thebandit27 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I can't read the entire thread, just too painful. Just wondering if you were defending Crossman. If so, why? Thanks for asking instead of just assuming. No, not defending Crossman at all. Just saying that I'm not outraged by his retention as ST coach, an that I don't think this means anything about Marrone. So far, the only legit reason to keep Crossman is he's only had one season with the Bills. Even this reason is crap! The Bills STs were awful on coverage teams and they had essentially no explosive plays in the return game. Plus, as noted earlier, Bills STs in the Browns and 2nd Pats game killed the Bills. Based on his prior performance as ST coach, hiring Crossman was a dubious decision in the first place and Marrone not canning him now is a disgrace. Where's the accountability? Can't wait for Marrone to talk next year about a Bills' loss that falls squarely on the Bills STs. If Marrone had canned Crossman, it would have been a breath of fresh air. A HC who was willing to admit he made a mistake and make a change. But no. Marrone takes care of one of his cronies instead and blames the players. Geesh, 14 years and counting! So the HC who's unwilling to make a change is the one that fired his WR coach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) The other amazing thing here is that they've actually been drafting special teamers the last couple of years - and sucking at it. They drafted two safeties last year, ostensibly to contribute on special teams. Both of them suck. What is a guy like Meeks even doing on the roster if he's not a "core special teamer"? They've drafted kickers two years in a row - kickers! - drafted!! - twice!!! - and neither of them have been able to make the team. So now what, we're gonna devote more of our crappy drafting in 2014 to helping out our special teams coordinator? This franchise... Edited January 7, 2014 by Coach Tuesday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsBytheBay Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 There is a big difference between questioning it, and going on a Crossman witch hunt. Just about everyone--including me--questioned the hire; and also questioned him as a coach at various points during the season. The "Crossman must be burned at the stake or else I will lose all faith in the Bills organization" crusade is because of what happened in the last game of the season. It's classic Bills' fans histrionics. witches don't exists. I've, we've seen enough of Crossman. Also, this is more about Marrone's perceived decision making prosses, witch is looking more good ole boy, than merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 No, not defending Crossman at all. Just saying that I'm not outraged by his retention as ST coach, an that I don't think this means anything about Marrone. This is exactly how I feel. I don't particularly like it, but am not outraged. Oh, wait-- does that mean I think ST are not important too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 No, not defending Crossman at all. Just saying that I'm not outraged by his retention as ST coach, an that I don't think this means anything about Marrone. No one should be outraged. But it goes to Marrone needing to learn to keep his mouth shut. I would have thought the whole 110% sure Manuel would play the last game would have taught him something. If he had not mentioned accountability there would have not been any fuel for this discussion. When is the last time you saw a 18 page thread (and still growing) about a special teams coach? Come on Doug, wise up man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 ST did not cost the Bills any of those 3 games. You can point to many different factors for why they lost all 3. The Tuel-led offense couldn't muster a single first down, leaving the D on the field far too long against Cleveland. Let's remember that Buffalo was leading that game long after the two big returns. The Bengals game ended after that return, yes. Does that mean that the inability to score on 4 straight chances from inside the 3 yard line and going 3-and-out on their only OT possession didn't "give" Cinci the win as well? There were several big plays allowed in that game, why does the one ST play somehow mean more than the 4 or 5 big plays allowed on defense? Speaking of defense, I tend to blame the 250 rushing yards for the NE loss in week 17, unless we're blaming Crossman for Dareus jumping offside on a FG try or the run D allowing Blount's final long TD run. Come to think of it, why isn't there a Pettine outrage thread? From the looks of things, the D cost this team more games than the ST. come on bandit, no one play wins or loses any game by the standard you are trying to set up. sure we didnt play perfect (or at times even well) in some of those examples, but with even average special teams play we likely win atleast 1, if not more, of those games. and you might argue that dareus going offsides on a fg leans more towards crossman than pettine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 come on bandit, no one play wins or loses any game by the standard you are trying to set up. sure we didnt play perfect (or at times even well) in some of those examples, but with even average special teams play we likely win atleast 1, if not more, of those games. and you might argue that dareus going offsides on a fg leans more towards crossman than pettine. My point is quite simply that ST themselves didn't cost the Bills any game. They were in position to win the Cleveland game after the two big returns, and they were behind NE the entire game--never stopped the run at all. I just don't accept the notion that ST gave the opponent any game. There were so many ways those games could've gone differently, to simply pin those losses on ST, as was done in the post to which I replied, is mistaken IMO. As for better ST winning one of those three games--I'd say Cleveland is a possibility...I really don't see the other two happening on ST alone. No one should be outraged. But it goes to Marrone needing to learn to keep his mouth shut. I would have thought the whole 110% sure Manuel would play the last game would have taught him something. If he had not mentioned accountability there would have not been any fuel for this discussion. When is the last time you saw a 18 page thread (and still growing) about a special teams coach? Come on Doug, wise up man. Here's a point that I hadn't thought about and also agree with...thanks for bringing these thoughts into the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 My point is quite simply that ST themselves didn't cost the Bills any game. They were in position to win the Cleveland game after the two big returns, and they were behind NE the entire game--never stopped the run at all. I just don't accept the notion that ST gave the opponent any game. There were so many ways those games could've gone differently, to simply pin those losses on ST, as was done in the post to which I replied, is mistaken IMO. As for better ST winning one of those three games--I'd say Cleveland is a possibility...I really don't see the other two happening on ST alone. Here's a point that I hadn't thought about and also agree with...thanks for bringing these thoughts into the discussion. I will opine that it is equally as important what ST does to help you win, as it is what ST does to cause you to lose. Allowing returns like the ones Blount had may not have made us lose ... but it sure as hell didn't enhance our chances of winning. Giving Brady a half a field is nearly equal to putting 6 on the board for them. Granted .. the D sucked (all year ... not just in the NE game), but I think an upgrade at ST will only help this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Direhard Fan Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 " A Few "--- Less than 9 but more than 10. I've been on this board for three years with 300 plus comments and still a rookie. Tears in my eyes every week since 1960 minus a few years in the 90's. Best I can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXBILLSFAN Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 It's been a year since Marrone was hired -- we are all still trying to assess his qualities as an NFL coach and whether he'll be the difference maker this franchise so desperately needs --- let's face it -- when Brandon hired him, he went on the cheap (as the Bills always do when they hire coaches) and as fans, we are hoping he's the diamond in the rough --- he wasn't the BIG NAME this past off-season, but I think we've all come to expect Wilson and now Brandon to look for mid/lower tier names when they hire --- SO, to me, this decision to retain Crossman is a sign that Marrone isn't willing to hold to a standard he himself created --- is this a make/break decision ? --- of course not, but it is a decision and one that when analyzed creates more doubts on Marrone --- that is the big issue ---- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Direhard Fan Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 JaxBills Witches do exist . Have a lot of Wicke's out side of Pittsfield MA and haven't you every heard of "The Good Witch". Gotta believe We need a good Witch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewildrabbit Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I have been following pro football a lot longer than most of you have been alive and I have never ever heard a head coach say he needed to get more special team players. Aside from the kicker, punter, snapper and holder, the rest of that squad is made up of guys on the regular roster, some of whom are starters but most of them are the back-ups. In fact, many guys make the regular roster because of their ability to play on special teams. If the guys the Bills used this year on special teams aren't up to that job, how can they possibly be good enough to be back-ups? Compare Crossman's units with what Pettine and his assistants accomplished: they managed to salvage the careers of Aaron Williams, Leodis McKelvin, possibly Manny Lawson, Mario Williams and Jerry Hughes, not to mention getting phenomenal rookie seasons out of Kiko and Nickell. This on the heels of the god-awful defense that Wannstedt ran last year. I believe that much of that improvement has to do with coaching, just as the drop-off in special teams this year from last does. Crossman was this season's Dave Wannstedt, whose failures negatively impacted the team overall. excellent post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juno999 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Thanks for asking instead of just assuming. No, not defending Crossman at all. Just saying that I'm not outraged by his retention as ST coach, an that I don't think this means anything about Marrone. So the HC who's unwilling to make a change is the one that fired his WR coach? The thread and my post are about Crossman not Hilliard. You want to give Marrone credit for firing Hilliard. Alright. If Marrone addressed the WR position coach situation that is great. One problem solved. However one problem remains. Let's not settle for half measures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 The thread and my post are about Crossman not Hilliard. You want to give Marrone credit for firing Hilliard. Alright. If Marrone addressed the WR position coach situation that is great. One problem solved. However one problem remains. Let's not settle for half measures. My point is that calling Marrone out as a guy that is unwilling to make a change is erroneous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 There is a big difference between questioning it, and going on a Crossman witch hunt. Just about everyone--including me--questioned the hire; and also questioned him as a coach at various points during the season. The "Crossman must be burned at the stake or else I will lose all faith in the Bills organization" crusade is because of what happened in the last game of the season. It's classic Bills' fans histrionics. I think that it is much more than that. I really hope Marrone works out, not for any altruistic reasons, his failure would mean that the team continued to fail and I've had enough of that. The issue here with many is with one word that Marrone used often. Accountability. Accountability doesn't just fall on the players, it falls on the entire organization. When the season ended Marrone blamed the players for the ST failures. He may be 100% right but putting it on the players surely appears to duck accountability, doesn't it? The team needs core special team players according to the coach. Can you explain what this means? Is the team lacking the speed necessary? The strength? The desire? Something else? I find it very hard to believe that the Bills didn't have the necessary athletes to fill out special teams. If we suppose that they did lack the players then why didn't Marrone demand that HIS roster be filled out with the players necessary for the team to be competitive? So, it all comes down to one of the coach's favorite buzz words. Accountability. (which IMO is lacking here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 It's been a year since Marrone was hired -- we are all still trying to assess his qualities as an NFL coach and whether he'll be the difference maker this franchise so desperately needs --- let's face it -- when Brandon hired him, he went on the cheap (as the Bills always do when they hire coaches) and as fans, we are hoping he's the diamond in the rough --- he wasn't the BIG NAME this past off-season, but I think we've all come to expect Wilson and now Brandon to look for mid/lower tier names when they hire --- SO, to me, this decision to retain Crossman is a sign that Marrone isn't willing to hold to a standard he himself created --- is this a make/break decision ? --- of course not, but it is a decision and one that when analyzed creates more doubts on Marrone --- that is the big issue ---- Brandon didn't hire Marrone. He had input, but I (and others here) have it on quite reliable info that the final call on the head coach was made by Nix & Whaley. Blame them if you think the hire was financially motivated (just so you know, it wasn't) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 So, it all comes down to one of the coach's favorite buzz words. Accountability. (which IMO is lacking here) and why i think for many, not only is it a big deal to have a poor ST unit, but a wider concern of culture/decision making/other things that bleed outside of 10-15 plays on sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Ok, I think I've identified the crux of the issue in this thread, which is that too many folks equate "accountability" with "you get one shot and you're gone if you don't get it done". That's not what accountability means. It means taking responsibility for your work, and takin ownership of the results. No part of that means that a coach needs to produce the desired result in one year or else he's out. It means that said coach needs to improve or he'll be out. And for those looking for Marrone to stick to his words about accountability, look no further than Colin Brown, Justin Rodgers, Da'Rick the Infallible, & Ike Hilliard. Obviously Marrone thought those guys were the problem in their respective roles, while he doesn't feel that way about Crossman. Is he right or wrong? I don't know...and neither do you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juno999 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 My point is that calling Marrone out as a guy that is unwilling to make a change is erroneous. Giving Marrone full credit for firing one coach when a second firing, Crossman, is needed. That's erroneous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Thanks for asking instead of just assuming. No, not defending Crossman at all. Just saying that I'm not outraged by his retention as ST coach, an that I don't think this means anything about Marrone. So the HC who's unwilling to make a change is the one that fired his WR coach? That was a token firing. More low hanging fruit. A lame scapegoating. The other amazing thing here is that they've actually been drafting special teamers the last couple of years - and sucking at it. They drafted two safeties last year, ostensibly to contribute on special teams. Both of them suck. What is a guy like Meeks even doing on the roster if he's not a "core special teamer"? They've drafted kickers two years in a row - kickers! - drafted!! - twice!!! - and neither of them have been able to make the team. So now what, we're gonna devote more of our crappy drafting in 2014 to helping out our special teams coordinator? This franchise... BOOM. Excellent post. When the HC after his first year starts blaming the players, the players (particularly the vets--and considering Marrone's lack of HC experience) may take notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts