The Big Cat

Spot analysis, thank you. It's almost like you managed to gloss over the dozens of times in this thread alone that I've countered this claim simply by citing the QB. The QB we have this year is just about as good or bad as all the QB's of the last 15 years, yet our record is poised to be better. So, I guess that kinda contradicts our poitn about coaching and talent, huh?

How about them? I'm curious as to which game situations--specifically--that you're referring to. You think that having Craig Urbrik in the lineup would have had the same impact as Kyle Orton NOT winging the ball over his open receivers heads in the endzone? You're welcome to debate that, but I find it highly unlikely. Scared coaching? Can you give a clear cut example like Kyle Orton winging the ball over his open receivers heads in the endzone? I doubt it. Playing for field goals? Can you be more specific about this? And again, we're back to a sweeping generalization. I've given you specific example where players have failed and you come back with "it's the coaches fault we're not going to make the playoffs." Unbelievable.

And when you can isolate five plays from that position alone that cost us TWO games this year (Hou/KC), two games that would have us leading the WC race, how we immediately hop on the fire-all-the-coaches bandwagon is simply beyond me.

Of course we should expect more production. My point this WHOLE TIME is that the lack of production does NOT fall squarely on the coaches, that the players share some of the blame, and IMO, a larger portion of it than the coaches.

Over/under: 16 game seasons for Beckham: 5.5 Is anyone talking the over? Ditto Sammy, is anyone taking the under?

You said they're "bottom three in every offensive category." And then you posted stats disproving that. Am I being trolled?

Also, not for nothing, the Bills have played against top 15 defenses in 8 of their 10 games. And they won the other two (NYJ, CHI). I'm !@#$ing counting. That's the whole point. You made some **** up, and I called you out on it. The offense is bad enough, we don't have to exaggerate quantifiable stats to make our point!

Who's saying the offense is doing a fine job?

So...I called you bush league for saying they're bottom three in every stat and you respond by posting the stats that have them in the bottom five? I'm confused. Are you crazy or am I? And if you would have read what I posted, I said I'm not disagreeing with the implication (offense = bad). So again.... You posted 10 stats. In three of those 10 they are bottom three.

You obviously missed the point. Also, the team is one game behind all but three others. Let's look at those rankings tomorrow, please.

No they're not. Look, again, I'm not saying they're good. I'm not saying what you're implying is wrong, it's not. But making up phony stats to make your point is bush league. And it's been happening in A LOT of criticisms of this team.

And everyone else is right. The players can't possibly be blamed. Not when we started John !@#$ing DiGorgio next to Angelo !@#$ing Crowell and behind John !@#$ing McCargo and Chris !@#$ing Kelsay, and certainly not now!

That's been my point this whole time. We're not in last, we're not the worst, stop acting as if we are. Again, if even half the posters in this thread spent ANY time following other teams they'd see how ludicrous their hyperbole about this team is. Dude, enough with the retrospect Gailey worship. That offense wasn't that good. It never cracked the top 15 and barely cracked the top 20 in its best years.

Except you keep choosing to ignore the fact that the OC has receivers running wide open all over the field and dialed up a run for 15 yards and a TD only to have it stripped away in a game decided by less than six points. You keep making the argument that the OC's scheme is to blame when I repeatedly give you examples of how the scheme has been good enough to set them up to succeed and the players have found a way to !@#$ it up. So, no. Sorry. Your comparison of Hackett to ANY of the blowjobs who tried to serve as DC under Gailey is horribly off the mark. Hackett is a relative GENIUS compared to those nitwits.

I love that Mike Smith made the list of better coaches. Nobody watches other teams play, of this I'm certain. If a Bills coach would have mismanaged the clock to the extent that Smith did yesterday, this board and all of Bills Nation would be in flames right now.

And there's just no way shape or form that you're completely overstating the importance of a coach's "background." Even though the coaches themselves undersell it all the time. So, when Bellicheat's defenses were atrocious but his offenses were great, I remember when everyone in New England called for HIS job. And if the inverse is true, then please please please please stop gushing over Chan Gailey because he accomplished the sheer opposite of Marrone, gearing up an offensive game plan and fielding some of the worst defenses in franchise history.

This.

Something something something Jameis Winston.

I would agree with you to an extent, but the execution I'm referring to is a.) getting stripped with a free path to the endzone b.) straight up sailing passes and c.) missing receivers running wide open all over the field. In each case, players were put into a position to make a play and simply didn't. We're not talking about whiffed tackles, we're not even talking about whiffed blocks, we're talking about basic stuff. Plus, they're getting paid too. What is he good at? Fine: finding a good defensive coordinator. Getting the right pieces together to have very reliable special teams. Finding an OC (now I know some of you are going to hate this) that can design plays that have receivers running wide open all over the field. I don't understand why he gets all the blame for the offense failing, but no credit whatsoever when it comes to overseeing a defense that a.) broke a franchise record for sacks last year and is b.) leading the entire NFL now having played one less than game than all but three other teams.

According to? Mmmmmm, not so sure about that. I'm going to come right out and challenge you on this one, because it's when people say things like this that I'm convinced you don't pay attention to teams outside the Bills. Alex Smith does and has been playing at a level that EJ hasn't graced yet in his career. Okay. So? Straight up, I've seen a team that's been coached well enough to be in a position to be 7-3 right now, if not for some terrible execution: EJ in Houston and all the examples I've given from the KC game. I know that you'll come back and tell me the Bills were lucky to win in Detroit, fine. At worse, then, the team has been coached well enough to be 6-4 with a chance to be front runners in the WC race going into the last quarter of the season. And, consistent with everything I've said time and time again for the last EIGHT YEARS on this message board, to be in that position, in a very crowded AFC race, with Kyle !@#$ing Orton as your quarterback, well then clearly you're doing what coaches are paid to do: put your team in a position to sucked succeed. <--- EDIT (lol, greatest autocorrect ever?)

I don't ignore that fact at all. Quite the contrary, I acknowledged it earlier in this thread, stating that the way the FO has managed the QB situation has been pretty terrible. But I also acknowledged that short of bringing in Alex Smith, I don't think there's much else they could have done. I also think that benching EJ was the right thing to do and that Orton is the better QB, period. EJ might have some physical tools that Orton lacks, but there's been plenty of information coming from OBD since Orton took over that his overall approach and preparation and the way he holds the rest of the offense accountable are traits that EJ was sorely lacking. Wilson has ZERO receivers. And their best tight end is on IR. So, I'm not sure why you cited stats then immediately said stats don't matter, but in Wilson's case especially, they don't even remotely begin to tell the story of their offense.

He's on the cusp, and yes, they would have. A run heavy team with a suffocating defense is precisely the game Marrone wants to play. Very little would have changed.

Except you keep dancing around the fact that everyone who wants to argue what a bum Marrone is also conveniently says we're terrible at QB. They can't both be bad and have us at 5-5. So, I'll ask, again, is there such thing as a top-third coach who doesn't also have a top-third QB? If the answer is 'no,' then why is your ire directed toward Marrone, and why do you insist on his firing?

I'm not sure that's germane to this discussion. You know that I'm totally on board with not bitching about who we have at QB without being realistic about the other options available, but that's not really what this is.

And that's about what I'd say too. On his best day, may be 18th best QB in the league. On his worst? 25th. So why anyone is appalled that our coach falls into the same range, that's beyond me. Again--appalled. Dissatisfied, fine. But calling the guy the worst coach in the league and being totally enraged by the "coaching situation," it makes no sense to me when we're all on board with the woeful hole at the sport's most important position.