JDG

Yes, you can do it - the Steelers just did. Should you? This play involved a WR making a pass over the head of a Bengals defender, Ben Roethlisberger making a clean catch, and then making a clean throw downfield - all while counting on no Bengals defender sticking with the WR downfield, or staying at home on Roethlisberger. It is very easy for me to see that play blowing up, and instead of the Steelers going up 14, the Bengals are getting the ball down 7. To me, it is too big of a risk on a potentially drive-killing 3rd down. Run it on 1st or 2nd down if you think that you have it. JDG

And it should be pointed out that Pittsburgh called a HB Pass which failed, and called an *incredibly* risky WR-directsnap/flea-flicker on 3rd and 2 for which almost any NFL HC would have been positively skewered had it not worked. If "creativity" involves a WR-directsnap/flea-flicker on 3rd and 2, I don't want any part of it. JDG

Sorry, that was a typo. It was *vs.* New England. And it was bad - at least as bad as Eli Manning on Sunday, if not worse. JDG

I take it you missed the New England game? Eli Manning vs. Carolina: 10 of 18 (56%) for 133 yards, 3 INT, 35.0 Rating, 4 sacks for 22 yards Losman @ New England 10 of 27!!!! (37%!!!!) for 181 yards, 3 INT, 33.6 Rating, 2 sacks for 12 yards And lest you accuse me of cherry-picking, Losman threw for a lower completion percentage than Manning did on Sunday on five occasions; for fewer passing yards on three occasions; for a lower passer rating on three occasions; has been sacked more than 4 times on two occasions; and was sacked for more yards on five occasions! Few people are ready to give up on Losman - but the very, very, very, scary truth is that as bad as Eli Manning was on Sunday, Losman has been worse. JDG

Nobody wanted Mularkey gone more than I - but there is zero chance of that. If you are bringing in a good DC to run the defense, and a good OC to run the offense - why again did you keep Mularkey around? The decision has clearly been made to stick with Mularkey, and that means sticking with his offensive philosophy. As for the posters who mentioned Al Saunders, Herman Edwards is a defensive guy, and I'd be shocked if he didn't retain Saunders. As for Marv possibly picking Lofton or Joiner, while interesting - it would leave me deeply troubled about the future and direction of the team, as such a move would completely undermine Mularkey's authority. In short, Mularkey needs to get an OC who will be viewed as a "Mularkey guy" in order to retain some semblance of authority as he attempts to succeed as a semi-lame duck under the new management. Indeed, management has already fired all of Mularkey's assistants (or has at minimum, created the appearance of doing so), if they hire the new ones too - then Mularkey is a true lame duck who is only here because Donahoe gave him a five-year contract and Ralph Wilson was too cheap to fire him. JDG

Some speculation on whom Mularkey will hire as his new Coordinators. Having just fired our entire defensive staff, I think that Mularkey's best option would be to look at the defensive staff from one of the just-fired Head Coaches - someone who will be looking for a new job because a new guy will be bringing in his own personnel, and who will be able to bring a handfull of asisstants with him. This could include guys like Gunther Cunningham (Chiefs), Dick Jauron (Lions), Larry Marmie (Rams), or a return of Ted Cottrell (Vikings.) Dom Capers will be mentioned, but I find it hard to believe that we would pay him, or that he would want to come to such an unstable situation. If Jim Bates (Packers) becomes available, I'd be very happy with him. Another intriguing guy to me, though, is Rob Ryan (Raiders) - a son of Buddy Ryan, and who also spent time on Belichick's staff in New England, including two Super Bowls; so far, however, he has been retained by the Raiders. Another interesting choice would be former Arizona HC Dave McGinnis, who is currently a position coach in Tennessee. On the offensive side, Mike Mularkey is an offensive guy - so he needs to bring in someone who is going to work with his system. You can't just bring in a Mike Martz, with his completely different offensive philosophy. That's why its so odd to see Mularkey fire Clements, whom he brought with him from Pittsburgh. Although Mularkey doesn't know him, Bruce Arians is a former OC for Cleveland, and became WR coach in Pittsburgh after Mularkey left - so at least Arians was presumably familiarizing himsellf with the Steelers' offense during that time frame. Another guy Pittsburgh brought in after Mularkey left is Mark Whipple, who was a successful I-AA HC. Another possibility might be Chris Palmer, who was fired by the Texans and Dom Capers in September. If Mularkey wants to stay in-house, maybe Tyke Tolbert gets the nod. Further afield, there may be some U of Florida connections I haven't come up with. JDG

I think it just goes to show how hard it is to evaluate any aspect of a team in isolation. The NY Giants were absolutely killed on Saturday by a defense that was starting a bunch of LB's from off the street, and a CB off the street (Terrell Buckley) whom they were trying to man-up with Steve Smith. [O.k., bad example, manning-up Buckley with Steve Smith *is* bad coaching - I'd fear for any team that hires Tim Lewis as a HC.] Moreover, Eli Manning was positively *brutal* today. Tom Coughlin might have a real coach-killer on his hands. Eli Manning is too high-profile to bench, and for the time being likes way too bad to be consistently successful with. Sure, they had a great run this year winning the second-toughest division in football, but nothing takes the shine off of a season like getting shutout *at home* in the playoffs. Meanwhile, let's consider Marvin Lewis - whom many people have skewered Tom Donahoe for not hiring. Yet the story of Marvin Lewis in Cincinnati is hitting the lottery with Carson Palmer, and several years later still not having the defense fixed. I still think that Carson Palmer wins the shootout on Sunday if he stays healthy, but the moral of the story remains, that three years later Marvin Lewis still doesn't have that defense fixed. Moreover, if Eli Manning comes out a year early and Cincinnati drafts him instead of Carson Palmer, then I think that there is no way that Marvin Lewis is looking like such a slam-dunk choice. In fact, Marvin Lewis' job might be in jeopardy..... Funny game that football...... JDG

Interesting. I've heard from one or two UVA fans here in the DC area that D'Brickshaw Ferguson is a tad over-rated as well - that he may have some motivation issues, and that he has not been consistently dominant. For whatever it is worth..... JDG

I noticed that the link on TBD no longer works......

Wow, Kelly, this post was remarkably prescient in light of today's press conference. Ralph Wilson was asked who will be hiring the coaching Assts., and the answer seemed to go something like Mularkey... and Marv.... and Modrak.... and oh yeah "I (Ralph Wilson) want to be involved in the discussion too!" Oy vey..... JDG

And just yesterday, didn't Ralph Wilson look the media in the eye and say that it was the Head Coach's decision? JDG

So he was there for what, less than a year? JDG

Come on Gerry, I explicitly addressed your first paragraph in the bit you quoted. No, I don't believe that the only viable candidates are former GM's. I did, however, say that current Front Office experience would be a huge plus. For example, a current "Director of Pro Personnel" for a successful franchise will already *know* and be familiar with all sorts of pro personnel information that he has been dealing with on a daily basis for the last few years. Marv is going to have to take some time to ramp himself up in order to match that same level of familiarity and understanding an experienced candidate would have. I also disagree that an IBM executive would make a successful GM. The GM is a *football* position, hence Marv's second title of "Director of Football Operations." If Marv is to be a normal GM, he is going to be making final decisions on whom to draft, what street free agents to work out, what unrestricted free agents to pursue, how much to value potential signees, how much to value (and offer) our current players with contract issues, and have input on whom to cut in training camp. His job is going to consist of making football decisions on a daily basis. And like I said, Marv isn't disqualified from succeeding. I have a hard time, however, seeing him as being the most-qualified person to succeed. JDG

But the standard is *NOT* simply "not doing any worse". We all think that 6 season with the playoffs sucks. If Marv is the same as TD, and 5 years from now it is 11 years without the playoffs - then this franchise has become the Arizona Cardinals. And unlike the Cardinals which play in a high-growth area, fan disillusionment with a perennially losing product makes it a very long-shot that the Bills stay in shrinking WNY. The Bills simply *have* to be competitive in order to be the Bills. Those are the stakes. You can't keep bouncing from year-to-year cosmetic brushes to get the fans excited about the upcoming season without an underlying structure for longterm success, or eventually the whole house of cards will collapse on us. JDG

I don't see why the above is at all relevant. For one, many of the above things are just plain impossible. Secondly, I don't think that Buffalo has ever quite had an angry mob on its hands like it did after this season. Well, there's nothing on my resume that would disqualify me from being a good GM either. There's also scant little on my resume that suggests that I am the best candidate for the job. Marv Levy has scant experience in managing a salary cap and dealing with free agency. Moreover, Marv has not been developing these skills for the past eight years. He has not spent the past eight years in any sort of position where he was evaluating either pro personnel nor college personnel for the draft. He has not spent the past eight years in any sort of position where he was negotiating contracts, structuring contracts, nor learning about any of the developments in contract writing and structuring that have occurred in the NFL over the past ten years. He does not arrive in this organization with a strong knowledge of the state of pro personnel on this team, nor around the League in this day. Thus, to me his hiring is worse that hiring some unknown with no prior GM experience. At least an "unknown" would have some current prior Front Office Experience. But Marv's been a broadcaster for the last however-many years. And how have things turned out for the last team that hired a broadcaster as a GM? In short, I believe that in hiring our next GM the question should have been: 1) Which GM candidate will build a team that will produce the most wins over the five years? I find it very difficult to believe that Marv Levy is the obvious answer to that question from a football standpoint. If Marv Levy had an identical resume, only with the Pittsburgh Steelers from 1986-1997, would he have even gotten an interview? If Marv Levy had not been a successful Head Coach under Bill Polian, knowing that Coaching has notable differences from GM'ing, would he have even gotten an interview? It seems clear to me that he was not brought in for football reasons, he was brought in because he is a popular link to the team's "Golden Age" past. As such, I unfortunately suspect that Ralph Wilson asked the following questions instead of the above question: 1) Which GM candidate will create the most buzz among our disillusioned fan base? 2) Which GM candidate will support me in intra-organization political battles? and even: 3) Which GM candidate will not want to chose his own HC, but will instead let me avoid firing one of the lowest-paid NFL coaches with 3 years left on his contract? Indeed, that last question points to what is further adding to my despair - namely that the moves Marv seems to be making even before he officially takes the position already seem to be the wrong ones. For one, he has already agreed to retain Mike Mularkey - whom as you know, I believe has a very strong case against him. Secondly, he appears to be facilitating a two-faced owner who tells us point-blank at 2:30 in the afternoon that he doesn't pick Asst. Coaches, the HC picks Asst. Coaches, and that we can all, quote, "go home" - and then trots back out at 5:15 the same afternoon to announce that his HC is keeping his job after having fired lots of his Assts. per his demands. Finally, I see no hallmarks of a winning organization being built here, as I noted in a previous post. I see cosmetic brushes being applied to the top of an organization that is only increasing its disfunctionality. I don't think that the new-look Bills organization we see today is disqualified from being successful - but I find it impossible at this point to bet on them being successful in the near future. JDG - Who is not happy about being so unhappy.....

I disagree. I think that Marv was brought back as PR move - to cater to the fans who call into Sports Talk Radio. The Buffalo area has been afflicted with "Golden Age" disease for a long time now. With six years of no playoffs, and even longer without a playoff win, the fans in Buffalo always look back upon the "Golden Age" as a time when everything was right with the world - and somehow believe that anything associated with that magical "Golden Age" is a cure-all for whatever afflicts the Bills in the depressingly realistic President. How many times have we seen it? When the Bills' Special Teams were bad a few years ago, it was "bring back Steve Tasker as ST Coach." Whenever the offense is struggling, its "bring back the no-huddle", or my personal favorite "bring back Jim Kelly as Offensive Coordinator." And when everything is just plain going badly its "bring back Marv Levy." I'm sorry, but in my mind, it is impossible to believe that the return of Marv Levy is a football decision. Instead, I see Marv Levy as serving two purposes: 1) Appealing to deluded "Golden Age" Buffalo Bills fans as a PR move to boost sales 2) Improving communication to a meddling owner, who despite being an 87-year-old owner, wants to be involved in some way in the day-to-day football decisions of the organization And honestly, I am terrified that after another year of struggles under Mularkey that the Bills will finally make the right decision in letting Mularkey go, and that Marv Levy might hire himself as Head Coach. None of this, though, has the sign of football moves designed to bring us into the future - instead it seems like a bunch of cosmetic moves designed to hang onto the past. Ugh. JDG

I hate to disagree with you Lori, but there is perhaps no better smashmouth organization in the NFL than the Pittsburgh Steelers, and the Steelers have used Antwaan Randle-El quite effectively for a few years now. I think even smashmouth organizations need playmakers, and I think Donahoe legitimately saw Parrish as being that sort of playmaker. And with Reed's contract up after this year, and with the possibility of Moulds being a cap casualty this year, he probably saw Parrish is filling a legitimate hole - and being someone we could pair with Evans. JDG

And not very surprisingly, we just plain weren't a very successful organization under Donahoe, now were we? JDG

Great Post. I, for one, at least believe that Marv Levy told Ralph Wilson that he wanted to keep Mularkey. But let's face it, Mularkey is nominally working for a guy who didn't hire him; and has kept his job by firing his asisstants on the orders of the owner. Meanwhile, Modrak is wandering around like the ghost of Donahoe-past with who knows what authority. Heaven knows who makes the call in the draft room? Marv? Modrak? Mularkey? Successful NFL organizations are built on a partnership between the GM and the HC. The HC is the GM's guy, and the GM is the HC's guy. They share a common philosophy and a common plan for building the team. This reorganization has none of those Hallmarks. Instead, it has the looks of a "fantasy squad" - lots of bits and pieces cobbled together, but no semblance of a team here at all. JDG

Oh I agree. Maybe not a full order of magnitude more than in 1994 (after the comeback game), but certainly orders of magnitude more than 1997. Heck I remember some regular poster here using the pseudonymn "Marv Liverspot" to basically bash Marv at every opportunity..... and some guy using the name "Geriatric Park" to contribute to the mess..... JDG

That's an interesting question. I personally think that the city of Buffalo is so winning-starved right now that they'd be ready to tear down the goal posts for a division title again just like 1988. (And if it happens, it wouldn't be surprising to see us drop a home game to an inferior 4-win team the next week admist all the euphoria like a certain other team we saw this season.) But that would simply be good for the first year. Eventually "Shanahan Disease" will sit in - the disease whereby the fanbase and the media start making inane comments like "He hasn't won a Super Bowl in 5 years", "He hasn't won a playoff game since John Elway retired," or my favorite "He's gotten to the playoffs the last umpteen years, but has lost in the 1st round." We're seeing a mass outbreak of "Shanahan Disease" in New York City right now where the fan base is playing a key role in running off Herman Edwards who has only brought the city Division Titles, Playoff Berths, and 1st Round Playoff Wins in just about every year his starting QB remains healthy.... in the same division as the Patriots I might add. And yeah, it will take a remarkable turnaround for this team to even make the playoffs next year, and I have a hard time seeing a playoff win within two years. As much as I disagree with Mortensen's defense of Tom Donahoe, I think he did peg one thing exactly right. This fan base brought out the pitchforks for not making the playoffs this year, and the same fan base also wonders why we don't trot an incompetent JP Losman out there every game for "development", and wonders why we lose games with Losman in at QB. JDG

I've loved Marv too, hated the way he was run out of town by a fickle fan base, and absolutely agree that his attempts the last few years to get back into coaching have been unseemly. I'd much rather leave his legacy as his legacy..... JDG

Isn't it fairly apparent that Ralph Wilson said that because Mularkey hadn't fired his asisstants yet as Ralph had demanded of him? JDG

I've been wondering when someone would remind us all of that. JDG

Given the year Willis McGahee had - I'm not sure that any offensive lineman can be described as having had a good year. Turning McGahee into one of the worst backs in the League had to have taken a team effort by Willis, the Line, and the Coaches..... JDG