Jump to content

If Gailey is retained how bout Alex Smith?


26TrapDraw

Recommended Posts

If our hopes are dashed to bits and Gailey and Nix are retained why not go after Alex Smith? I know he's not a great QB but he's accurate and he is a way better game manager.Thats the difference between him and Pickspatrick...plus he may not overthrow a wide open receiver by 5 yards down the sideline. Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

If Gailey is retained, I don't care who is at QB next year because I won't watch a single game. Do you really think a different QB is going to help this clueless coach? The guy has been a loser everywhere he's been. He would fail with Tom Brady as his QB.

Edited by Azucho98
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Gailey is retained, I don't care who is at QB next year because I won't watch a single game. Do you really think a different QB is going to help this clueless coach? The guy has been a loser everywhere he's been. He would fail with Tom Brady as his QB.

 

I'm not going to comment on this, take a look at my signature and look at my constant posts in the continuity thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

defense first. Unless we can get Peyton, Brees, Brady, Rodgers... no other QB can make up for a defense that allows 100000000 points per game.

 

oh, and i'd much prefer giving Matt Flynn a shot if it could happen.

Edited by markgbe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would only make sense if we took Smith and got rid of Gailey.

 

"Continuity" is the answer forwarded by those who have no idea what to do next. There is no logic to the thinking that "we can't keep changing HC's every 3 years" when we keep picking HC's so poorly. It should be obvious that the solution is not to keep the bad coaches another year (and.......what?), but to stop picking such bad coaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would only make sense if we took Smith and got rid of Gailey.

 

"Continuity" is the answer forwarded by those who have no idea what to do next. There is no logic to the thinking that "we can't keep changing HC's every 3 years" when we keep picking HC's so poorly. It should be obvious that the solution is not to keep the bad coaches another year (and.......what?), but to stop picking such bad coaches.

 

First, this route is what I think we should do next, so saying that I have no idea what to do next is illogical. By choosing a side and defending it, I have chosen a clear path to which I think is the best course of action.

 

Secondly, after 2 failed 3 and out regimes, would you expect them to get it right this time.

 

Oh here we go, got me going again. Why do I fall into these traps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, this route is what I think we should do next, so saying that I have no idea what to do next is illogical. By choosing a side and defending it, I have chosen a clear path to which I think is the best course of action.

 

Secondly, after 2 failed 3 and out regimes, would you expect them to get it right this time.

 

Oh here we go, got me going again. Why do I fall into these traps?

 

So your "next step" is to do nothing different.. This is a logical argument? No, it's not, unless you've changed the definition of "next".

 

Neither is assuming the Bills will never pick a competent HC is the reason to keep the current absolutely awful and incompetent HC.

 

So a "4 and out " would be much more reasonable/logical?

Edited by Mr. WEO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, this route is what I think we should do next, so saying that I have no idea what to do next is illogical. By choosing a side and defending it, I have chosen a clear path to which I think is the best course of action.

 

Secondly, after 2 failed 3 and out regimes, would you expect them to get it right this time.

 

Oh here we go, got me going again. Why do I fall into these traps?

 

I understand the reasons for continuity, but why continue with something that isn't working or shows no signs of improvement? I made this claim after Jauron's 3rd year.

 

That said, perhaps there is something in the works that would allow Gailey another year or two. It's clear to everyone (despite what Nix & Gailey are saying) that Fitz isn't the answer. So, I can see the Bills moving up to draft a QB in round 1 or 2. Word has it that Buddy was scouting Tarvaris Jackson during his time in San Diego and really wanted him, but he was gone by the time they wanted to draft him. Perhaps with Jackson on board, they move up to get Geno Smith and have a couple of QBs that Gailey could use in his system. With Jackson having a year in Gailey's offense (I know...he hasn't played), then I can see Fitz being let go, Jackson starting the season in 2013, and then playing Smith when he's ready.

 

Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't be upset if Gailey's gone and they bring in some new blood, as much as I've been frustrated with Gailey's play-calling and in-game management. But I still can't see him being let go now. If the above plan doesn't work after the next year or so, then it's time.

 

What really should happen is that Gailey needs to hand the play-calling duties over to someone else. It really hasn't worked with him trying to do that and manage the game simultaneously.

Edited by BuffaloWings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If our hopes are dashed to bits and Gailey and Nix are retained why not go after Alex Smith? I know he's not a great QB but he's accurate and he is a way better game manager.Thats the difference between him and Pickspatrick...plus he may not overthrow a wide open receiver by 5 yards down the sideline. Thoughts?

 

Trading for Alex Smith has been discussed a lot in this thread:

http://forums.twobil...th/page__st__60

 

(my support for this idea is also in that thread). It is something worth considering whether or not Gailey is retained. But not as the long term answer - for the next 3 years or so before we draft for a true 'franchise' QB and he is ready to take over.

Edited by Fan in Chicago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, this route is what I think we should do next, so saying that I have no idea what to do next is illogical. By choosing a side and defending it, I have chosen a clear path to which I think is the best course of action.

 

Secondly, after 2 failed 3 and out regimes, would you expect them to get it right this time.

 

Oh here we go, got me going again. Why do I fall into these traps?

 

I don't understand why you're so in favor of continuity but then say that "one more year" is the way to go. In that case, why not just tell Chan: "you got 10 more years to get this right Chan." Wouldn't that be continuity?

 

3 and out is bad but 4 and out is ok?

 

Chan's job needs to be seriously evaluated. If the bills win the next two games and show some fight/resiliency, i'd be in favor of keeping Chan for another year. If we continue to have the pathetic showings in the next two weeks we had vs. the seawhawks, Chan needs to be fired. End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fitzmoney. That's funny. His contract is quite average, as his abilities.

 

Signing Alex Smith is ridiculous. His skills are only slightly better than Fitz. Smith thrived because of defense. He was unseated midseason.

 

Tired of this constant drumbeat of picking up other teams' throwaways. Let's draft a young QB, and have him learn behind Fitz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...