dave mcbride Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Sherman One's track record is often at least somewhat indicative of future results. Not always, but often. Sherman won a lot more than he lost. Incidentally, I'm discounting his first season at A & M - college is a different ballgame and in any event he's in the process of changing the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Wrong. If anything, it shows you the importance of a good/competent QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 It's all about the QB play. Jauron=Belicheck without Brady....very similar records as head coaches. A great QB hides so many deficiencies on your team. If Trent played the whole season like the 1st 6 games and the KC game we would not even be having this conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Jauron=Belicheck without Brady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 It's all about the QB play. Jauron=Belicheck without Brady....very similar records as head coaches.A great QB hides so many deficiencies on your team. If Trent played the whole season like the 1st 6 games and the KC game we would not even be having this conversation. While its possible to win without a great QB I'd agree that in the majority of cases its a necessary ingredient for success. There are a couple differing opinions on the impact of the HQ, I won't get into that. But let me ask, does anyone believe the if Belicheck had the current Bills roster and was confronted by the same circumstances (with injuries, etc.) that he wouldn't have been able to squeeze out a couple more wins? Minimally 8-6? Regards... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 While its possible to win without a great QB I'd agree that in the majority of cases its a necessary ingredient for success. There are a couple differing opinions on the impact of the HQ, I won't get into that. But let me ask, does anyone believe the if Belicheck had the current Bills roster and was confronted by the same circumstances (with injuries, etc.) that he wouldn't have been able to squeeze out a couple more wins? Minimally 8-6? Regards... Belichick doesn't keep guys that can't play on the roster, let alone in the starting lineup. Big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Belichick doesn't keep guys that can't play on the roster, let alone in the starting lineup. Big difference. Sis - I wouldn't disagree but its not my point. All I’m seeking to do is isolate the impact of one variable on the system. In this case the system is the Bills and the variable is the coach. Swapping the identity of the coach, in this example with Belicheck, would improve the result by at least a couple wins. It’s possible some other coaches might do worse. I’m not saying Juron’s a bad guy or a bad coach. I just disagree with the notion that this roster with this schedule would still be 6-7 no matter who is coaching and nobody could have done any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 My point is simply that having a great QB hides so many deficiencies on your team and affords you so many more options in your game plan. He is a great coach but Dick Jauron wins those SBs with Tom Brady as QB. Bellicheck may be able to take this team and make them a 9-7 team vs a 7-9 team but in the end it is not that much of a difference. He sure turned Sam Aiken into a prolific WR didn't he? If Edwards maintained his level of play he had for the 1st six games then the Bills are probably at least 9-4. The biggest annoyance now is that we go into next season not knowing if Trent is the guy........if he played in the last three games this year and played well then we would have something to be optimistic about. Instead we are in the same position as we have been since 1997, yes 1997!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavarreFL_Bills_Fan Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 It's all about the QB play. Jauron=Belicheck without Brady....very similar records as head coaches.A great QB hides so many deficiencies on your team. If Trent played the whole season like the 1st 6 games and the KC game we would not even be having this conversation. HAHAHA! They are not even close to being on the same level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cale Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Sherman One's track record is often at least somewhat indicative of future results. Not always, but often. Sherman won a lot more than he lost. Incidentally, I'm discounting his first season at A & M - college is a different ballgame and in any event he's in the process of changing the system. Though I think Sherman would have been a marginal improvement. I can't think of a stellar candidate from that list. Maybe Jim Caldwell - but he remains an unknown quantity. Also I'm not sure Dom Capers would have been a bad hire. The guy did fine in Carolina - but he did have Bill Polian running the show. I still think the best guy we could have hired post Marv would have been John Fox. Sure Coughlin has had the best success. But I think either Ralph and Coughlin would have killed each other. Plus the fans and media would have probably fired him after three seasons because of his idiosyncrasies. Hell we chased Wade out of town for not wearing a helmet. I remember reading that Jim Fassel was a top candidate and that Donahoe wanted to hire him as the first choice - but Fassel rejected the offer. Gregg-O was actually the consolation prize. Since I think Marvin Lewis was seriously considered for the job. How bad do you have to be in order to be rebuffed for the Bungles C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 It's all about the QB play. Jauron=Belicheck without Brady....very similar records as head coaches.A great QB hides so many deficiencies on your team. If Trent played the whole season like the 1st 6 games and the KC game we would not even be having this conversation. Jauron and Belichick aren't any more comparable as head coaches than they were as defensive coordinators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted December 13, 2008 Author Share Posted December 13, 2008 Wrong. If anything, it shows you the importance of a good/competent QB. Trent Edwards is a good QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 Sherman is terrible, even worse than Jauron. He had the benefit of a great roster in GB and screwed that up royally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 Trent Edwards is a good QB. He hasn't played like one since the Chargers game. And Favre is/was infinitely better even before Trent's inexplicable decline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robkmil Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 Trent Edwards is a good QB. was a good qb, then a bad, could be a good one again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted December 13, 2008 Author Share Posted December 13, 2008 He hasn't played like one since the Chargers game. And Favre is/was infinitely better even before Trent's inexplicable decline. He played very well in the Chiefs game, and good enough in the Jets game. If Parrish doesn't fall down and the Bills are able to run the ball at all, they would have won that game. I'm discounting the SF game - he was clearly hurt, and probably shouldn't have even played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 He played very well in the Chiefs game, and good enough in the Jets game. If Parrish doesn't fall down and the Bills are able to run the ball at all, they would have won that game. I'm discounting the SF game - he was clearly hurt, and probably shouldn't have even played. The Chiefs stink. And while he may have been "good enough" in the Jets game despite the excuses for his play, he wasn't in the Dols, Pats, and Browns games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted December 13, 2008 Author Share Posted December 13, 2008 The Chiefs stink. And while he may have been "good enough" in the Jets game despite the excuses for his play, he wasn't in the Dols, Pats, and Browns games. Name me one QB who has a good game every game. Every third game for Eli Manning is bad. Edwards has more good games than bad games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 Name me one QB who has a good game every game. Every third game for Eli Manning is bad. Edwards has more good games than bad games. I would have taken "average" from Trent in those games. He was plain bad in all of them. And I'd definitely have taken Manning's performances from his 2nd year in 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
300yrds Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 Jauron=Belicheck without Brady So does Brady= Cassel i think this theory is still a work in progress (by that i mean wrong) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts