The Big Cat

Coaching wasn't the problem on Thursday. I've pointed to numerous, thorough analyses that indicate so. What have you pointed to, besides your navel?

No. I have read and heard analysis from people who actually break down the film (Sal, Eric Turner, Yards Per Pass). None of them came away saying the scheme was to blame. Each of them detailed the changes that were made. Each of them said the players got beat. I read these analysis, I listened to them. I asked Performer to provide analyses to the contrary. He was incapable of doing so. And yet he's certain the scheme was to blame. I've yet to read his tape analysis, though. I simply asked for a link. Also this.

Hahahahaha good one. Right, NOBODY has ever has their druthers with Gilmore before. Find me an all-22 that says otherwise.

Some times players just have phenomenal games. I understand that Fitz is somewhat of a punchline around here, but you don't get to be a streaky QB without catching fire every once in a while. He did big time on TNF and he never cooled off. Pair that with a very big, talented, veteran savvy receiving corps and two CBs that timed their worst collective performance juuuuuuuust right and then suddenly, yes, stopping Fitz was impossible. Well you're setting up a pretty weak strawman here, so instead I'll ask you: do you think Fitz played well? When will it stop being the players' fault? When they stop sucking, probably.

Dareus is arguably the best player on the team. That hasn't been brought up a whole lot now that the Rex Sux Crusade is back in full force.

Okay. But how are you going to make those adjustments? Fitz gets rid of the ball quickly always has. If you send the house, he's very good at throwing into the blitz to the open receives. Always has been. They're without Dareus, Hughes spent time on the bench and by now I think it's clear that Shaq will be an upgrade. Where could they have done better on 1v1 matchups? So what is it? You can't just say ME WANT PASS RUSH and not substantiate how you'd do it without further exposing your players who couldn't win a 1v1 matchup to save their lives.

The question was: when are players accountable for getting beat? Your answer: they should have had safety help. Am I getting that? All reliable analysts (YardsPerPass, Cover1, Sal) have crunched the all-22's and come out and said that scheme wasn't an issue, that adjustments were being made throughout the game, but losing one on one matchups is what cost the defense. How do you respond to that?

Because fans are sick of the famine that comes with being a feast or famine offense.

Players make plays. They were repeatedly in a position to make plays and did not. When--in your opinion--are players accountable for getting straight beat?

Um, just because Jackson was interested in keeping him as DC has virtually no bearing on whether or not Schwartz was interested in staying as DC--which is the topic at hand. I have heard/read zero reports that indicated he was. Does anyone have a link to suggesting otherwise?

...and the best coach we've had since Wade.

Wentz has also had the luxury of playing against two of the worst teams in football. To his credit, he has looked good. But we don't know **** about how good he really is just yet.

that was 100% jauron's rep here in chicago too!

Hasn't it been roundly established and verified that no, no he would not.

Right. They lit up a the stinking Bears, a team whose O-Line is built out of Legos found under Virginia McCaksey's couch. Schwartz is great as a D coordinator. He was great here. But let's see how the other 14 games play out when he's not beating up Cutler, a QB who strikes fear in very few hearts, particularly the hearts of coaches that have already seen him, what? 11 times?

It's certainly on the defense for allowing two more third down conversions after that. The point was they never should have gotten there in the first place. That's on the refs. But that penalty happened in Jets territory with 12:00 on the clock. Dramatically changed the complexion of the first quarter...after they failed to stop them on the next two thirds.

Yeah, and a good chunk of that was enabled by a phantom defensive hold that had zero impact on the play. Just saying.

It's what's been happening. I brought it up on numerous occasions months before the season began and was met with aggressively vehement opposition.

I don't know who you're referring to here. But at the very least, I would sacrifice a third of TT's big plays for sustained drives that finish with the same result.

What are you saying?

Eeeeegads. What does an extension-warranting performance even look like at this point? There was much allusion on GR this morning to a Marrone-esque unilateral atmosphere.

And personally, I think the Bills WANT to give him that money. Firing the OC is a last ditch effort to do whatever possible to settle the position, once and for all.

Yeah, which is why I'm totally on the fence about the Roman firing. Will it change the course of 2016 for the better? May be. Unlikely. Will it provide a control group to evaluate the great TT experiment before he's given another $27M? Yep. Is there any question that the decision was made to satisfy the latter, with the hopes of achieving the former?

I think you're absolutely right. And I think people are resistant to acknowledge what you're saying, given the likelihood that these flubs continue, Roman or no Roman.

The Wiz has a type! The Wiz has a type!