billsfan1959
-
Posts
6,352 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by billsfan1959
-
-
Your first 2 sentences don't match your second 2. Is he a sure fire can't miss here for a year "rent-a-coach" or is he someone who get's into "embarrassing situations" who "doesn't appear to have a clue as a HC?"
Pettine's situation was unique. I'd appreciate it if someone could find out when this last happened. Typically a person has to show consistency over a period of seasons before they are considered for a HC job. When last did a first year coordinator (with a team) get a HC gig?
Pettine was pretty consistent as a DC over the last five seasons. While many people want to view his time in NY as being "under the shadow" of Ryan - that was perception only (unless you want to interpret it literally before Ryan lost all that weight). The truth is Pettine learned under Ryan in Baltimore. They share similar philosophies and he knew what Ryan wanted in a defense in NY. However, Ryan gave him as much autonomy as any coordinator gets. He ran the defensive meetings, he designed the defensive game plans, and he was the one that made the defensive calls during the games.
So, I don't think the Browns looked at him in terms of just what he did with the Bills. I think they looked at him as being consistent over five seasons as a DC.
-
Interview of Schwartz in 2004 by Football Outsiders
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2004/football-outsiders-interview-jim-schwartz
-
Schematically, I do hope Schwartz adjusts to fit the Bills' personnel. Not only because I am concerned about having to re-tool the personnel yet again, but more importantly, because I think Pettine's philosophy is the smarter and more effective one.
What I love about the Rex Ryan/Mike Pettine defense is that it is designed to confuse. Confusion buys time for the pass rush, and forces the offense to make mistakes in protection. In today's passing league where QBs are so prepared pre-snap, making them (and their o-linemen) think for an extra half-second is often the difference between success and failure.
The "wide 9", by contrast, seems to me to be a cheap way to generate more pressure using a base 4-3. And if the pressure doesn't get there, you're left with a vanilla D and huge, extra-wide running lanes. You also need your LBs to be thumpers because they'll be getting less protection from the front four. I'm not a big fan of it.
On a related point, I can see why Schwartz's D was considered too dependent on the front 4 in Tennessee: they had one really good - albeit dominant - player on that defense. When Fat Albert was on his game, he was hands-down the most dominant and disruptive defender in the league, and I can understand why you'd design a defense around him if you were Schwartz - especially since they had no other real studs on that roster. So you design a defense around Albert, who was unblockable when he cared - and then when he took plays or games off, your D understandably would look totally ineffective and ill-designed. That's why Albert was such a coach killer.
Anyhow - assuming Schwartz is as flexible as they say - I'm still a huge fan of this hire.
I am with you. IMHO, I think Whaley, Marrone, et al understand the step forward the defense took this year, while also understanding the areas that still need improvement. I just get the feeling the organization is going about the improvement of this team in a way we have not been used to seeing. I honestly believe they evaluated, in depth, what DC would be best suited to build on what has been accomplished with what personnel we have, while also improving the areas of weakness - as opposed to completely scrapping a system and starting over, or even dismissing what has proven to be effective (personnel and philosophy wise) - and hired that individual. I also believe it will not stop there, but extend to personnel brought in through free agency and the draft. I tend to be optimistic about things; however, not blindly so. I like what I have seen over the last year in terms of the direction this team is headed. I like this hire. I believe Schwartz proved himself to be more than capable as a DC in Tenn (really couldn't care less about HC stint in Det) and I am optimistic his philosophy and schemes will mesh with the attacking style defense this organization wants and was begun by Pettine. I may be completely wrong - but I hope not. Whether or not they accomplish that is another story. The truth is, we will not have a good idea until we see what the team does, personnel wise, through free agency, the draft, and philosophy wise through mini-camps/spring training...
-
I think it's funny how much credit he gets for the TN defense. Being a DC under a defensive HC is usually a completely different role from being DC under an offensive HC. If anyone thinks Jeff Fisher brought him in and just said "do your thing" I've got some lucrative real estate deals I'd like to discuss with you. It's encouraging that he's worked with successful defenses in the past, it's also discouraging that his defenses in Det (and often in TN also) were mediocre. My opinion is that his defenses on average have been middle of the pack and I assume he's a middle of the pack DC, which is better than what we've had for a while prior to Pettine, so I'm not devastated by the news, but for those ecstatic about it, you either know something you're not sharing or you're drinking kool aid. FTR, there's nothing wrong with Kool-aid, it's tasty and refreshing in the summer as well as during a typical Bills off-season. I'm usually a heavy drinker of the stuff.
You could have said the same about Pettine under Ryan in NY - but it isn't true, just as it wasn't true about Schwartz. The fact of the matter is that the defensive coordinator typically (not always, but the vast majority of time) is the one handling the vast majority of game prep and in-game calling of defensive game plans/plays - not the head coach. Pettine proved he was a good defensive coordinator in NY and Schwartz proved he was a good coordinator in Tenn - I don't care that the head coaches of their teams were Ryan and Fisher. As far as what Schwartz did as a head coach...I couldn't care less, since it is a completely different role than DC.
-
I liked what he did as DC in Tennessee, could care less what he did as a HC since that isn't his job. JMHO
This ^^^
-
Lets not pretend that the defensive coordinator doesn't play a large role in fielding a prepared, disciplined and clean defensive squad... Something Schwartz was troubled with in Detroit.
He wasn't the Defensive Coordinator. However, as a Head Coach, he definitely plays a role in that. With that said, he was also dealing with several personalities that most coaches would have problems controlling. As a defensive coordinator in Tenn, he ran a pretty disciplined, hard hitting, fundamentally sound defense. So, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt
-
Byrd has complained. Defensive players generally don't like changing schemes every year.
I think you're wrong.
1) I don't think this will be as drastic a change as you might think...and I also think our defense next year may be even better. 2) There is no doubting Byrd's dissatisfaction over the last year; however, I also think the Bills realize Byrd deserves to be paid in a range commensurate with his ability. I wouldn't be surprised to see a deal worked out.
I hope I am not wrong...
-
They'll go in house, they said. There's no way we'll change defensive scheme for the 4th time in 4 years, they said.
Bye bye Byrdy, complained about switching schemes and now this? Gone.
They changed the scheme last year for the third time in three years...didn't work out too bad. I wouldn't be so quick to say goodbye to Byrd...
-
IMHO, a very good hire. Aggressive when he has the talent and has put together some consistently strong pass and rush defenses as a DC. Also like that he has learned under some very good defensive coaches...
-
What about when Brady went down and Cassel went in?
Good job that season, although only two of their wins came against teams with a winning record...just sayin
-
Don Shula and it's not close. He won more longer and more consistantly than any head coach. He did it with great QBs and pedestrian ones. Take bellicheats record without Brady and he barely cracks .500
When it comes to pure head coaching - I look at those coaches who managed to have long term success with and without hall of fame talent (particularly at QB) - or with different teams - or both. Bill Parcells is an interesting guy to me in terms of pure coaching ability. His teams were always so fundamentally sound and competetive. He took two different teams to three superbowls (winning two), a third team to the AFC Championship game, and four different teams total to the playoffs. He did it with great talent and not so great talent - and all without the benefit of ever having a Manning, Brady, Montana, etc. caliber QB. Not to mention, not one of the four teams had more than five wins the year before Parcells took over. How many other coaches have we seen (Jimmy Johnson comes to mind) that had great success with great talent, but average success with average talent.
-
I recognize Bill as the best coach in nfl history. See I have no problem saying that. I think it's true. However, when it comes to Brady, I think he is just above average. With him here in buffalo we would have gone to 1 maybe 2 playoff games in the last 10 years. With Manning we would have gone 6 years out of 10. Manning is just that good!
Im sorry that I dont think he's god like some bill's fans do????
I think you have it backward. IMO, if BB did not have Brady as his QB, he would probably be considered a good defensive coach but a slightly above average head coach. You can hate and despise Brady all you want - he is still one of the best, and most clutch, QBs to ever play the game.
-
From the perspective of being a life-long fan of the Bills, I despise every team in our division with a passion...and which one I despise the most at any given time depends on a number of factors. However, as a fan of the game, I can appreciate just how good Manning and Brady are - two of the best to ever play the game. My team is home for the playoffs and now, as a fan of the game I am hoping each game is down to the wire, great football. I hope Manning and Brady each play to their potential this coming weekend. If so, it could truly be one of those games that only come along once in a while.
-
Obviously the Colts will be drafting a QB next draft. No sense sticking with someone who can't make plays.
He must really be awful if he can't make plays with Da'Rick Rogers on the field
:rolleyes: -
That math doesn't add up to me:
32 teams total in lge - 20 in top 20 = 12 teams available
3 of 16= 13 teams played not in top 20
Impossible to have played 13 teams out of the top 20 where 12 teams are the max that could be out of the top 20
My apologies. I meant to write that only 4 of 16 (not 3 of 16) of Eagles opponents ranked in the top 20 in defensive YPP - as opposed to 13 of 16 (not 14 of 16) for the Bills. I can see how it now completely changes my argument...
-
They were 9-2 with him starting. He came close to setting an NFL QBR rating. Without their number 2 WR, with a rookie head coach. Can the guy get some credit? He's miles ahead of Manuel right now. The difference between him and a guy who has started in the league in Michael Vick were huge. The difference between Manuel and a guy who has been on practice squads were minimal.
If the Eagles are willing to bring in "competition," for Foles and Marrone won't for E.J. I think we're in for the "same old Bills."
I'll give Foles a lot of credit for what he did this year, but comparing him to Manuel is ridiculous. Foles was in his second full season in the NFL, playing behind a much better offensive line, against a far weaker defensive schedule - only 3 of 16 teams on their schedule ranked in the top 20 in YPP compared to 14 of 16 for the Bills (with 11 in the top 15 and 7 in the top ten), and Manuel missed half the preseason and five weeks of the regular season. Comparing Foles' production last year to Manuel would be more appropriate.
-
This thread is like Anderson Silva's leg break. As much as I want to look away I just keep peeking.
I was thinking the very same thing...like driving past a bad accident on the highway - you don't want to look...but you do anyway
-
You're so right because it was all about the Bills' 2013 Super Bowl readiness. No consideration for the long view should have entered into the equation with Rogers because the team was complete, mature, and poised for multiple years of deep playoff runs with the hope of finally grasping the Lombardi and holding a long awaited WNY parade in February.
There are plenty of players on the active roster, as well as the practice squad, who are here because of future potential rather than their imediate impact in 2013. If the release of Rogers was due simply to the inability of the of the organization to "consider the long view" and their tunnel vision in regard to 2013 production...then how do you explain their decision to keep any players that clearly were not going to make any type of significant contribution in 2013?
-
Activated only because of injuries. Targeted 23 times in 5 games. 14 catches for a 13.7 yard per catch average. Sorry, don't get all the consternation.
-
IMO, drafting a QB, especially in the 1st round at #9, does nothing to help this team short term or long term. Upgrades (in order of importance) at offensive line, defensive line, linebacker, Tight End, and Wide Receiver are going to bring this team to playoff contention. As far as which of those positions should be the priority early in the draft - it is way too early to tell. I would like to see the team aggressively address some of these needs in free agency. Then, (1) if there is true difference maker at one of those positions of need at #9, take him; (2) If not, hopefully we can trade down and acquire more picks; or (3) if there are no good offers to drade down, take the BPA at one of those positions.
-
Who cares if it is positive or negative?
The board is about discussion, not consensus.
The Browns just fired their head coach after one season.
Three coaches were fired yesterday who made the playoffs last season.
If you think speculating about Marrone's future 12 months from now is a "banal hypothetical scenario" then you aren't paying attention to your football news.
For reference.......were we not speculating on Chan's position 12 months before he was fired? Jauron's? These are legitimate topics of discussion on a football board whether you like it or not JR.
It doesn't feel like speculation on Marrone's future. It feels like another "Marrone sucks, is in over his head, and should be fired" post. If you are looking for legitimate discussion, then maybe ask a question such as, "Why do you think Marrone will or will not have more success next year (substantive analysis only)?"
-
I think you miss the point............the competition and lack of playing time didn't prevent him from making a huge jump.
And he had a number of obstacles that EJ is not going to have..........like having his coach get fired and having to learn a new offense in year 2.
Foles example absolutely blows up the notion that coddling is a pre-requisite.
I want a player who is focused on outperforming another player........not performing up to the expectations of fans and media.
I didn't miss your point. I just happen to disagree with you - on several points: (1) I do not think that "competition" is a prominent reason for Foles' jump in performance this year. (2) I do not agree with you on this idea that Foles was focused on "outperforming another player." I believe he was probably focused on the same thing as Manuel - being the best player he could be. (3) I do not agree with you on this notion that Manuel was coddled.
I believe that Manuel's performance this year was about what we could have asked for a rookie without the opportunity to practice and play consistently - which I think is more important than competition
-
It MOST CERTAINLY didn't hurt.
One of the big excuses for failure is having to learn a new offense and he had to learn two of them in his first two seasons.
Then he had to beat out two others for the starting position.......and lost.......and still was ready to take over when his opportunity arose.
Foles basically put up a historic season in year 2 and probably had not more first team snaps when he took off this year than EJ had at the end of this season.
Get EJ some competition and let the best man win.
He was in the exact same position last year as Manuel was this year and they posted similar numbers. He posted tremendous numbers this year in his second season. There are a lot of reasons for that, such as maturity, practicing and playing at an NFL level for two years, staying healthy, playing one of the weakest (if not the weakest) defensive schedules in the NFL, etc; however, I don't see competition as one of them.
-
Kinda feel like starting out the season 2 - 6 is more to blame for the Steelers not making the playoffs than a blown call in the third game of three they needed to go their way on the last day of the season...
Detroit Defense: New Bills defense
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Marrone wanted an aggressive, attacking defense. He hired Pettine specifically to bring his high pressure defense to Buffalo. It is not as if we had a system in place that was working - or even headed in the direction Marrone wanted. Now we do. The defense improved drastically; however, we have a ways to go. As far as I know, Marrone hasn't changed his philosophy of wanting an aggressive, attacking defense, and, after a year of coaching this team, has a pretty good idea of the defensive personnel on his team and what their strengths and weaknesses are. I believe he hired the best coach available to build on what is already in place. It may not be exactly what Pettine did - but, I think it will fall within the philosophy of what Marrone wants without starting over, and without overhauling personnel.
We'll see.