OldTimer1960

Losing Pettine would be a BIG problem for the Bills. They were much improved on D and, unless there is a candidate already on staff to take over (and I don't see one), they would be forced likely into yet another scheme and likely another fully new defensive staff to be hired - after all the coaching candidates have been picked over by all the new staffs. Can this franchise ever catch a break?

Can we not escape this in any thread? How is it possible to know that Manuel is NOT the answer after 10 starts as a rookie, after having missed valuable preseason experience and in season practice time - and yet he still threw more TDs than INTS to a predominantly very young receiving crew?

Agreed - perception of coaches does move up and down - and maybe not for good reason. Henderson has at least had some success in the NFL. I agree with you. I thought that Marrone took steps in the right direction with regard to team unity/culture and discipline. This team fought hard and never quit in any games - something that previous Bills teams didn't always do. I also like that he disciplined marcel Dareus, but didn't drag it into the media. He kept that as in-house as he could and Dareus didn't seem to complain about the benching.

Agreed that it was better in certain categories and not in others, but there was a "just you can tell" overall improvement that was big. WRT to "how do I know there isn't anyone able to be promoted?", I didn't say that I knew that. I said it doesn't appear as though there is anyone. As to Donnie Henderson, he has kind of fallen off the map since he was DC of the Jets years ago. Maybe he could do it, his recent jobs out of the NFL don't suggest that many think he can.

While the defense was far from perfect, Mike Pettine made a real positive contribution and the D was SIGNIFICANTLY better this year than the year before. I hope that the Bills can retain him because there doesn't appear to be anyone on the staff capable/ready to be promoted to DC and I am not aware of any obvious candidates available on the street. Pettine did a very good job.

Why do people think that player quality on offense and defense matter, but think that Special Teams is 100% coaching? Now, I am not saying that Danny Crossman shouldn't be scrutinized for the poor "teams" last year, but maybe there is some truth to him not having a good "core' of players dedicated to Special Teams. Also, I think he had to deal with a LOT of turnover and new players on special teams, especially early in the year when it seemed that every DB on the roster was out injured. Early, the Bills were starting backup-backups at CB and S and filling in special teams with guys from the practice squad or guys just signed off the street. One more time, Crossman should be scrutinized. I am just saying that players also have a big hand in special teams success.

Agreed. I think that there are an elite few coaches who might be able to win with lesser talented players, but for the majority of coaches the results depend largely on the talent level they have to work with.

I think you can say that is a question about his game, but he was able to beat coverage cleanly in college - was he supposed to let college CBs cover him so that he could show that he can fight for the ball?

Maybe it means that the quality of players that a coach has to work with makes a difference (contrary to what some believe about special teams)

I was about to post almost the same thing, but you beat me to it. The Seahawks are essentially what (I think) Buddy Nix was trying to build. He drafted a lot of defense and he/Whaley drafted a good/not great QB prospect. If they want to continue in the Seahawk mold, they need to shore up the LB corp a bit, keep Byrd and fill in the OL a bit to improve the run game. I still think a great WR or TE would help open up the offense a lot. I just heard a stat that Colin Kaepernick was almost 5 percentage points better in completion percentage when he has all three of Michael Crabtree, Bolden and Vernon Davis - any of those 3 would have been the best/most experienced receiver on the Bills this year. Now, I think Robert Woods is going to be very good, but another good threat (preferably bigger, but not necessarily) would help a great deal.

Are you saying that Marcel Dareus is undersized? If so, I disagree. I am not sure that it takes much bigger players, but it definitely requires not leaving gaping holes for RBs to run through. Those holes aren't always caused by DL being man-handled by OL. Sometimes it is defenders not being in the right places

River's throwing motion is unorthodoxed, but is the OP really willing to call a 6'5"230lb+ pro football player a girl? Early nominee for dumbest/most disrespectful post of the year - and only 8 days into the new year!!!

I am serious and don't call me Shirley 😄

I admit that I am no scout and that I've seen only a few of his games, but even with immaturity issues aside, I don't know how well his game will translate to the NFL. Again only from what I've seen, many of his big plays are broken play runs and I think he'll find NFL defenders are faster. I think that his arm is OK, but he doesn't seem to throw a tight spiral and ducks die in strong winds. I also think that he lobbed a lot of passes up high that hung in the air and were complete because he had a big 6'5" receiver to bail him out. Now, to his credit, he knew that he could throw those passes and get away with it, but I wonder what he'd look like without that advantage.

I think the OP was arguing that Bobby April is considered to be a very good ST coach who has had good success in the league (including his stint in Buffalo), but his recent teams were not very good. So the conclusion is that either April suddenly got a lot worse as a coach (unlikely) or that the players that he had to work with matter more than many wish to acknowledge. BTW, I think the OP has made a good point.

Do you know that prior to Mccown's magical stint in Chicago, he had thrown more INTS than TDs in hi s 10 year career? Before this year, Mccown had only 1 season in which he had more TSS than INTS (11-10). Manuel did better than that in his rookie year while missing considerable time in the preseason and regular season. Why do some here hold such a low opinion of Manuel, but yet think that many other QBs are so much better?

How do you know this?

Fair point, but do you expect the Bills, Bengals, Jaguars to be able to compete with the Cowboys in terms of spend? Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Cowboys' average operating profit over those same 12'years was only $100MM/yr (less than 1/2 of what they made last year). Given that assumption, the Cowboys had $1.2BILLION vs the Bills $357MM over that same time period. Further, pretty sure that the Cowboys spent more on payroll each year that isn't reflected in those numbers. If you still want to argue that Ralph Wilson was less committed to winning than Jerry Jones because Jerry spent more, but made A LOT more, then I'll concede. I guess part of my point is that it isn't lack of spending that has held the Bills' down, but some poor choices (in hindsight) and some bad luck. No doubt that the Bills have made personnel mistakes, but yet a team that can/has spent considerably more hasn't exactly outdone the Bills by much at all. I think that management skill plays a big part, but blind luck also has a huge hand in NFL success. For instance, the Colts had Peyton Manning miss considerable time the year that Andrew Luck came out and "won the lottery". While I'll grant that in hindsight the Bills missed on not selecting Russel Wilson and Colin Kaepernick, the entire Nfl missed on those guys. If any QB NEEDY TEAM(there are 15 or so per year) thought that they would have been as good as they seem to be, then they'd have each been top 15 picks. The Bills haven't been quite bad enough at the right time to inherit Andrew Luck, Cam Newton, etc.

I think that KC, SF and Seattle all built much of the rest of their team before getting their QB. Do you disagree?

But the Cowboys CAN afford to spend to the cap whereas the Bills and many other small market teams struggle to do so without losing money.

Based on the Forbes data, the Cowboy"s extra revenue from just 4 years is about $1BILLION, so yes they can afford to pay for their stadium. BTW, I don't see Dallas winning much since Jimmy Johnson left.

Pretty telling in what way? That the consensus best QB in at least the last decade (whom the Bills did not have a shot at) looks to be better than EJ Manuel so far? Who'd have thunk? Besides aberrations Kaepernick and Wilson, what great QB prospect have the Bills passed on? I'll grant that Nick Foles looked good this year, to, but I saw Nobody claiming that Wilson, Kaepernick and Foles were can't miss prospects- if there were, they'd have been picked early in round 1 by any number of QB-needy teams.

But what (little) profit are the Bills' turning? Here is a link to a look at 2012 profitability (in terms of operating income) by Forbes - certainly an independent view: http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/ You may note that the Cowboy's operating income is more than 20x that of the Bills while the Cowboys spent considerably more against the cap than the Bills. The Bills are in the lowest quartile in operating income (I didn't take the time to do the math, but likely in the lowest 10%). If you want to argue from that list that there are teams, besides Detroit, that are operating at a loss in order to field a winner, then I will accept your point.

Stop it now. Perhaps you'd like to buy the Bills and operate at a loss? Why would ANYONE do that unless they were SOOOO rich that it didn't matter? I, for one, am thankful that Mr. Wilson didn't move the team or sell the team to someone who would move it to a much more profitable market. Teams can and do compete very well without spending to the cap and teams that spend to the cap don't necessarily win. The trick (and I'll agree with some here) is to field a good team for a reasonable amount of $. The Bills haven't been good at that - yet, I acknowledge that it is more complicated than just spending a lot of money.

You are VERY wrong on this. Ever hear of luxury boxes??? Teams in big markets sell them for high prices and those don't count in SHARED revenue. How about Personal Seat Licences? Those are fees charged to season ticket holders for the right to buy season tix. Those don't count in SHARED revenue. The Bills have 0 revenue from these. How about merchandise sales??? This isn't shared revenue. Surely you know that the Cowboys, Giants, Jets, etc have significantly higher merchandise sales than the Bills. Let's consider ticket prices. Let's say the Cowboy's average ticket prices is $100 and the Bills' average price is $50 (probably over-estimated. While those revenues are shared, the Bills come out on the short-end of the revenue stick for ticket revenue. We can examine this further, but the reality is, the Bills' revenue is in the lower 25% of the league. They can't afford to spend to the cap and also break even. I don't know many businesses that will turn a loss on purpose.