there are questions (pro-bowler Peters/vet Dockery/et al. is far better than Mike Williams/Villarial C. The QB situation though muddled is better than it was (I think the hopes of Edwards backed up by the experience of the backup (JP) before he leaves next year is better than the JP/Nall, Bledsoe/JP. Bledsoe/AVP, RJ/DF situations we have had. There are major challenges with the state of the passing game (WRs, TEs) and overall O scheme issues which are uncertain but not insurmountable. 2. DJ is a defensive specialist HC and really the D story is a wing and a prayer that really has led us to a slightly below average record with a team which achieved 5-11 before he got here. The FA/drafting of the past two years hold the potential that all three units could actually be areas of strength for this team- Whitner/McKelvin, Mitchell/Pos, DL rotation. 3. The ST is potentially dominant though there will have to be a major reloading by April (Moorman, Lindell, McGee/Parrish are across the board among the best in the NFL at what they do). Will this be great. Doubtful but we will see as no one knows the future for sure. Ralph and his mismanagement of the leavings of Polian, Butler, TD would seem to be a far greater rate limiting factor than any DJ issues. Fish rot from the head and poor DJ ain't the head of this fish.
Sen. John Blutarsky Posted May 4, 2008 Posted May 4, 2008 I'm not a DJ fan. Never have been and never will be. He's been called a Monday through Saturday coach by some around here, and that's not good enough in the high stakes NFL world. Make no mistake this season, he's had ultimate control over this roster (see Draft Day 06-08) and his success depends on how well he can get those players to play. He couldn't do it in Chicago, and didn't become a HC for three years after being fired there. If those things occur, the talent on paper has the potential to win a lot of games. QB play and coaching will be huge. To be fair to Jauron, his Chicago teams got ravaged by injuries. Say what you will baout him the BIlls had multiple opportunities to pack it in last year and they played hard all year. I've never cared for his choics at OC and I'm hoping Schonert is an improvement. DJ WILL keep the players motivated though and they've done a good job of bringin in a lot of leaders and self starters. I'd rather have a less talented team that's going balls out than a better team that turns it on and off. The on and off teams break your heart.
billfan63 Posted May 4, 2008 Posted May 4, 2008 5. The next decision was also a tribute to reaction as by now it seemed pretty clear that the Bills braintrust wanted to go with the guy they drafted who had been incredibly impressive for a rookie when he was forced into the line-up. However, reality again dictated that the Bills react in a particular way as JP had been the QB when the team pulled off a winning streak which put them in contention at least for a playoff spot. Reactions again dictated not that the Bills fulfill some conspiracy but that they keep JP as the starting QB. They did this. Wow! Now thats some hyperbole
ax4782 Posted May 4, 2008 Posted May 4, 2008 While Dick Jauron was and still is a calming and steadying influence as the Bills head coach, this does NOT mean that he is, was or will ever be a good NFL head coach. Jauron's coaching style will never lend itself to a team's goals of achieving greatness. He simply does not trust his offensive playmakers enough to make plays in the passing game. He's clearly much too afraid of the foward pass ending up in an interception. This is his fatal flaw as a head coach. The only way that Jauron saves his job is to allow Edwards the opportunity throw the ball to Lynch, Evans, Jackson, Hardy and Parrish when the defenses do not expect it. That would be on first and second downs, third and short. If he continues to not trust in his offensive players other than Lynch up the middle, Lynch left and Lynch right, he might as well pack his bags now. Our offense was a joke last season because Jauron failed to let the offense loose. Yes, his style will always get you around .500. But is that what we Bills fans are happy with now???? His style will NEVER beat any of the good teams. Good teams force you to beat them by taking what is called "RISKS", buy risks I mean attacking the opponent with the passing game as well as the running game. It's my opinion that that Dick Jauron will be fired if he does not change his "play not to lose, never take any chances, let the other team beat themselves" coaching style in 2008. Because this team will win no more than eight games and the mob will be finally significant enough that Wilson could not possibly think he will ever get this team to the promised land. No matter how nice and classy the guy is, breaking even every year isn't going to cut it for a team with a non-playoff streak as long as ours. Actually, yes. That is the point. Jauron has never been a coach in a stable situation where he has a QB and an offense that he can trust. Point to one instance last season where there was any stability at the QB position. You won't. You had a veteran who had proven that he couldn't get the job done and a rookie. Which one would you trust to unleast that vicious passing attack? I choose neither and stick to a conservative philosophy that at least gives us a chance to stay in and win games. No, it wasn't pretty, but we were competitive with a lot of injuries and a lot of rookie talent. Keep in mind, Jauron wasn't making the offensive play calls. The inept Steve Fairchild was. So to suggest that the failure to take risks is all on Jauron is completely inaccurate. As for risks, I would direct you to the Dallas game that you seem to use as the bastion call for why Jauron is a bad coach. They took a number of risks on offense in that game, the players failed to execute and we lost. The best example, was on first an nine they called a pass to Evans in the endzone. The ball was not well thrown, but Evans had a shot at it. Instead of going for the ball he stood there and made no effort to get to it. Instead he watched Terrence Newman come down with pick and start back the other way. That was execution. It was a gutsy call when we were ahead 24-13, but he did take the risk. Keep in mind, we probably would have won the Denver game had it not been for poor offensive execution. And to say he won't throw long is ridiculous. I seem to recall a 70 yard pass play called in the Fourth Quarter of the Jests game last year that put the game away 13-3. To say that they won't call that play is ludicrous. And that they never take risks is ludicrous. When you have a young team with a rookie quarterback, the SMART coaching move is to be a bit more conservative. The funny thing is, this year they have all stated that there will be a greater reliance on the passing game and that they have a settled QB situation that is not going to change barring injury. If Buffalo wins 10 games and makes the playoffs this whole conversation will be nothing but vapor anyway. But until then, give the guy a shot to do something with the team he and the FO have so painstakingly put back together.
Beerball Posted May 4, 2008 Posted May 4, 2008 Dick Jauron is not a top caliber NFL head coach. He has had one strong year and that was achieved with smoke and mirrors. How anyone can not see this is beyond me. I don't give a rip about stats outside of wins/losses and he fails that stat test miserably. Quit with the excuses and look at wins & losses. For those who point to last year...I have 2 words for you...fins, jests. Do I want him to succeed in Buffalo? Absofreakinlutely. Do I think he will? Sadly, no I do not. We will run the best 5 yard square outs in the league though.
ax4782 Posted May 4, 2008 Posted May 4, 2008 Dick Jauron is not a top caliber NFL head coach. He has had one strong year and that was achieved with smoke and mirrors. How anyone can not see this is beyond me. I don't give a rip about stats outside of wins/losses and he fails that stat test miserably. Quit with the excuses and look at wins & losses. For those who point to last year...I have 2 words for you...fins, jests. Do I want him to succeed in Buffalo? Absofreakinlutely. Do I think he will? Sadly, no I do not. We will run the best 5 yard square outs in the league though. Yes, because there is no other reality beyond wins and losses. Circumstances off and on the field that are out of a person's control, like injuries, don't have any impact on a teams ability to win or lose. I guess when Belicheat was in Cleveland sucking it up on the football field his first time around as a coach, he should have been thrown out of the league. When Marv was losing all those games in KC, Buffalo should have only paid attention to his win loss record and never considered the other parts of his ability to coach that made him great. Many of the qualities that Marv had, I see in Jauron. He had horrendous teams in Chicago, and yet he still managed to go 13-3. I like how when a coach people don't like has a good season, it must have been done by smoke and mirrors, because there's no way it could have been a good coaching job. No way Chicago's 8-0 record that year in games where the differential was 7 points or less could have had anything to do with the coaching job. But hey, it's his fault when a team with 12 starters on IR can't win 12 games. Those injuries have nothing to do with whether the Bills win or lose, right? Give me a break.
Recommended Posts