DrFishfinder Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 Well, I'm giving him one more year. Can't convince me otherwise. We'll all see how he handles his 2009 talent. What's great about my position, worst case scenario, you tell me "I told you so" while we all suffer the frustration of another losing season. Best case scenario, all you nay sayers (98% of Bills fans) are finally satisfied with a guy whose character and good nature you've always taken for granted. But I won't say I told you so because I won't want to spoil the sweet sweet taste of success! And I hope you're right, I really do. But if you subscribe to the "this time, it'll be different" philosophy, you are more likely to see the same results than you are to see different results. If this past year was DJ's 4th or 5th season as HC, it might be looked at a little differently, but it's not.
DC Tom Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 And I hope you're right, I really do. But if you subscribe to the "this time, it'll be different" philosophy, you are more likely to see the same results than you are to see different results. If this past year was DJ's 4th or 5th season as HC, it might be looked at a little differently, but it's not. But this time, "This time it'll be different!" will be different...
DrFishfinder Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 But this time, "This time it'll be different!" will be different... Yep. This time, when I flap my arms, I'll fly to Paris.
The Big Cat Posted April 29, 2009 Author Posted April 29, 2009 John, all teams in today's NFL are watered down. The expansion, the smaller rosters, the turnover in front offices and coaching staffs getting faster and faster, free agency, the salary cap, as so on have all watered down the product on the field greatly. On the positive side it has evened the playing field. Last year's Super Bowl teams were not the "greatest teams ever". The Cardinals were 2-4 to close out the season and didn't win over a team outside their division since before their bye week in October, before they got hot in the playoffs. They were a very flawed team and they nearly won the Super Bowl. But, having said that, it is not a coincidence that the most successful teams in the NFL have been associated with certain coaches and regardless of which team that coach was coaching or who his QB was. Certain coaches are just plain better than other coaches and this game has become one of coaching and juggling of short- and long-term team management. Oh yes. All NFL teams are watered down. The Bills have as good of a chance at the Super Bowl as the 2008 Cardinals. Give me a break! We don't have the talent at ANY unit which is the equivalent of the Warner/Boldin/Fitzgerald threat. Simple.
DC Tom Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 Yep. This time, when I flap my arms, I'll fly to Paris. Great. When you get there, can you take a picture of the Sphinx for me? (Yes, I know it's in Egypt. But this time, it'll be different...)
DrFishfinder Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 Great. When you get there, can you take a picture of the Sphinx for me? (Yes, I know it's in Egypt. But this time, it'll be different...) Sure! I'll take a picture with my Reebok's. (Yes, I know they're shoes, but this time it'll be different....)
Mr. WEO Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 I would LOVE tony dungy as a coach. Winner. Won in TB, won in Indy including SB. Dick and Dungy are nothing alike, aside from being nice. Dungy? You can have him. A winner in TB? Gruden took that team to the SB an won. Dungy got spanked in the wild card game the year before. In Indy, yup--he won a SB. He had the most fearsome offense of the decade (Manning, Wayne, Harrison, James--all in their prime) and was one and done in the playoffs 4 out of 7 seasons, while regularly getting spanked by the Pats, where BB had already won three SBs with a 6th round backup QB and such stars as Dillon, Smith, Brown, Givens and Branch. Tony Dungy. Sheesh.
The Big Cat Posted April 29, 2009 Author Posted April 29, 2009 Sure! I'll take a picture with my Reebok's. (Yes, I know they're shoes, but this time it'll be different....) The next time somebody makes one of these jokes it will be funny. You know, because it will be different.
BillsVet Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 And yet, DJ had plenty of personnel control in four drafts and free agency periods, but Buffalo still doesn't have enough talent. Go ahead and say DJ doesn't have some sway over the GM-less front office. The cloudiness of their management structure isn't enough to justify he lacks some degree of control over team makeup. Just for craps and giggles, what would have to happen fo you throw up the white flag and admit DJ is a mediocre coach? You can't have it both ways. If there isn't talent presnet, there's a reason. Besides, DJ should be able to coach these guys up anyway, right?
DrFishfinder Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 The next time somebody makes one of these jokes it will be funny. You know, because it will be different. Gee, that must have been funny.
The Big Cat Posted April 29, 2009 Author Posted April 29, 2009 And yet, DJ had plenty of personnel control in four drafts and free agency periods, but Buffalo still doesn't have enough talent. Go ahead and say DJ doesn't have some sway over the GM-less front office. The cloudiness of their management structure isn't enough to justify he lacks some degree of control over team makeup. Just for craps and giggles, what would have to happen fo you throw up the white flag and admit DJ is a mediocre coach? You can't have it both ways. If there isn't talent presnet, there's a reason. Besides, DJ should be able to coach these guys up anyway, right? I actually addressed that already. You really think an entire team can be built through 3 FA's and 3 drafts? The additions from draft and FA #4 have yet to take the field. So I ask again- can a team be COMPLETELY rebuilt with 3 drafts (a 50/50 crap shoot) and 3 FA's (in Buffalo)? This will be the THIRD time I've posted this and nobody's addressed it. So either it's totally irrelevant, or I'm the only one who recognizes/will admit to its significance. Going into 2009 the following players left on the roster were here before Jauron: Evans Schobel Reed Parish Denney Kelsay Moorman Lindel I've crossed off the trading block players, the punter and kicker to demonstrate the complete overhaul which has taken place in the last THREE YEARS.
GG Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 I actually addressed that already. You really think an entire team can be built through 3 FA's and 3 drafts? The additions from draft and FA #4 have yet to take the field. So I ask again- can a team be COMPLETELY rebuilt with 3 drafts (a 50/50 crap shoot) and 3 FA's (in Buffalo)? This will be the THIRD time I've posted this and nobody's addressed it. So either it's totally irrelevant, or I'm the only one who recognizes/will admit to its significance. Going into 2009 the following players left on the roster were here before Jauron: Evans Schobel Reed Parish Denney Kelsay Moorman Lindel I've crossed off the trading block players, the punter and kicker to demonstrate the complete overhaul which has taken place in the last THREE YEARS. Yet, most of this offseason's additions have addressed the recent departures of the 2006 & 2007 offseason additions .... When Wilson said that Modrak will have a bigger seat at the inner circle, who in your mind was losing his seat in that circle?
Cynical Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 I actually addressed that already. You really think an entire team can be built through 3 FA's and 3 drafts? The additions from draft and FA #4 have yet to take the field. So I ask again- can a team be COMPLETELY rebuilt with 3 drafts (a 50/50 crap shoot) and 3 FA's (in Buffalo)? Answer: YES Reason: Good head coaches do not need the team to be completely rebuilt to achieve positive results or direction. A bigger question needs to be asked: Why did the team need to be COMPLETELY rebuilt? Assuming the talent was that bad, other questions come to mind. How good was Mularkey as a HC if he was able to take the majority of the same sad sack of bad talent and coach them to a 9-7 record (the only winning record this decade)? If Jauron is a better coach than Mularkey, why was Jauron incapable of achieving the same or better result? Why can other coaches on other teams take existing players, blend in some of their own, and achieve positive results in 2-3 years? Why does Jauron need the entire team to be his hand selected players? If Jauron "needs" the entire team to be players he has selected, does that not bring question Jauron's ability to adapt and coach to the teams strength? This will be the THIRD time I've posted this and nobody's addressed it. So either it's totally irrelevant, or I'm the only one who recognizes/will admit to its significance. Going into 2009 the following players left on the roster were here before Jauron: Why is this relevant, other than to provide you with another convenient excuse of why Jauron was unable to produce a winning record again. Evans Schobel Reed Parish Denney Kelsay Moorman Lindel I've crossed off the trading block players, the punter and kicker to demonstrate the complete overhaul which has taken place in the last THREE YEARS. You might as well uncross those players. The kicker and punter are not going anywhere. Unless somebody needs a PR, Parrish is not going anywhere. Denney and Kelsay are not going anywhere. The Bills did not draft any DE except Maybin, and Maybin will take Ellis' place on the roster. Even if Ellis grows a sack, you can expect that no name DE who played in Schobel's place to be cut instead. But look on the bright side. The seeds for next year's excuse is already planted.
The Big Cat Posted April 29, 2009 Author Posted April 29, 2009 Answer: YES Reason: Good head coaches do not need the team to be completely rebuilt to achieve positive results or direction. A bigger question needs to be asked: Why did the team need to be COMPLETELY rebuilt? Assuming the talent was that bad, other questions come to mind. How good was Mularkey as a HC if he was able to take the majority of the same sad sack of bad talent and coach them to a 9-7 record (the only winning record this decade)? If Jauron is a better coach than Mularkey, why was Jauron incapable of achieving the same or better result? Why can other coaches on other teams take existing players, blend in some of their own, and achieve positive results in 2-3 years? Why does Jauron need the entire team to be his hand selected players? If Jauron "needs" the entire team to be players he has selected, does that not bring question Jauron's ability to adapt and coach to the teams strength? Why is this relevant, other than to provide you with another convenient excuse of why Jauron was unable to produce a winning record again. You might as well uncross those players. The kicker and punter are not going anywhere. Unless somebody needs a PR, Parrish is not going anywhere. Denney and Kelsay are not going anywhere. The Bills did not draft any DE except Maybin, and Maybin will take Ellis' place on the roster. Even if Ellis grows a sack, you can expect that no name DE who played in Schobel's place to be cut instead. But look on the bright side. The seeds for next year's excuse is already planted. And again, no talent = excuse. But since we all know EXACTLY what kind of coach Jauron is from watching him on Sundays (3 out of the 60 hours he works each week) bad coaching = an absolute. Do you really need me to answer the question "why did this team have to be blown up in 2006?"
Ramius Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 And again, no talent = excuse. But since we all know EXACTLY what kind of coach Jauron is from watching him on Sundays (3 out of the 60 hours he works each week) bad coaching = an absolute. Do you really need me to answer the question "why did this team have to be blown up in 2006?" A better question is; if Dick jauron is such a good coach, why has he failed to produce any results in his coaching career? He's got 1 winning season in 8 years as a head coach. That's not a fluke, or an anomaly. That's a certainty. You'd think that dick is so good of a coach, he'd be able to coach up his teams to at least win a respectable amount of games more than once in 8 years. And the "no talent" excuse is just that, a pointless excuse. The talent across the league is fairly close among most teams. There are some differences, but not as big as you'd make them. Coaching the talent you have is what makes the biggest difference. Good coaches know how to use the talent they have in an effective manner. Good coaches put their players in a position to win. Good coaches dont hope and pray that the other team messes up more. And most importantly, well coached teams win when they need to and show up in big games. Well coached teams don't have their starting QB say,"I wasn't prepared for what i saw on monday night, we've never gone over that in practice."
GG Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 Do you really need me to answer the question "why did this team have to be blown up in 2006?" No, you need to answer the question of why the 2006 team needed to get blown up, when he had the most say in personnel?
The Big Cat Posted April 29, 2009 Author Posted April 29, 2009 A better question is; if Dick jauron is such a good coach, why has he failed to produce any results in his coaching career? He's got 1 winning season in 8 years as a head coach. That's not a fluke, or an anomaly. That's a certainty. You'd think that dick is so good of a coach, he'd be able to coach up his teams to at least win a respectable amount of games more than once in 8 years. And the "no talent" excuse is just that, a pointless excuse. The talent across the league is fairly close among most teams. There are some differences, but not as big as you'd make them. Coaching the talent you have is what makes the biggest difference. Good coaches know how to use the talent they have in an effective manner. Good coaches put their players in a position to win. Good coaches dont hope and pray that the other team messes up more. And most importantly, well coached teams win when they need to and show up in big games. Well coached teams don't have their starting QB say,"I wasn't prepared for what i saw on monday night, we've never gone over that in practice." You're right, for the most part, that throughout the NFL, talent is relatively even. But the good teams more often than not carry one or more superstars, more often than not at key positions (QB, RB, WR, MLB, DE, DT,). Jauron's always had teams with average talent, but I don't think he's ever coached superstar (may be young Urlacher), but certainly never at QB. And if you don't think a superstar QB mattesr in the NFL, then you clearly weren't listening to Steve Young over the weekend. Seriously though, having a good quarterback is pretty important. And Jaurons' never had one. I'm still not sure he does. I'd like he to think he does, but Trent's got some serious room to grow.
The Big Cat Posted April 29, 2009 Author Posted April 29, 2009 No, you need to answer the question of why the 2006 team needed to get blown up, when he had the most say in personnel? Because any "success" the Bills had during the twilight of the Donahoe era resulted from the team being propped up by flashy well-worn band-aids. Said band-aids were the first to go. If you're going to start from scratch, which they said they were going to, blowing up the roster made sense. Why didn't it?
GG Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 Because any "success" the Bills had during the twilight of the Donahoe era resulted from the team being propped up by flashy well-worn band-aids. Said band-aids were the first to go. If you're going to start from scratch, which they said they were going to, blowing up the roster made sense. Why didn't it? In case you missed the question the first time, why did the 2009 draft address the holes created by the 2006 & 2007 additions?
The Big Cat Posted April 29, 2009 Author Posted April 29, 2009 In case you missed the question the first time, why did the 2009 draft address the holes created by the 2006 & 2007 additions? I did miss it the first time. Probably I don't see any examples of "holes" created by the cuts in 2006 being put on hold until 2009 draft/FA.
Recommended Posts