Charles Romes Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Lovie Smith is a proven winner and had a good W/L record in Chicago (including a Superbowl appearance), so choosing Marrone over Smith is a gamble. EJ Manuel was considered a 2nd round talent, and by most draft experts, they didn't consider him the best QB in the draft. I feel the O-line could take some steps back this year. A lot of the O-lines deficiencies were masterfully masked by Gailey's offense and by Fitz's pocket presence and quick throws. IMO, these are all risky moves. I think you hit the nail on the head. For all his faults including weak arm fitz was hall of fame worthy in terms of getting rid if the ball and it certainly masked OL deficiencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 How so? Lovie's defense's have been very good, and Norv has been a good OC wherever he's gone as an OC (just not a good HC). Just my opinion; I'm glad the Bills went with a first-time HC who has, in my view, the right mentality (CEO of the team) rather than a guy who is primarily focused on one side of the ball. The NFL is, right now, in a real period of change -- more so than I recall previously. For the first time you are seeing college principles work their way into the NFL, rather than vice versa (i.e., read option, spread offense). Getting someone who has been in the middle of that is progressive. Marrone's "inexperience" is not really a factor; coaching at Division I put him on the sidelines making those in-game calls for the past four years. Nothing about him tells me he will be taken by surprise by anything that happens on gamedays. Smith and Turner are old school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 How so? Lovie's defense's have been very good, and Norv has been a good OC wherever he's gone as an OC (just not a good HC). Solid and inspiring are not the same thing. I think you hit the nail on the head. For all his faults including weak arm fitz was hall of fame worthy in terms of getting rid if the ball and it certainly masked OL deficiencies. This is as likely a myth as anything. According to some advanced metrics, Fitz had more time to throw before being sacked than nearly every QB in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair GM Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Lovie Smith is a proven winner and had a good W/L record in Chicago (including a Superbowl appearance), so choosing Marrone over Smith is a gamble. EJ Manuel was considered a 2nd round talent, and by most draft experts, they didn't consider him the best QB in the draft. I feel the O-line could take some steps back this year. A lot of the O-lines deficiencies were masterfully masked by Gailey's offense and by Fitz's pocket presence and quick throws. IMO, these are all risky moves. And...where is Lovie now? If you've paid attention over the years these, so called, "draft experts" don't know sh*t, and most franchises find thier assessments laughable. Also, if you've paid attention to the majority of the post-draft reports, most NFL franchises DO consider E.J. as the best QB in this years crop...some by a wide margin, obviously. To put "masterfully" in the same sentence as Chan Gailey and Ryan fitzpatrick is laughable in and of itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Solid and inspiring are not the same thing. Bingo. And I even question the "solidity" given the way the game has changed. This is as likely a myth as anything. According to some advanced metrics, Fitz had more time to throw before being sacked than nearly every QB in the league. Thank you. I'm tired of hearing how Gailey "masked OL deficiencies" with his gameplans. If he was such a freaking wizard the Bills should have won more football games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 (edited) For every Jim & John Harbaugh, there's a Nick Saban, Steve Spurrier and Bobby Petrino. :thumbsup: The game is different now!! The college game is influencing the pro game more than ever. The transition isn't what it was 5-10 years ago. Your point would have been valid when the Bills hired Gregg Williams but not today. Both Harbaugh and Pete Carroll have brought the modern college game to the NFL with a great deal of success. Chip Kelly and Marrone were two of the hottest names on the market. The whole read option and playing with pace are things that have been done with success at the college level and now at the NFL level. I applaud the Bills for trying to play the style that is winning now as opposed to Wanny's base defense. If you cannot disguise and catch teams off guard you can't win. Edited May 9, 2013 by Kirby Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 My best bet would have been Lovie Smith as HC, with Norv Turner as the OC. Worst Idea ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 The game is different now!! The college game is influencing the pro game more than ever. The transition isn't what it was 5-10 years ago. Your point would have been valid when the bills hired Gregg Williams but not today. Both Harbaugh and Pete Carroll have brought the modern college game to the NFL with a great deal of success. Chip Kelly and Marrone were two of the hottest names on the market. The whole read option and playing with pace are things that have been done with success at the college level and now at the NFL level. However Harbaugh and Carroll both had very extensive NFL backgrounds before returning to the NFL. Marrone was an NFL player and coordinator. Chip Kelly has no NFL experience. I think the NFL experience factor is a big advantage to have, which is not to say that Kelly will fail. Petrino had zero NFL experience. Steve Spurrier only had NFL playing experience but never coached in the NFL before his failed HCing job with Washington. Nick Saban had a run as an NFL coordinator before Miami hired him as their HC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Lovie Smith is a proven winner and had a good W/L record in Chicago (including a Superbowl appearance), so choosing Marrone over Smith is a gamble. EJ Manuel was considered a 2nd round talent, and by most draft experts, they didn't consider him the best QB in the draft. I feel the O-line could take some steps back this year. A lot of the O-lines deficiencies were masterfully masked by Gailey's offense and by Fitz's pocket presence and quick throws. IMO, these are all risky moves. Everything is a gamble. Your original post called these huge risks. I disagreed with that choice of word. They are not huge risks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 I'm pleased with our hire of Marrone but I do think Lovie deserves another HC job in the NFL. The guy went 10-6 last year. As will always be the case with a defensive HC in today's NFL, the OC he's paired with is of vital importance, but he's a good football mind and a good leader, I see no reason why he can't continue to have success. Norv I'd want no part of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted May 9, 2013 Author Share Posted May 9, 2013 The game is different now!! The college game is influencing the pro game more than ever. The transition isn't what it was 5-10 years ago. Your point would have been valid when the Bills hired Gregg Williams but not today. Both Harbaugh and Pete Carroll have brought the modern college game to the NFL with a great deal of success. Chip Kelly and Marrone were two of the hottest names on the market. The whole read option and playing with pace are things that have been done with success at the college level and now at the NFL level. I applaud the Bills for trying to play the style that is winning now as opposed to Wanny's base defense. If you cannot disguise and catch teams off guard you can't win. So what you're saying is every single college coach from now on that gets selected to be an NFL Head Coach is going to be successful because the game has changed? That's a very bold prediction! Everything is a gamble. Your original post called these huge risks. I disagreed with that choice of word. They are not huge risks. I'd say hiring Marrone is a huge risk given his short amount of time as an OC in the NFL, short amount of time as a college HC, and especially Marrone's head coaching record at Syracuse was 25-25 (.500 win pct). Choosing Manuel at the #16 spot when NFL experts all stated he was a 2nd round choice is huge a risk. If Manuel doesn't workout (like Todd Collins, JP Losman, and Trent Edwards) then the Bills will go through another QB search again in 3-4 years. Worst Idea ever. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 So what you're saying is every single college coach from now on that gets selected to be an NFL Head Coach is going to be successful because the game has changed? That's a very bold prediction! I'd say hiring Marrone is a huge risk given his short amount of time as an OC in the NFL, short amount of time as a college HC, and especially Marrone's head coaching record at Syracuse was 25-25 (.500 win pct). Choosing Manuel at the #16 spot when NFL experts all stated he was a 2nd round choice is huge a risk. If Manuel doesn't workout (like Todd Collins, JP Losman, and Trent Edwards) then the Bills will go through another QB search again in 3-4 years. Why? There are a number of NFL coaches who say Marrone was a good choice. The 2nd round starts at pick 33. Manuel was picked at 16. Not a big stretch Experts.? A term that should not be taken too seriously. . I agree they are gambles but nothing too crazy for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 So what you're saying is every single college coach from now on that gets selected to be an NFL Head Coach is going to be successful because the game has changed? That's a very bold prediction!! Never said that. I am saying that the recent success mean that it is much less risky than it was a few years back. The college game is influencing the pro game in ways that it never has. When we went through the Saban, Spurrier, Petrino period it wa different. There were not college coaches having success. Carroll, Harbaugh and to a lesser degree Schiano are changing that. I am much more comfortable with a college coach than I would have been 5 years ago. Especially one that has been an NFL coordinator running a very successful unit. You disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted May 9, 2013 Author Share Posted May 9, 2013 Never said that. I am saying that the recent success mean that it is much less risky than it was a few years back. The college game is influencing the pro game in ways that it never has. When we went through the Saban, Spurrier, Petrino period it wa different. There were not college coaches having success. Carroll, Harbaugh and to a lesser degree Schiano are changing that. I am much more comfortable with a college coach than I would have been 5 years ago. Especially one that has been an NFL coordinator running a very successful unit. You disagree? Just because the college game has changed doesn't mean it less risky to choose a college HC now than in any other period before. The option play is the new, hot phenomenon in the NFL. Have you seen John Harbaugh use the option play with Joe Flacco in Baltimore? No. A head coach has to be able to be a successful game manager (be able to make successful game time decisions/adjustments), be able to get the most out of his players and work together as a team. It has nothing to do about college football having more success than in recent years. For every successful HC that comes from the college ranks, there's more coaches that fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 For every successful HC that comes from the college ranks, there's more coaches that fail. What's the failure rate for retreads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwig van Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Lovie Smith is a proven winner and had a good W/L record in Chicago (including a Superbowl appearance), so choosing Marrone over Smith is a gamble. EJ Manuel was considered a 2nd round talent, and by most draft experts, they didn't consider him the best QB in the draft. I feel the O-line could take some steps back this year. A lot of the O-lines deficiencies were masterfully masked by Gailey's offense and by Fitz's pocket presence and quick throws. IMO, these are all risky moves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted May 9, 2013 Author Share Posted May 9, 2013 What's the failure rate for retreads? Don't know what that rate is, but choosing a guy with a .500 win pct as a college HC is a huge gamble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Just because the college game has changed doesn't mean it less risky to choose a college HC now than in any other period before. The option play is the new, hot phenomenon in the NFL. Have you seen John Harbaugh use the option play with Joe Flacco in Baltimore? No. A head coach has to be able to be a successful game manager (be able to make successful game time decisions/adjustments), be able to get the most out of his players and work together as a team. It has nothing to do about college football having more success than in recent years. For every successful HC that comes from the college ranks, there's more coaches that fail. In the last 5 years have there been more successful or unsuccessful college coaches coming directly to the pros? It's okay to be wrong sometimes. I never said that this staff would be successful but it is less risky than hiring someone that has proven to be mediocre. The goal is to win a championship not get to 8-8. Based on your logic about needing to be able to make game time adjustments a college coach is certainly less risky than promoting a coordinator. So the only person that you would hire is a former NFL head coach? That just seems foolish considering there is a reason that they are not a current NFL head coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Don't know what that rate is, but choosing a guy with a .500 win pct as a college HC is a huge gamble. Not if you look at what that college's win pct was in the 10 years before he got there. And FWIW, if you're going to insist the failure rate for college coaches is significant, you really should have the retread failure rate available as backup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Not if you look at what that college's win pct was in the 10 years before he got there. And FWIW, if you're going to insist the failure rate for college coaches is significant, you really should have the retread failure rate available as backup. ...or at least the college failure rate. He just referenced 3 guys that did a bad job 10 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts