Grant

Ralph waffling on his "vote of confidence" wasn't embarassing at all. Neither was forcing him to fire his assistants and make it clear that he would have little say in the future hiring of assistants. It also wasn't embarassing that Mularkey's friend, confidant and the man who hired him, Donahoe, was canned. Yeah, this is Mularkey's fault.

Edit: For some reason, the quote tags don't seem to be working. So I've put your text in bold for now. 1. The owner, the GM's, and maybe Ditka deserve at least as much of the blame for the Saints' recent mediocrity. Maybe initially but after 6* years, that excuse falls flat. 2. They've been playing in the toughest divisions of the NFC this century - the old NFC West and the new NFC South. You shouldn't have to wait for other teams to back down in order to be good. You should just be good. 5* years of non-playoffs is unacceptable regardless of division. 3. Katrina made 2005 a futile effort for anyone. I'll give Haslett a pass for this season. This is the only excuse I'll allow. Thus, the asteriks. 4. He DID win the division and get the Saints to the 2nd round of the playoffs in his rookie year (the 2nd round of the playoffs is like the Super Bowl for that franchise). If we're blaming Ditka, the owner and the GM for the failures, shouldn't they get credift for this? Especially since, as a rookie head coach, Haslett had little to do with the assembly of that team. 5. Other than Mike Sherman, he is the most attractive of all the realistically available head coaching candidates with previous NFL HC experience. No he isn't. 6. He really wants to coach for Buffalo, which will resonate well with the fans (this never hurts; look at what it did to TD, GW, and MM). I really want to coach for Buffalo, too. So does Marv Levy and Alex Van Pelt. This should not be a factor. 7. He'll come cheaper than most other experienced head coaches, so maybe Marv can convince Ralph to use all this saved HC money on the OC and DC. Great, another bargain bin head coach. This has worked out well for us. I know there's a lesson to be learned from the Mularkey disaster, I just know it! But what could it be? 8. Supposedly has a good relationship with Wilson and Levy, which could only help in trying to develop team chemistry and cohesiveness within the organization. This might be a positive. It would be nice to have a coach who could have some breathing room and some actual power. I can't think of a coach who's ever been successful without having some degree of power over personnel. 9. Lots of head coaches have done better the second time around in new situations, most notably Bill Belichick leaving Cleveland for NE. Lots have failed, too. 10. Supposedly a players' type of coach So was Mularkey. 11. Also has pro experience as a DC. So did Williams.

I would much rather have April than Haslett, Gray or Cottrell.

Come on now. Think about this rationally. Mularkey, or any coach hoping to work again, isn't going to speak out about the terrible hand he was dealt. Of course he's not going to come out and say "well, it's because I was stripped of all of my responsibilities and assistants and power. And I'm resigning because I've been all but fired, although they won't do that because then they'd owe me money." He's saying it was "stress" because it was. It's the stress caused by being reduced to a ball-less scapegoat. But it wasn't because of the "stress" of the typical NFL season. If it were, he would've resigned much sooner, don't you think? Mularkey resigned because it was made clear he wasn't welcome. They took away the guy that hired him. They forced him to fire his assistants. They waffled on whether or not they wanted to even keep him. They wanted to choose his assistants for him. Are you kidding me? No self-respecting coach would work in those circumstances. That is the "stress" that caused him to resign.

Other than the fact that Haslett once played linebacker in Buffalo, there's no reason to bring Haslett here. None whatsoever. Here are the most common reasons given I've read for why Haslett would be a good choice: "He was a great linebacker" "He wants to coach in Buffalo" "He knows Marv" None of those say anything about his competency as a head coach. You know why? He's done nothing to prove he would be an upgrade over Mularkey. Because when you think about Haslett without the bias of his Buffalo origins, you realize what a terrible coach he's been. He's only made the playoffs once in six years, and that was his first year. And the Saints have had talent - Deuce McAllister and Joe Horn are among the best in the league at their respective positions. And five years - four if you excuse this year - of non-playoff football is still unacceptable anywhere in the NFL. When looking at Haslett purely as a coach, you can only make positives by giving him excuses. "He did the best he could with that untalented roster." A coaches job is to make his players good, not the other way around. "Everyone knows he plays for the cheapest owner in the NFL." Yeah, and Ralph is such a big spender. This is going to be our 4th head coach in 6 years. That's ridiculous. This time, let's pick one we won't have to bend over backwards to justify. Bring in someone who's a proven winner and give them some control.

Yeah, I somehow doubt Mularkey quit just because the job was "too hard." It may have something to do with the fact that the owner stripped him of his hand-picked assistants and made him powerless. Just maybe! If anything, this situation reflects quite well on Mularkey - certainly better than it will reflect on the Bills, I'll bet! At least Mularkey had the good sense to realize the game here was rigged. He chose his pride over a year of being a scapegoat and a paycheck.

You sure it's worth keeping?

I was sadded when Takeo broked his leg.

I am publicly saying right now that I want to coach the Bills. I've been to Ralph Wilson Stadium many times. I once coached a pee wee football team. I am now just as qualified as Jim Haslett.

Great! Another head coach complete with excuses for his failures. There's no rational reason to bring Jim Haslett to the Bills. If Haslett had never suited up for Buffalo, no one would want him here. He's done nothing to warrant serious interest. Nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, NOTHING. I know this is a wacky idea, but what about bringing in a coach who's actually achieved some degree of success before? It might fail, but who knows, we haven't tried it... ever.

These threads are ridiculous. What response should fans give? "This looks good for the organization we love. A head coach resigning after two years!" Yeah, people wanted Mularkey out. But there's a huge difference between Mularkey being fired - the Bills saying he isn't good enough - and Mularkey quitting, which is Mularkey saying the Bills aren't good enough.

And I'm sure Gray would be really thrilled to work under his 3rd head coach in 5 years.

Oddly, this decision actually has made me respect Mularkey than I have in his entire coaching career. At least he's not completely oblivious!

When your job is playing ball for ridiculous sums of cash, you have to find some way to keep yourself hungry.

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe she's expressed in the past that she isn't interested.

Yeah, how can the players respect Mularkey if he has no power? Nobody's going to play hard for Mike "Training Wheels" Mularkey if they know he has no say in, well, anything.

Oh, okay.

Oh, definitely. The waffling over Losman/Holcomb certainly had a negative impact on his progression, no doubt. I was referencing more to Losman's solid performance in week one and then awful performances in the games to follow. Then we played Holcomb, and when Losman was re-inserted in the KC game, Losman looked good again. And after that, he went back to looking bad. So that might seem discouraging to folks. But I do agree that Losman wasn't given a fair chance this year. Really, we should've just resigned ourselves to a pathetic record this year. It shouldn't have been a surprise. But everyone was telling us this off-season how far Wyche had brought JP and how we could make the playoffs like Pittsburgh did last year with Big Ben- a running game and strong defense. We didn't account for the defense imploding and Willis' laziness.

I think this is a great way to look at Losman at this point. Really, no one should be sold on Losman yet because he hasn't shown anything worth buying. Not yet. But, as you said, it's too early to tell whether or not he'll be good or bad.

The numbers you posted are certainly encouraging and are a nice reminder that sometimes experience can cure a lot. I think some people are discouraged about Losman, though, because there wasn't much progress evident. He didn't seem to be able to read defenses any better from week to week; in some cases, it seemed like he was regressing. I think people will embrace Losman a bit more once he shows some progress next year. And in all likelihood, he will.

Either way, Super Bowl week is sure going to be annoying. They'll either erect a church for Tedy Bruschi or hang James Dungy's corpse up as, of course, "a tribute."

Ah, I see. Re-reading your posts, I realize now I was really just re-iterating your response (Hey Kids! Count the re's for a prize!). That's what I get for skimming.

Well, if we're going with the "rigged-storyline" theory, I think the Colts have a title locked up then. What better story line than "winning one for James Dungy"? You just KNOW if the Colts go to the Super Bowl, everyone is going to be falling all over themselves to try and dedicate the game to his memory.

Yeah, Jim Kelly was basically a retard. But since he was tough, had a cannon and knew how to win games, we forgave him.

They probably overpaid, but I think Herm will be successful.