Chan Gailey is a great offensive mind

[thewildrabbit]

So if you agree that he gets good production out of guys, why are you arguing in the topic that says he was good on offense? I understand that stats don't tell the whole story, but you don't think if Spiller had 400 yards and 3 TD's right now, we wouldn't be 4-0? Stats are there to show who contributed to the outcome. We're talking about stirctly OC here. Do you blame Pettine for the Jets' woes last year? Because under your line of thinking, you should. He went 6-10 last year, he sucks. It's about winning games, not stats.

Ok you lured me back with that line. How on gods green earth do you equate the DC being responsible for Mr butt fumble Mark Sanchez? The Jets defense was #8 in yards allowed last year, the offense was 30th They went 6-10 because somewhere along the lines Big Mouth Rex forgot what got him to the AFC Championship game, and that was ground and pound with LT at RB. Not having Sanchez throwing 40 times a game who ended the year with 13 TD's, 18 INT's

 

Like I mentioned above, Chan Gailey had a shot at OC with KC in 2008. His offense was 26th in points and 24th in yards while his QB Tyler Thigpen, put up some decent numbers, the team went 2-14. I might also mention that a lot of those decent numbers were in garbage time when the game was already lost.

 

I agree Chan gets production out of his players but that production doesn't translate into wins

 

great offensive mind...horrible coach

Sums it up nicely. Edited October 2, 2013 by FeartheLosing

[TheFunPolice]

You see, you can call people names. You can shout people down. You can post statistics and videos. But you can't hide from reality forever. Eventually shams are shown for what they are, and that is what happened to the house of cards that Gailey built. Both Gailey and his glorified backup QB were in over their heads, and it showed on numerous occasions.

 

For two years Chan told those of us who didn't buy the crap they were selling about Fitz that we were all wrong. Well, they lost 2 out of every 3 games, Chan is unemployed and Fitzpatrick is a backup somewhere else.

 

Chan got to do it his way and Chan failed. Scoreboard.

 

Not only did Gailey fail, he won less than Jauron did in the process. The fact is, he was a DOWNGRADE from the Jauron era. Yeah, I know he made some of you feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside for some reason. Well, you can go sit on his porch and have a sweet tea with him and you can chat about ole fitzy and the glory days of 6-10 all day long.

 

BTW, Jauron does not work for the Browns anymore.

Edited October 2, 2013 by TheFunPolice

[FireChan]

Ok you lured me back with that line. How on gods green earth do you equate the DC being responsible for Mr butt fumble Mark Sanchez? The Jets defense was #8 in yards allowed last year, the offense was 30th They went 6-10 because somewhere along the lines Big Mouth Rex forgot what got him to the AFC Championship game, and that was ground and pound with LT at RB. Not having Sanchez throwing 40 times a game who ended the year with 13 TD's, 18 INT's

 

Like I mentioned above, Chan Gailey had a shot at OC with KC in 2008. His offense was 26th in points and 24th in yards while his QB Tyler Thigpen, put up some decent numbers, the team went 2-14. I might also mention that a lot of those decent numbers were in garbage time when the game was already lost.

 

 

Sums it up nicely.

 

You said, and I quote, "enough with the stats, it's about winning games." So you have to think Pettine sucks, there's no other option. Who cares how well his defense played, they couldn't get it done. 6-10 last year. Was it Chan's offenses' fault they had a historically bad defense? In your opinion, it was.

 

Thigpen had good numbers, and the team had bad numbers? That doesn't make sense. Did Thiggy spread his yardage around so all 6 of his wideouts had 500 yards? KC had also been bad for years so don't act like Chan's the only guy who failed there.

 

You see, you can call people names. You can shout people down. You can post statistics and videos. But you can't hide from reality forever. Eventually shams are shown for what they are, and that is what happened to the house of cards that Gailey built. Both Gailey and his glorified backup QB were in over their heads, and it showed on numerous occasions.

 

For two years Chan told those of us who didn't buy the crap they were selling about Fitz that we were all wrong. Well, they lost 2 out of every 3 games, Chan is unemployed and Fitzpatrick is a backup somewhere else.

 

Chan got to do it his way and Chan failed. Scoreboard.

 

Not only did Gailey fail, he won less than Jauron did in the process. The fact is, he was a DOWNGRADE from the Jauron era. Yeah, I know he made some of you feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside for some reason. Well, you can go sit on his porch and have a sweet tea with him and you can chat about ole fitzy and the glory days of 6-10 all day long.

 

BTW, Jauron does not work for the Browns anymore.

 

Jauron still got a job after giving us a few hopeless seasons. Chan made things interesting at least, we either got blown out or had a shoot out. I'd rather watch those games than 9-6 losses in the Jauron era. I'm sure Chan got a job offer, even if it was to the Jags as OC.

[Beerball]

IMO Chan Gailey wasn't a great anything for the Bills. He was creative, but far from the great that the thread title proclaims.

 

He was a lousy HC.

 

He couldn't pick a staff to save his life.

 

He pushed for his toy CJ when this team was devoid of talent everywhere but RB (let me remind you that they were switching defensive scheme on top of having no talent). (where's the genius in this?)

 

He sold the FO on Fitz. (where's the genius in this?)

 

He didn't push for any QB in the draft, or if he did he was 100% ineffective. (where's the genius in this?)

 

He was terrible on game day, absolutely no involvement with what was going on defensively or ST.

 

He had among the worst beards I've ever seen.

 

I could go on, but, I've it let go , it's in the past. Just another mini-chapter in the life of a Bills fan.

[bladiebla]

IMO Chan Gailey wasn't a great anything for the Bills. He was creative, but far from the great that the thread title proclaims.

 

He was a lousy HC.

 

He couldn't pick a staff to save his life.

 

He pushed for his toy CJ when this team was devoid of talent everywhere but RB (let me remind you that they were switching defensive scheme on top of having no talent). (where's the genius in this?)

 

He sold the FO on Fitz. (where's the genius in this?)

 

He didn't push for any QB in the draft, or if he did he was 100% ineffective. (where's the genius in this?)

 

He was terrible on game day, absolutely no involvement with what was going on defensively or ST.

 

He had among the worst beards I've ever seen.

 

I could go on, but, I've it let go , it's in the past. Just another mini-chapter in the life of a Bills fan.

 

I think we all agree that he was a lousy HC, even if you don't his record speaks for itself whereever he's been as HC. As an OC however... That was/is the point the OP made.

[Beerball]

I think we all agree that he was a lousy HC, even if you don't his record speaks for itself whereever he's been as HC. As an OC however... That was/is the point the OP made.

The thread title says he's a great offensive mind. Assume I'm from Missouri...show me. I laid out several offensive decisions that were far from genius. What did he do here that was great? He's resting on his laurels and we're much. much better off without him and his great offensive mind IMO.

[Sisyphean Bills]

I think we all agree that he was a lousy HC, even if you don't his record speaks for itself whereever he's been as HC. As an OC however... That was/is the point the OP made.

 

And, even there it is debatable (and why this topic keeps coming back). Does it make sense to classify someone that insists on beating his brains out against a brick wall "great"? Gailey had some success with QBs like Kordell Stewart, Reggie Ball, Tyler Thigpen, and Ryan Fitzpatrick. He was able to wring production out of QBs that weren't the most talented and had severe flaws to their games. He could get the chains moving when he had little more than a bag of spare parts to work with. But, he was a masochist of sorts. Greatness takes care of itself if a coach realizes that in this business what is most important is beating the opposition and not really trying to work miracles while losing respectably.

[JohnC]

And, even there it is debatable (and why this topic keeps coming back). Does it make sense to classify someone that insists on beating his brains out against a brick wall "great"? Gailey had some success with QBs like Kordell Stewart, Reggie Ball, Tyler Thigpen, and Ryan Fitzpatrick. He was able to wring production out of QBs that weren't the most talented and had severe flaws to their games. He could get the chains moving when he had little more than a bag of spare parts to work with. But, he was a masochist of sorts. Greatness takes care of itself if a coach realizes that in this business what is most important is beating the opposition and not really trying to work miracles while losing respectably.

 

What made him such an appealing HCing candidate? His long record was far from being distinguished. He was certainly not a hot upcoming young

coordinator who was worth taking a risk on because he was an intriguing candiate. He represented the standard retread hire by an unimaginative old guard GM. At least with the Marrone hire you got someone who brings a little more energy and personality to the job. Whether he succeeds or not at least this crusty organization took a more imaginative and expansive approach in their hiring search. When you are stuck at the bottom why continue doing what you have normally done?

[Mango]

I think people are wishing Chan back as HC, or Chan vs. Marrone. I think the issue is see a lot more talent on the offensive side of the roster, and fans are looking for success.

 

Chan is a better OC than Hackett so far. He failed at HC and nobody is debating that. This offensice roster with Chan instead of Hackett would be much better. For the first time we have Gaey type players but no Galey. I think that is the point.

[Wayne Cubed]

 

 

I think we all agree that he was a lousy HC, even if you don't his record speaks for itself whereever he's been as HC. As an OC however... That was/is the point the OP made.

 

- 3rd and 1, 5 WR's and an empty backfield

- Punting from the 35

- No matter which RB was having a great game, switching RBs every other series

- Copying the wildcat, badly.

 

And so on...

[ChallengeHistory]

IMO Chan Gailey wasn't a great anything for the Bills. He was creative, but far from the great that the thread title proclaims.

 

He was a lousy HC.

 

He couldn't pick a staff to save his life.

 

He pushed for his toy CJ when this team was devoid of talent everywhere but RB (let me remind you that they were switching defensive scheme on top of having no talent). (where's the genius in this?)

 

He sold the FO on Fitz. (where's the genius in this?)

 

He didn't push for any QB in the draft, or if he did he was 100% ineffective. (where's the genius in this?)

 

He was terrible on game day, absolutely no involvement with what was going on defensively or ST.

 

He had among the worst beards I've ever seen.

 

I could go on, but, I've it let go , it's in the past. Just another mini-chapter in the life of a Bills fan.

 

Much of your post is talking about items not related to offensive game planning and play creating. Which is what this thread is about.

 

I never said Gailey was a good Head Coach, or Scout, or a person fit to pick a Coaching Staff.

 

What I did say was that he created extremely well drawn up Offensive Plays. And his blocking schemes allowed for huge holes for both Jackson and Spiller to run through. And his screen plays were some of the best drawn up screen plays I have ever seen.

 

He turned a little talent and put together a respectable offense every year.

 

Did he have his downsides? Sure. Did he pass on 3rd and 1 too much? Yes. But EVERY coach in the NFL, including Belichick has their downsides. They have their stubbornness (going for 4th and 1 in their own territory against the Colts for example). The question is, does the good outweigh the bad?

 

And with Gailey, on OFFENSE, the good far outweighed the bad. Many of you seem to have forgotten how abysmal our offense was before Gailey got here.

 

I don't care what anyone says, Gailey is a great offensive mind and many of his plays were real beauties.

Edited October 2, 2013 by ChallengeHistory

[Sisyphean Bills]

Much of your post is talking about items not related to offensive game planning and play creating. Which is what this thread is about.

 

I never said Gailey was a good Head Coach, or Scout, or a person fit to pick a Coaching Staff.

 

What I did say was that he created extremely well drawn up Offensive Plays. And his blocking schemes allowed for huge holes for both Jackson and Spiller to run through. And his screen plays were some of the best drawn up screen plays I have ever seen.

 

He turned a little talent and put together a respectable offense every year.

 

Did he have his downsides? Sure. Did he pass on 3rd and 1 too much? Yes. But EVERY coach in the NFL, including Belichick has their downsides. They have their stubbornness (going for 4th and 1 in their own territory against the Colts for example). The question is, does the good outweigh the bad?

 

And with Gailey, on OFFENSE, the good far outweighed the bad. Many of you seem to have forgotten how abysmal our offense was before Gailey got here.

 

I don't care what anyone says, Gailey is a great offensive mind and many of his plays were real beauties.

 

I get where you are coming from here. To make an analogy of my previous post. Say you are a carpenter building houses and have plenty of competition in your market. You run out of nails. You could drive across town and buy some to continue working on the project. Or you could start whittling some pegs and drilling holes because, well, your name is Chan and you're battery is dead in your nail gun anyway. While whittling pegs might be working to an extent, the dummies with the nail guns already have their houses on the market for sale. Who's the greater mind?

[FireChan]

I get where you are coming from here. To make an analogy of my previous post. Say you are a carpenter building houses and have plenty of competition in your market. You run out of nails. You could drive across town and buy some to continue working on the project. Or you could start whittling some pegs and drilling holes because, well, your name is Chan and you're battery is dead in your nail gun anyway. While whittling pegs might be working to an extent, the dummies with the nail guns already have their houses on the market for sale. Who's the greater mind?

 

OC's get to pick players? Hackett picked Spiller? Hackett picked SJ13? Hackett picked our O-line?

[ChallengeHistory]

I get where you are coming from here. To make an analogy of my previous post. Say you are a carpenter building houses and have plenty of competition in your market. You run out of nails. You could drive across town and buy some to continue working on the project. Or you could start whittling some pegs and drilling holes because, well, your name is Chan and you're battery is dead in your nail gun anyway. While whittling pegs might be working to an extent, the dummies with the nail guns already have their houses on the market for sale. Who's the greater mind?

 

I get what you're saying.

 

But the dummies with the nail guns often got a nail shot into their leg because they don't know what they're doing with it.

 

If Gailey wasn't a great offensive mind, we may have won 5 games in the past 3 years combined. That's how bad our defense was. We were in games BECAUSE of Gailey's offense.

[Sisyphean Bills]

OC's get to pick players? Hackett picked Spiller? Hackett picked SJ13? Hackett picked our O-line?

 

If you think I am trying to absolve the FO somehow, you're dead wrong. But, in a larger sense, yes. If the OC convincingly argues that he can polish a turd and make it great, then the GM might actually be swayed into believing him. During Gailey's stint, he was the HC and OC, so there was no checks and balances there. OTOH, if the OC is demanding in every meeting that he can't win with the QB he has, then that should have an influence in a well-run organization that pays attention to the people trying to do their jobs well.

 

BTW, I admit that I am not certain it really was all Gailey. Gailey may have accepted the job under the condition that salvaging the QBs from Jauron's roster was his priority. Indeed, if that was what the inner circle wanted it would go a long way to explaining why the job was considered (and turned out to be) purely toxic to most of the available coaches at the time.

[llyolf]

- Copying the wildcat, badly.

 

The Arizona game where BSmith, who's not thrown 1 pass all year from the Wildcat, drops back and shotputs it straight into the arms of a Cardinal... with the game pretty much on the line.

 

#Idontmissthewildcat

[Beerball]

Much of your post is talking about items not related to offensive game planning and play creating. Which is what this thread is about.

 

I never said Gailey was a good Head Coach, or Scout, or a person fit to pick a Coaching Staff.

 

What I did say was that he created extremely well drawn up Offensive Plays. And his blocking schemes allowed for huge holes for both Jackson and Spiller to run through. And his screen plays were some of the best drawn up screen plays I have ever seen.

 

He turned a little talent and put together a respectable offense every year.

 

Did he have his downsides? Sure. Did he pass on 3rd and 1 too much? Yes. But EVERY coach in the NFL, including Belichick has their downsides. They have their stubbornness (going for 4th and 1 in their own territory against the Colts for example). The question is, does the good outweigh the bad?

 

And with Gailey, on OFFENSE, the good far outweighed the bad. Many of you seem to have forgotten how abysmal our offense was before Gailey got here.

 

I don't care what anyone says, Gailey is a great offensive mind and many of his plays were real beauties.

Hows about you answer my points about his offensive shortcomings? Where is the genius in trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse? Gailey was stubborn to a fault and he's gone. He hitched his wagon to that sow's ear and he was fired because of it. I could go on, list many offensive shortcomings, but...what is the point? He was here. He failed. He's gone. He won't be back ever. He may be a creative play caller but cute doesn't get you wins.

[ChallengeHistory]

Hows about you answer my points about his offensive shortcomings? Where is the genius in trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse? Gailey was stubborn to a fault and he's gone. He hitched his wagon to that sow's ear and he was fired because of it. I could go on, list many offensive shortcomings, but...what is the point? He was here. He failed. He's gone. He won't be back ever. He may be a creative play caller but cute doesn't get you wins.

 

I guess you have a point there. About being gone and it not mattering.

 

But the LOSSES had more to do with the defense than the offense.

 

Stick this years defense with last years offense and we may be 4-0 right now.

Edited October 2, 2013 by ChallengeHistory

[thewildrabbit]

If you think I am trying to absolve the FO somehow, you're dead wrong. But, in a larger sense, yes. If the OC convincingly argues that he can polish a turd and make it great, then the GM might actually be swayed into believing him. During Gailey's stint, he was the HC and OC, so there was no checks and balances there. OTOH, if the OC is demanding in every meeting that he can't win with the QB he has, then that should have an influence in a well-run organization that pays attention to the people trying to do their jobs well.

 

BTW, I admit that I am not certain it really was all Gailey. Gailey may have accepted the job under the condition that salvaging the QBs from Jauron's roster was his priority. Indeed, if that was what the inner circle wanted it would go a long way to explaining why the job was considered (and turned out to be) purely toxic to most of the available coaches at the time.

If you go back to 2010, and read what SI's Peter King had written about the Gailey hire...

 

"And the list of guys who turned down the chance to even talk about the job ... it's so long that the only conclusion you can logically draw is the Bills are turning into the Raiders. No coach wants the job. So the team has to find a guy who wouldn't be a candidate elsewhere -- and Gailey, after clashing with Todd Haley in Kansas City last year, had nowhere to go."

 

 

....and then kinda get the idea of exactly why Gailey stuck with Fitz for 3 years.

 

"Last point: I can guarantee you one of the things that the Bills loved was Gailey's attitude about how you can win without stars in the NFL. In fact, that's the kind of team he prefers. More than once in his career, he's told coaches he worked with: "You can win the World Series without Babe Ruth.'' In Buffalo, he's going to get that chance."

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/01/19/mailbag/index.html

 

 

SB, as for some of Gaileys staunch defenders here. Some people have their minds made up, and no matter how articulate your argument is. You can lead a horse to water, show them the water, splash around in it, and yet....