BillsZubaz Posted August 22, 2009 Posted August 22, 2009 It has already been established that it is all the fans fault. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?showtopic=93995 We should be ashamed.
Sisyphean Bills Posted August 22, 2009 Posted August 22, 2009 No. Bad QB play and bad play in the trenches = bad teams. The only problem with the coaching is that it changes too frequently. I think it is pretty obvious that coaching *IS NOT* the problem when you bring in new coach after new coach and still get the same results. Firing coaches doesn't do much to mitigate the fact that you still have the same bad team. In fact, it really inhibits the team's ability to establish continuity and thus work for several seasons to build a roster of players that fit that coach's philosophy. Every time a new coach comes in, the team has to adapt a new philosophy, and all of a sudden the team must begin the three-four year process of rebuilding its roster according to the new philosophy. I don't really understand how so many fans are too ignorant to see that. Pure nonsense. First, the coaching changes did not all occur under the same circumstances. Mularkey resigned because he felt the front office reorganization wasn't going to allow him to be successful. Williams refused to sign an extension and worked to the end of his contract. Phillips was fired for insubordination because he refused to fire his assistants as Wilson ordered him to do. And, Jauron was given a 3 year extension after three losing seasons. Second, it is a non sequitor that the only problem with coaching is that changes have been made. Bad coaches don't coach long careers because they are bad coaches and don't deliver a winning product, not the other way around. Third, all coaches are not identical. Fourth, because coaches are not identical, it does matter which coach is hired, and if a bad coach is hired and the losing continues then the front office needs to have enough sack to be able to admit the mistake and enough football acumen and expertise in the business to hire a better coach that can get things headed in the right direction. Finally, a new coach does not necessarily mean gutting the roster and starting over from scratch with brand new systems. Tomlin did not gut the Steelers roster and bring in the Tampa-2. On the other hand, Jauron, who's been in Buffalo for 3 years, has switched offensive systems to a new no huddle offense.
thewildrabbit Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 Pure nonsense. First, the coaching changes did not all occur under the same circumstances. Mularkey resigned because he felt the front office reorganization wasn't going to allow him to be successful. Williams refused to sign an extension and worked to the end of his contract. Phillips was fired for insubordination because he refused to fire his assistants as Wilson ordered him to do. And, Jauron was given a 3 year extension after three losing seasons. Second, it is a non sequitor that the only problem with coaching is that changes have been made. Bad coaches don't coach long careers because they are bad coaches and don't deliver a winning product, not the other way around. Third, all coaches are not identical. Fourth, because coaches are not identical, it does matter which coach is hired, and if a bad coach is hired and the losing continues then the front office needs to have enough sack to be able to admit the mistake and enough football acumen and expertise in the business to hire a better coach that can get things headed in the right direction. Finally, a new coach does not necessarily mean gutting the roster and starting over from scratch with brand new systems. Tomlin did not gut the Steelers roster and bring in the Tampa-2. On the other hand, Jauron, who's been in Buffalo for 3 years, has switched offensive systems to a new no huddle offense. I disagree with the last statement concerning "systems" the no huddle just means they will employ the same passing scheme, just at a quicker tempo and not huddling. It is the same crappy offense they have had for years from what I've seen.
K-9 Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 Pure nonsense. First, the coaching changes did not all occur under the same circumstances. Mularkey resigned because he felt the front office reorganization wasn't going to allow him to be successful. Williams refused to sign an extension and worked to the end of his contract. Phillips was fired for insubordination because he refused to fire his assistants as Wilson ordered him to do. And, Jauron was given a 3 year extension after three losing seasons. Second, it is a non sequitor that the only problem with coaching is that changes have been made. Bad coaches don't coach long careers because they are bad coaches and don't deliver a winning product, not the other way around. Third, all coaches are not identical. Fourth, because coaches are not identical, it does matter which coach is hired, and if a bad coach is hired and the losing continues then the front office needs to have enough sack to be able to admit the mistake and enough football acumen and expertise in the business to hire a better coach that can get things headed in the right direction. Finally, a new coach does not necessarily mean gutting the roster and starting over from scratch with brand new systems. Tomlin did not gut the Steelers roster and bring in the Tampa-2. On the other hand, Jauron, who's been in Buffalo for 3 years, has switched offensive systems to a new no huddle offense. Williams was never offered an extension. RW told TD to find another coach. Remember TD scolding the fans at the press conference announcing Williams would NOT be coming back? The no-huddle is a tactic, not a scheme. GO BILLS!!!
Rico Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 I don't think anyone will say that lack of a quality QB has hampered this franchise but isn't coaching just as big a problem? I mean Bledsoe gave us a few quality QB years and we didn't make the playoffs. I think even if we had a mid level QB we probably would have only made the playoffs once maybe twice over the last decade. I think coaching goes hand and hand with QB play and the quality of the team. Over the last decade we have had bad coaching staff and had a good coaching staff been able to develop a QB or shield the differences of a QB like JP or an aging Bledsoe. To me we don't maximize the talent we have and our coaching often hampers the progress of players and has terrible drafting tendencies (TD going for Fat Mike, JP, and Mcgahee as well as DJ going for too many DB's) which long term holds back a franchise. Like I said a QB is obviously important to a franchise but unless you have an elite QB bad coaching will hamper the franchise big time. And its hard to get a quality QB but its easier (If you are willing to pay for one) to get a good head coach.
Sisyphean Bills Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 Williams was never offered an extension. RW told TD to find another coach. Remember TD scolding the fans at the press conference announcing Williams would NOT be coming back? The no-huddle is a tactic, not a scheme. GO BILLS!!! Williams was offered an extension after his second season. He didn't sign it. I understand that the offense still looks like sh-- on a dull stick, but it has been evolved away from what Fairchild was brought in to install. The offense was a down-field passing game with a big body power running game. (Recall Losman hooking up with Evans over the top?) It has evolved into a dink and dunk, no-huddle gimmick, with a bit of dance with ants in your pants style of running game. They may even be using the same terminology, but the philosophy has changed and changed to the extent that they don't use a no-huddle with or without a hurry-up as a change of pace like 31 other teams but are determined to use it 100% of the time.
K-9 Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 Williams was offered an extension after his second season. He didn't sign it. I understand that the offense still looks like sh-- on a dull stick, but it has been evolved away from what Fairchild was brought in to install. The offense was a down-field passing game with a big body power running game. (Recall Losman hooking up with Evans over the top?) It has evolved into a dink and dunk, no-huddle gimmick, with a bit of dance with ants in your pants style of running game. They may even be using the same terminology, but the philosophy has changed and changed to the extent that they don't use a no-huddle with or without a hurry-up as a change of pace like 31 other teams but are determined to use it 100% of the time. I honestly don't recall that, but if I'm mistaken, my apologies. GO BILLS!!!
Cynical Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 No. Bad QB play and bad play in the trenches = bad teams. The only problem with the coaching is that it changes too frequently. I think it is pretty obvious that coaching *IS NOT* the problem when you bring in new coach after new coach and still get the same results. Firing coaches doesn't do much to mitigate the fact that you still have the same bad team. In fact, it really inhibits the team's ability to establish continuity and thus work for several seasons to build a roster of players that fit that coach's philosophy. Every time a new coach comes in, the team has to adapt a new philosophy, and all of a sudden the team must begin the three-four year process of rebuilding its roster according to the new philosophy. I don't really understand how so many fans are too ignorant to see that. The only people that are ignorant are the people who believe that a coaching change will result in the team losing. The following coaches would like to disagree: Smith - Falcons Whisenhut - Cardinals Harbaugh - Ravens Billick - Ravens Switzer - Cowboys Holmgren - Packers Sherman - Packers Dungy - Colts Schottenheimer - Chiefs Sparano - Dolphins Shula - Dolphins BB - Pats* Madden - Raiders Cowher - Steelers Seifert - 49ers Gibbs (1) - Redskins
Peace Frog Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 We havent been the same since Bill Polian left. Amen, brother!
Sisyphean Bills Posted August 23, 2009 Posted August 23, 2009 The only people that are ignorant are the people who believe that a coaching change will result in the team losing. The following coaches would like to disagree: Smith - Falcons Whisenhut - Cardinals Harbaugh - Ravens Billick - Ravens Switzer - Cowboys Holmgren - Packers Sherman - Packers Dungy - Colts Schottenheimer - Chiefs Sparano - Dolphins Shula - Dolphins BB - Pats* Madden - Raiders Cowher - Steelers Seifert - 49ers Gibbs (1) - Redskins I was reconsidering this a bit and came to the conclusion that the Lions just needed to give Matt Millen another 8 to 10 years and he'd finally find a QB.
Recommended Posts