How NOT to build a small market, cold weather team

[Coach Tuesday]

1) Probably not a good idea to feature a defense that calls for fast, undersized players. They tend not to matchup well against physical offenses and they wear down late in the season. Also, since the late-season weather negates speed, you lose your only possible advantage.

 

2) If you're gonna go with (1), you might want to pay a good strength and conditioning coach. Just a thought. Probably not a good idea to fire the best one in the business. Also, small high-motor guys who play out of position and with poor technique (due to bad coaching, see below) tend to get hurt a lot. Something to consider.

 

3) You're better off not implementing a scheme designed not to lose (as opposed to one that has winning as its goal). Especially when you play in front of a gritty, raucous crowd - again, you negate a clear advantage by abandoning aggressiveness.

 

4) Highly advisable to have a decent offensive line. You know, for running the ball and stuff.

 

5) Drafting a fragile QB who prefers the dink-and-dunk does not suit your strengths. You're better off drafting a QB who can play in the elements and can force the ball into the wind.

 

6) If you have a cheap owner who doesn't like spending money on personnel, it's probably a bad idea to lose lots of games every year. You end up paying unproven top-12 picks millions of dollars. Just a suggestion.

 

7) If you desperately need to expand your regional fan base so that you can survive financially long-term, you may not want to suck. It's bad for business.

 

8) If said cheap owner doesn't like paying top dollar for coaches, he's probably better off hiring a decent one so that he doesn't have to continually eat contracts. Just sayin'.

 

9) If you by some bizarre stroke of luck end up with a franchise left tackle, you might want to hang onto him. The $2 million difference between what he wants and what you think he's worth may be more than made up for by the increased ticket sales that results from, well, winning games.

 

10) If you don't like paying top dollar for free agents, why not overpay for some quality personnel folks and coaches? They cost a ton less, and may be able to make up the difference.

 

11) A four-headed monster as a front office, where no one has ultimate responsibility for implementing a coherent plan, probably will result in no coherent plan being implemented.

 

How am I doing? Anyone want to add some others to the list?

[PromoTheRobot]

And this is different from any NFL team how?

 

PTR

[Coach Tuesday]

And this is different from any NFL team how?

 

PTR

 

Ugh.

 

If you play in a dome, you can feature a fast, small defense.

 

If you have an owner who is cost-insensitive, you an afford to make personnel mistakes.

 

Etc etc

 

Please think before you post.

[nucci]

1) Probably not a good idea to feature a defense that calls for fast, undersized players. They tend not to matchup well against physical offenses and they wear down late in the season. Also, since the late-season weather negates speed, you lose your only possible advantage.

 

2) If you're gonna go with (1), you might want to pay a good strength and conditioning coach. Just a thought. Probably not a good idea to fire the best one in the business. Also, small high-motor guys who play out of position and with poor technique (due to bad coaching, see below) tend to get hurt a lot. Something to consider.

 

3) You're better off not implementing a scheme designed not to lose (as opposed to one that has winning as its goal). Especially when you play in front of a gritty, raucous crowd - again, you negate a clear advantage by abandoning aggressiveness.

 

4) Highly advisable to have a decent offensive line. You know, for running the ball and stuff.

 

5) Drafting a fragile QB who prefers the dink-and-dunk does not suit your strengths. You're better off drafting a QB who can play in the elements and can force the ball into the wind.

 

6) If you have a cheap owner who doesn't like spending money on personnel, it's probably a bad idea to lose lots of games every year. You end up paying unproven top-12 picks millions of dollars. Just a suggestion.

 

7) If you desperately need to expand your regional fan base so that you can survive financially long-term, you may not want to suck. It's bad for business.

 

8) If said cheap owner doesn't like paying top dollar for coaches, he's probably better off hiring a decent one so that he doesn't have to continually eat contracts. Just sayin'.

 

9) If you by some bizarre stroke of luck end up with a franchise left tackle, you might want to hang onto him. The $2 million difference between what he wants and what you think he's worth may be more than made up for by the increased ticket sales that results from, well, winning games.

 

10) If you don't like paying top dollar for free agents, why not overpay for some quality personnel folks and coaches? They cost a ton less, and may be able to make up the difference.

 

11) A four-headed monster as a front office, where no one has ultimate responsibility for implementing a coherent plan, probably will result in no coherent plan being implemented.

 

How am I doing? Anyone want to add some others to the list?

How many of the 12 games have been played in cold weather? You need good players even if you play on a beach!!

[Rico]

Ugh.

 

If you play in a dome, you can feature a fast, small defense.

 

If you have an owner who is cost-insensitive, you an afford to make personnel mistakes.

 

Etc etc

 

Please think before you post.

 

Nice post Coach, unfortunately the said cheap owner is a senile idiot... highly unlikely things get turned around until he is gone.

[Bill from NYC]

Coach, when a team like this is in a rebuilding mode, should they start with the secondary?

[Red]

And this is different from any NFL team how?

 

PTR

 

Yeah, please think.

 

Foreign concept to some, but it could come in handy.

 

An undersized defense with a pop-gun attack is a recipe for disaster. or hurry-up pop-gun. P-gun, if you will.

 

This team is a mess.

 

It has to hire and fire. Modrak and Guy, need to be fired. A real, competent and proven GM, hired. Promote Nix. Reshape the scouting department. Get a future GM to be in charge of Pro Personnel and learn through experience. Someone who has been in charge of someone's draft and has PROVEN SUCCESS AT THE POSITION. Only he should be considered. Whomever that is. Give football GM authority over football operation. Football GM can hire his own coaching staff.

 

These men, should all have the same plan and work to maximize the Bills based upon strengths (i.e. the environment, blue-collar nature of WNY, etc). Players drafted should fit into a system and a plan, not "best player available garbage". For instance, mauling, dominating offensive/ defensive linemen, are at this point, an extreme priority over any member of a secondary, WR, etc.

 

Marv Levy was often quoted as saying: "To win, you have to be able to run and stop the run". This team can do neither. Start with the run on both sides of the ball. Chances are, in WNY and with an outdoor stadium, a grinding, dominating running game and a stout defense will be more key to turning this franchise around than any 'cadillac', glitz and glamour wide receiver.

 

Finding a QB who will lead this team further and take over where Jimbo left off will take time, and luck. Maybe we already have him with Brohm. But I am not convinced that we have a coaching staff that will allow for the grooming of a QB.

 

Bottom line: to be successful, we need to be able to do one thing (1) well. Let that be the run. We can build from there.

 

Right now, the Bills can't do anything well.

[SDS]

Ugh.

 

If you play in a dome, you can feature a fast, small defense.

 

If you have an owner who is cost-insensitive, you an afford to make personnel mistakes.

 

Etc etc

 

Please think before you post.

 

 

Yeah, please think.

 

Foreign concept to some, but it could come in handy.

 

An undersized defense with a pop-gun attack is a recipe for disaster. or hurry-up pop-gun. P-gun, if you will.

 

This list was ridiculous. You make one-semi football argument related to your subject and the rest is either universal to all teams or irrelevant to your subject.

 

Perhaps you can outline the teams in this league that prefer fragile dink-dunk QBs? Or the ones that like to get injured. Or the ones who like bad coaches or bad front office personnel?

[dave mcbride]

1) Probably not a good idea to feature a defense that calls for fast, undersized players. They tend not to matchup well against physical offenses and they wear down late in the season. Also, since the late-season weather negates speed, you lose your only possible advantage.

 

2) If you're gonna go with (1), you might want to pay a good strength and conditioning coach. Just a thought. Probably not a good idea to fire the best one in the business. Also, small high-motor guys who play out of position and with poor technique (due to bad coaching, see below) tend to get hurt a lot. Something to consider.

 

3) You're better off not implementing a scheme designed not to lose (as opposed to one that has winning as its goal). Especially when you play in front of a gritty, raucous crowd - again, you negate a clear advantage by abandoning aggressiveness.

 

4) Highly advisable to have a decent offensive line. You know, for running the ball and stuff.

 

5) Drafting a fragile QB who prefers the dink-and-dunk does not suit your strengths. You're better off drafting a QB who can play in the elements and can force the ball into the wind.

 

6) If you have a cheap owner who doesn't like spending money on personnel, it's probably a bad idea to lose lots of games every year. You end up paying unproven top-12 picks millions of dollars. Just a suggestion.

 

7) If you desperately need to expand your regional fan base so that you can survive financially long-term, you may not want to suck. It's bad for business.

 

8) If said cheap owner doesn't like paying top dollar for coaches, he's probably better off hiring a decent one so that he doesn't have to continually eat contracts. Just sayin'.

 

9) If you by some bizarre stroke of luck end up with a franchise left tackle, you might want to hang onto him. The $2 million difference between what he wants and what you think he's worth may be more than made up for by the increased ticket sales that results from, well, winning games.

 

10) If you don't like paying top dollar for free agents, why not overpay for some quality personnel folks and coaches? They cost a ton less, and may be able to make up the difference.

 

11) A four-headed monster as a front office, where no one has ultimate responsibility for implementing a coherent plan, probably will result in no coherent plan being implemented.

 

How am I doing? Anyone want to add some others to the list?

Yet they played in a warm-weather controlled climate last night. Go figure.

[kota]

I really hate it when people make these kinds of post. "Something we can all agree on". Get off your high horse. Nothing you said was ground breaking.

[Red]

This list was ridiculous. You make one-semi football argument related to your subject and the rest is either universal to all teams or irrelevant to your subject.

 

Perhaps you can outline the teams in this league that prefer fragile dink-dunk QBs? Or the ones that like to get injured. Or the ones who like bad coaches or bad front office personnel?

 

None of them 'like' these coaches and front office personnel.

 

The key trait in successful franchises, is that if the men in charge of the talent demonstrate an extreme inability in selecting said talent (ie. do their jobs), then they would be out alot quicker than 8-9 years.

 

No one has said that anyone wants fragile QB's.

 

I have stated that we need to select 1 thing, and do it better than anyone else. Have an identity. Something that makes practical sense, and just so happens to have a proven history of winning, too.

 

That something is called a run game. There are certain ingredients needed to have a dominating run game. 1st, I believe an offensive line that can dominate is a priority. I think we are ok at RB.

 

On defense, we need a big, tough defensive line to wear down opposing teams and stop their running game. This will put them into situations where they have to pass. Then we can worry about getting turnovers.

 

The smallish, Tampa 2 defense is not the correct philosophy for a cold weather environment.

[Red]

Yet they played in a warm-weather controlled climate last night. Go figure.

 

 

Are you serious?!!?!?

 

Are you claiming that there is no difference to playing outside in 80 degree weather and sun, or playing in a wet snow, 40 mph swirling wind 35 degree day?

 

Have you ever played football?

[Sisyphean Bills]

It might suffice to say that trying to become the Indianapolis Colts was not a great plan as put in motion by Dick Levy and it minimized their chances of success.

[Cotton Fitzsimmons]

Are you serious?!!?!?

 

Are you claiming that there is no difference to playing outside in 80 degree weather and sun, or playing in a wet snow, 40 mph swirling wind 35 degree day?

 

Have you ever played football?

 

I believe that the point here, Redman, is simply that a majority of games this season have not been played in 40 mph winds on a 35 degree day. In fact, to this date, none of the games have been played in this environment, yet the team is still bad. This lends itself to the argument that OP's original points are universal. Not inaccurate in any way... just lacking specific insight to our situation. As a wise poster once said "think before you post"

[Coach Tuesday]

This list was ridiculous. You make one-semi football argument related to your subject and the rest is either universal to all teams or irrelevant to your subject.

 

Perhaps you can outline the teams in this league that prefer fragile dink-dunk QBs? Or the ones that like to get injured. Or the ones who like bad coaches or bad front office personnel?

 

1. Seattle, St. Louis and San Francisco are teams that come to mind that prefer short-armed QBs.

 

2. It's not about "liking to get injured." It's about the relatively high propensity for injuries when you play this style of football in this atmosphere. This is a physical division (in part because of the climate and coaching), yet we run a non-physical scheme. The result, year after year, is injuries - it's no coincidence.

 

3. Teams like Denver, Washington, and Dallas don't "prefer" bad coaches or bad front office evaluators, but they are not as hamstrung by them because every offseason, they can essentially wipe the slate clean and, subjec to the salary cap, bring in the best and most expensive coaches and players. Buffalo, by contrast, has a much smaller margin for error. One bad draft, one bad coaching hire, and we're done.

[Coach Tuesday]

I really hate it when people make these kinds of post. "Something we can all agree on". Get off your high horse. Nothing you said was ground breaking.

 

Yeah I'm on my high horse by trying to achieve some consensus. Whereas the only point of your post was to put me down. Look in the mirror, douche.

[dave mcbride]

Are you serious?!!?!?

 

Are you claiming that there is no difference to playing outside in 80 degree weather and sun, or playing in a wet snow, 40 mph swirling wind 35 degree day?

 

Have you ever played football?

?

[Gugny]

Are you serious?!!?!?

 

Are you claiming that there is no difference to playing outside in 80 degree weather and sun, or playing in a wet snow, 40 mph swirling wind 35 degree day?

 

Have you ever played football?

They play about one or two of those per year. And guess what .... so does their opponent. Weak.

[Thoner7]

This list was ridiculous. You make one-semi football argument related to your subject and the rest is either universal to all teams or irrelevant to your subject.

 

Perhaps you can outline the teams in this league that prefer fragile dink-dunk QBs? Or the ones that like to get injured. Or the ones who like bad coaches or bad front office personnel?

 

 

I can think of one. I think they are from Canada......

[Maddog69]

It might suffice to say that trying to become the Indianapolis Colts was not a great plan as put in motion by Dick Levy and it minimized their chances of success.

 

Actually, trying to become the Colts was a good plan except that we never found our own version or Manning, Freeney or any of their O-linemen. Otherwise, we are pretty close to the Colts. And before you start bashing me. We are close to the Colts in that we have an undersized defense which is not very good, but we lack a dominant pass rusher, QB and O-line.