Chan Gailey has done it again.

[Beebe's Kid]

Okay, somebody has to ask:

 

What is Curtis Modkin's role in all this? Is he the sorcerer's apprentice? The heir apparent?

Shhh...Curtis doesn't want anybody asking that... he is getting a paycheck, and the ladies, that go with be an OC in the NFL, all while not having to do any of the dirty work. He also isn't on the hook if the offense sputters. So,Curtis has, respectfully of course, asked that you keep his name out your mouf.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Beebe's Kid

[Coach Tuesday]

Okay, somebody has to ask:

 

What is Curtis Modkin's role in all this? Is he the sorcerer's apprentice? The heir apparent?

 

Quite possibly quality control, e.g., studying the upcoming opponents' tendencies weaknesses, and suggesting how best to gameplan to attack those tendencies and weaknesses.

[The Big Cat]

Shhh...Curtis doesn't want anybody asking that... he is getting a paycheck, and the ladies, that go with be an OC in the NFL, all while not having to do any of the dirty work. He also isn't on the hook if the offense sputters. So,Curtis has, respectfully of course, asked that you keep his name out your mouf.

 

 

Quite possibly quality control, e.g., studying the upcoming opponents' tendencies weaknesses, and suggesting how best to gameplan to attack those tendencies and weaknesses.

 

But is he being groomed to take over for Chan?

[Doc]

Buddy Nix seems to be convinced you need three or more years to "rebuild." I have no idea why, since every single season in the NFL some last place team ends up winning it's division or at least making the playoffs the next year. Look it up, that has happened every season since the 90's I'm guessing, when FA combined with the salary cap became a yearly reality in the NFL.

Where did you get the "three or more years" thing?

I agree. My sense is that this offesne is improved mainly because Fitz's ability to read, react, change a play and scramble. He's making Gailey look real good right now. However, we've only scored 2 offensive touchdowns in the past 8 quarters (against mediocre teams) and Gailey's OT play calling played the dominating role in those OT losses (6 possessions in OT with good field position and only 1 FG attempt).

Sorry but Gailey's OT play calling didn't play the dominating role in the OT losses. Apparently you're forgetting Nelson's fumble on the Bills' first drive in OT against the Ravens, or Fitz' INT at the end of regulation against the Chefs on 1st and 10 at the Chefs' 41 yard line with 31 seconds remaining as well as Lindell's missed re-kick in OT, and SJ's drop did in the Pgh game. Fitz also had that INT against the Bears when they were leading 19-14. That's not on Gailey; that execution (or lack thereof) by his players.

[BillsPhan]

Okay, somebody has to ask:

 

What is Curtis Modkin's role in all this? Is he the sorcerer's apprentice? The heir apparent?

 

Modkins does the grunt work that other full time OC's do while Gailey spends that time doing HC work. That's the only answer that makes any sense to me.

[The Big Cat]

Modkins does the grunt work that other full time OC's do while Gailey spends that time doing HC work. That's the only answer that makes any sense to me.

 

Well, then if that speculation is all youcan coming up with, I suppose the rest of Bills nation can close the book on this case.

[Mr. WEO]

Where did you get the "three or more years" thing?

 

Sorry but Gailey's OT play calling didn't play the dominating role in the OT losses. Apparently you're forgetting Nelson's fumble on the Bills' first drive in OT against the Ravens, or Fitz' INT at the end of regulation against the Chefs on 1st and 10 at the Chefs' 41 yard line with 31 seconds remaining as well as Lindell's missed re-kick in OT, and SJ's drop did in the Pgh game. Fitz also had that INT against the Bears when they were leading 19-14. That's not on Gailey; that execution (or lack thereof) by his players.

I was talking about the OT strategy, doc. Keep up. The missed FG was the ONLY FG attempt in 3 games and 6 possessions. The SJ drop was not the last Bills possession in Steelers territory.

 

In Baltimore OT, 3 and a fumble--all passes.

 

In KC OT 3 possessions:

 

1st possession: 1st and 10 at KC 43----1 run (leading to a penalty and a 1st down), the 3 passes and punt

 

2nd possession: 7 passes, 1 run. Missed FG

 

3rd possession: 3 runs--> 1st down at KC 44, 5 passes---> punt

 

In Steelers OT 2 possessions

 

1st possession: 1st and 10 on Pitt 48----3 passes and punt.

 

2nd possession: 1 run play (for 13 yards!!) 5 passes--including 3 and out including a 3 and out on 1st and 10 form the Pitt 40.

 

 

You see a pattern here? 6 OT possessions. 5 of them reach inside opponent's side of the field (including the 40, 41 ,43). 26 passes, 6 runs. One FG attempt. 3 losses.

 

They had another chance after the missed FG. They had another chance after the dropped pass.

[The Big Cat]

I was talking about the OT strategy, doc. Keep up. The missed FG was the ONLY FG attempt in 3 games and 6 possessions. The SJ drop was not the last Bills possession in Steelers territory.

 

In Baltimore OT, 3 and a fumble--all passes.

 

In KC OT 3 possessions:

 

1st possession: 1st and 10 at KC 43----1 run (leading to a penalty and a 1st down), the 3 passes and punt

 

2nd possession: 7 passes, 1 run. Missed FG

 

3rd possession: 3 runs--> 1st down at KC 44, 5 passes---> punt

 

In Steelers OT 2 possessions

 

1st possession: 1st and 10 on Pitt 48----3 passes and punt.

 

2nd possession: 1 run play (for 13 yards!!) 5 passes--including 3 and out including a 3 and out on 1st and 10 form the Pitt 40.

 

 

You see a pattern here? 6 OT possessions. 5 of them reach inside opponent's side of the field (including the 40, 41 ,43). 26 passes, 6 runs. One FG attempt. 3 losses.

 

They had another chance after the missed FG. They had another chance after the dropped pass.

 

Newsflash: we've been far more effective passing the ball. It's not like we running at will in ANY of those games. Quite the opposite in fact. Stop trying to conjure the Dick Jauron gripes of old. This wasn't the 08 Browns game, or the 08 Jets game or the 07 Cowgirls game.

 

THE 2010 BILLS ARE A PASSING TEAM.

[Mr. WEO]

Newsflash: we've been far more effective passing the ball. It's not like we running at will in ANY of those games. Quite the opposite in fact. Stop trying to conjure the Dick Jauron gripes of old. This wasn't the 08 Browns game, or the 08 Jets game or the 07 Cowgirls game.

 

THE 2010 BILLS ARE A PASSING TEAM.

The point you're missing is that those were winnable games. The other point is that when your plan repeatedly fails, you adjust your plan. You don't say things like "THE 2010 BILLS ARE A PASSING TEAM".

 

By the way, our running game is ranked 12th and our passing game is 25th. We throw 53% (including Fitz's run plays) and run 47% of the time.

 

What was your point again?

[The Big Cat]

The point you're missing is that those were winnable games. The other point is that when your plan repeatedly fails, you adjust your plan. You don't say things like "THE 2010 BILLS ARE A PASSING TEAM".

 

By the way, our running game is ranked 12th and our passing game is 25th. We throw 53% (including Fitz's run plays) and run 47% of the time.

 

What was your point again?

 

 

not worth it

[MaineMoxie]

Technically we don't have much at TE ...

 

Well, maybe we don't have Antonio Gates. But we're at least involving the TEs in the passing game more than we used to. Both Stupar and Martin had nice receptions yesterday.

[metzelaars_lives]

Well, we've improved from #30 in the NFL in offense to #26 and from 28th to 23rd or 24th (depending on the Vikings tonight) in scoring. So I guess that's better.

 

I just hope that Chan's genius will get us out of the bottom quarter of NFL offenses.

 

More watchable this year, yes, but we are still lightyears away from being considered an average offense.

 

If by light years, you mean one year, then you'd be correct. Where do the Bills rank since Week 3 in overall yardage, points and TD's? I'd say we've got to be middle of the pack. If we're not, I'm extremely confident they'll be at least as good next year, hopefully better.

[Dan]

No argument here. I would rather not wait "a couple more years" to "get a defense", however. In this day and age in the NFL, when the Miami Dolphins can go from 1-15-0 one season to 11-5-0 division winners the very next season, as much as I like Gailey and his offensive success, his choice of DC sucked and Nix and Whaley and Modrak sucked this past off season finding players in FA and the draft that could contribute right away this year.

...

This point has been noted a multitude of times in reference to Nix's rebuilding plan. It's a point that is routinely brought out to illustrate that there's no need to wait 3 years for a rebuild; hence, Nix is doing something wrong. However, let's think about this:

 

The fins record:

2007 - 1-15

2008 - 11-5 (playoffs)

2009 - 7-9

2010 - 7-6 (currently, playoffs are a long shot to say they least)

 

So, yes, perhaps you can turn around a team in 1 year and make the playoffs. But, since that good year, the Fins have been largely mediocre. Which begs the question; do people want a quick turn around that lasts a season (maybe 2), or would you prefer a turn around that makes the Bills legitimate playoff contenders for many years to come?

 

It seems Parcels and the Fins took the quick route. Nix appears to be taking the slower approach. It remains to be seen if he can build a perennial playoff team; but I'd much rather he take his time, build through the draft and try to get us a team that competes with the top teams for the next decade.

 

I contend that the idea that you can completely turn around a long-term, losing franchise in 1 year is a myth. Splashy FA signings and draft picks, in the end, are just that - flashes in the pan. And seeing has how I'm a Bills fan for life, I'd prefer more than just a few flashy moves for once.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

This point has been noted a multitude of times in reference to Nix's rebuilding plan. It's a point that is routinely brought out to illustrate that there's no need to wait 3 years for a rebuild; hence, Nix is doing something wrong. However, let's think about this:

 

The fins record:

2007 - 1-15

2008 - 11-5 (playoffs)

2009 - 7-9

2010 - 7-6 (currently, playoffs are a long shot to say they least)

 

So, yes, perhaps you can turn around a team in 1 year and make the playoffs. But, since that good year, the Fins have been largely mediocre. Which begs the question; do people want a quick turn around that lasts a season (maybe 2), or would you prefer a turn around that makes the Bills legitimate playoff contenders for many years to come?

 

It seems Parcels and the Fins took the quick route. Nix appears to be taking the slower approach. It remains to be seen if he can build a perennial playoff team; but I'd much rather he take his time, build through the draft and try to get us a team that competes with the top teams for the next decade.

 

I contend that the idea that you can completely turn around a long-term, losing franchise in 1 year is a myth. Splashy FA signings and draft picks, in the end, are just that - flashes in the pan. And seeing has how I'm a Bills fan for life, I'd prefer more than just a few flashy moves for once.

 

 

Very well played, Dan. The Phish certainly got better after 2007 but the success in 2008 had a goodly element of luck (such as a brief career resurrection for Chad Pennington). Maintaining that level has been hard, and Bill Parcells, true to form, has already lost interest.

Edited December 13, 2010 by RJ (not THAT RJ)

[The Big Cat]

This point has been noted a multitude of times in reference to Nix's rebuilding plan. It's a point that is routinely brought out to illustrate that there's no need to wait 3 years for a rebuild; hence, Nix is doing something wrong. However, let's think about this:

 

The fins record:

2007 - 1-15

2008 - 11-5 (playoffs)

2009 - 7-9

2010 - 7-6 (currently, playoffs are a long shot to say they least)

 

So, yes, perhaps you can turn around a team in 1 year and make the playoffs. But, since that good year, the Fins have been largely mediocre. Which begs the question; do people want a quick turn around that lasts a season (maybe 2), or would you prefer a turn around that makes the Bills legitimate playoff contenders for many years to come?

 

It seems Parcels and the Fins took the quick route. Nix appears to be taking the slower approach. It remains to be seen if he can build a perennial playoff team; but I'd much rather he take his time, build through the draft and try to get us a team that competes with the top teams for the next decade.

 

I contend that the idea that you can completely turn around a long-term, losing franchise in 1 year is a myth. Splashy FA signings and draft picks, in the end, are just that - flashes in the pan. And seeing has how I'm a Bills fan for life, I'd prefer more than just a few flashy moves for once.

 

I'd like to also enter into evidence the Dolphin's record from years prior their epic 2007 meltdown:

 

2006: 6-10

2005: 9-7

2004: 4-12

2003: 10-6

2002: 9-7

2001: 11-5*

 

49-47, four winning seasons, and one playoff appearance over that span.

 

Now, if 2010 is our version of Miami's 2007, let's see how the Bills fared over the same span of time:

 

2009: 6-10

2008: 7-9

2007: 7-9

2006: 7-9

2005: 5-11

2004: 9-7

 

41-58, one winning season, and no playoff appearances.

Edited December 13, 2010 by The Big Cat

[Doc]

I was talking about the OT strategy, doc. Keep up. The missed FG was the ONLY FG attempt in 3 games and 6 possessions. The SJ drop was not the last Bills possession in Steelers territory.

 

In Baltimore OT, 3 and a fumble--all passes.

 

In KC OT 3 possessions:

 

1st possession: 1st and 10 at KC 43----1 run (leading to a penalty and a 1st down), the 3 passes and punt

 

2nd possession: 7 passes, 1 run. Missed FG

 

3rd possession: 3 runs--> 1st down at KC 44, 5 passes---> punt

 

In Steelers OT 2 possessions

 

1st possession: 1st and 10 on Pitt 48----3 passes and punt.

 

2nd possession: 1 run play (for 13 yards!!) 5 passes--including 3 and out including a 3 and out on 1st and 10 form the Pitt 40.

 

 

You see a pattern here? 6 OT possessions. 5 of them reach inside opponent's side of the field (including the 40, 41 ,43). 26 passes, 6 runs. One FG attempt. 3 losses.

 

They had another chance after the missed FG. They had another chance after the dropped pass.

Try to keep up? It still comes down to execution. There was no other chance in the Ravens game. There was a chance to win it in regulation in the Chefs game, if not for the INT. Same for the Pgh game, if not for SJ's flub that led to an INT. And as you said, Fitz can changed plays at the LOS, so he could have done that in any of those OT drives after the would-have-won-the-game mistakes. Then again, how are you sure Gailey didn't call different plays in OT that Fitz then changed?

Edited December 13, 2010 by Doc

[Dan]

Very well played, Dan. The Phish certainly got better after 2007 but the success in 2008 had a goodly element of luck (such as a brief career resurrection for Chad Pennington). Maintaining that level has been hard, and Bill Parcells, true to form, has already lost interest.

Thank you, good sir.

 

I'm glad you brought up Pennington, because Parcels drafted his, supposed, QB of the future in Henne. And look how that's turning out. Now, granted, I think the book is far from being written on Henne. But, clearly he's struggling. Are the fins struggling because their QB is struggling? Is Henne really their long term answer at QB? I point this out as a cautionary tale because many, here, want the Bills to draft the next big QB despite Fitz's very competent play this season.

 

I'm not suggesting that the Fins should have stuck with Pennington; I'm suggesting that 3 years into Henne's career and he's pretty much as good as Fitz.

[MDH]

My only problem with the O is the formations and play calling on 3rd and short. They frequently line up in the shotgun or with an empty backfield on 3rd and 4 or less and I just don't get it. Take advantage of the down and distance and at least make the D THINK you might run the ball.

[Doc]

Thank you, good sir.

 

I'm glad you brought up Pennington, because Parcels drafted his, supposed, QB of the future in Henne. And look how that's turning out. Now, granted, I think the book is far from being written on Henne. But, clearly he's struggling. Are the fins struggling because their QB is struggling? Is Henne really their long term answer at QB? I point this out as a cautionary tale because many, here, want the Bills to draft the next big QB despite Fitz's very competent play this season.

 

I'm not suggesting that the Fins should have stuck with Pennington; I'm suggesting that 3 years into Henne's career and he's pretty much as good as Fitz.

Pennington got injured last year. But he was the starter going into the season. Another thing that helped the Dols was Brady going down in the first game of the season.

 

As for Henne being as good as Fitz, I disagree. It wouldn't surprise me to see the Dols draft a QB high next year.

[bowery4]

My only problem with the O is the formations and play calling on 3rd and short. They frequently line up in the shotgun or with an empty backfield on 3rd and 4 or less and I just don't get it. Take advantage of the down and distance and at least make the D THINK you might run the ball.

 

That is an interesting point.

Sometimes I like it sometimes I don't. I do think they tend to it a bit too much. Maybe having Wood playing the middle (if he keeps it up like Sunday) they will just shove the ball up the middle.

The spread formation creates natch up problems that keep the D guessing just as much and also has big play potentional (Think of the drop by Stevie or similar plays this season). I think I remember hearing Chan addressing it once or twice in his pressers. It seems to be a philosophic thing with him. I would guess there are a set of numbers to back it up somehow.