3rdand12 Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) The FO may have a clue, but I'm not so sure about the coaching staff. Specifically, I can't think of a single player on offense who has improved under Marrone. The only one who remotely fits into that category is Cordy Glenn, but he showed flashes of what he is now under Gailey. Lots of guys appear to have stagnated (EJ, Chandler), and many have outright regressed (Spiller, Urbik, Wood). For a coach whose specialty is offensive line and tight ends, he has little to show for his efforts to date. Methinks that if the FO really does have a clue, Marrone is on a short leash. I will concede this to you. I have no rebuttal at this time . Edited August 31, 2014 by 3rdand12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted August 31, 2014 Author Share Posted August 31, 2014 Except this front office has one or two years of history. The OP, I believe, is talking about Brandon without Ralph, Whaley without Nix, and Marrone. Thank you. Unfortunately, I often overestimate my audience. They are good intentioned (I think) but much is lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 That I totally agree with, except a third isn't a high pick for a QB. Very few make it. But you are absolutely right that it's the way to go until you do find one, from anywhere. The Bills were targeting the wrong guys and not pulling the trigger often enough. My point was the Seahawks didn't have any great ability to spot talent or make the right choices either. They lucked out with Wilson. But the Bills could have and obviously should have taken him in the third. He was the guy I wanted in that spot. You might want to check some of the other talent on the Seahawks roster...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 You might want to check some of the other talent on the Seahawks roster...... I was talking quarterbacks which was the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 I think the criteria for being eligible to be the Bills HC has been set too low. If there has even been any. If you don't hire retreads who have not been successful you don't later have to explain why you hired an unsuccessful retread to the job. Organizations need systems in place to succeed. The Bills have long acted like they were just being run by some mercurial old man. this. are they clueless? no. are they among the best fo's? no way. in the bottom half? yes. among the worst? possibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 this. are they clueless? no. are they among the best fo's? no way. in the bottom half? yes. among the worst? possibly. But you're basing this on what, exactly? What makes a good front office? I'll tell you what I think ... smart decisions and a couple lucky breaks. The Bills just haven't had lucky breaks. You can't fault Whaley and co. for not picking up HOF players from Kutztown, or backups from Michigan. Sometimes you strike gold; usually you don't. The Bills have sucked for the last 5 years, primarily, due to defense. Whaley has addressed it and addressed it well. He took a shot on Manuel and the fanbase should give him more than half a season to determine whether or not it was a good move. But he took a shot. He has my respect for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T master Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) I was about to let pessimism get the better of me Thursday night, but the events of the past two days have restored my faith (somewhat) that this FO does in fact have a clue. We now have a legitimate short term answer at QB if EJ starts slow or gets hurt. Under-talented backups like Lewis and Tuel are finally gone and the message has been sent to EJ that the coddling is over. Similarly, releasing under performers like Graham and Legursky is a sign that the organization is done accepting mediocrity. Graham is a guy who just tantalized with his ability to get open in this league, but when you play WR and can't catch you're a liability. This roster has the pieces in place at every position. Of course, it's all about whether the QB shows up, but at least I feel like Whaley and Marrone have an idea of what they're doing. I believe it's more Whaley than Marrone , just have & always will think it was a homer hire unless & i hope he does prove me terribly wrong in my judgement of him ... And to add i think the EJ pick was more Buddy & Marrone than Whaley . Just saying ... Edited August 31, 2014 by T master Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) But you're basing this on what, exactly? What makes a good front office? I'll tell you what I think ... smart decisions and a couple lucky breaks. The Bills just haven't had lucky breaks. You can't fault Whaley and co. for not picking up HOF players from Kutztown, or backups from Michigan. Sometimes you strike gold; usually you don't. The Bills have sucked for the last 5 years, primarily, due to defense. Whaley has addressed it and addressed it well. He took a shot on Manuel and the fanbase should give him more than half a season to determine whether or not it was a good move. But he took a shot. He has my respect for that. i'm basing it on 2 years experience. plenty of teams go from bad to good or vice versa in that time. the laws of probability demand that luck even out over time, at least to a degree. granted, two years isn't long for luck to run it's course but i don't see where their luck has been all that bad. they've taken big chances (ej and watkins the biggest) and it doesn't look to me that dividends are coming soon. if you bet long shots, you more often lose than win. denver, sf and seattle don't have analogous stars to those you mentioned. seems to me that much of their luck is by design. i sincerely hope i'm wrong about the bills and you can ridicule me over it. Edited August 31, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 i'm basing it on 2 years experience. plenty of teams go from bad to good or vice versa in that time. the laws of probability demand that luck even out over time, at least to a degree. granted, two years isn't long for luck to run it's course but i don't see where their luck has been all that bad. they've taken big chances (ej and watkins the biggest) and it doesn't look to me that dividends are coming soon. if you bet long shots, you more often lose than win. denver, sf and seattle don't have analogous stars to those you mentioned. seems to me that much of their luck is by design. i sincerely hope i'm wrong about the bills and you can ridicule me over it. It's not my style to ridicule, as long as one isn't a dick about it - which you're not being. You say EJ and Watkins do not look like they'll be paying dividends soon. Based on EJ's 9.5 games and Sammy's zero games? That's harsh, man. As far as betting long shots, EJ was kind of a long shot, but Watkins was nothing of the sort. He was likely the best WR in the draft. If you're wrong, we'll both be happy because the Bills will win. And that's good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 I was talking quarterbacks which was the topic. Still not right. The Seahawks made several simultaneous moves to identify a starting QB. Mainly, they signed (overspent on) Flynn figuring he was their guy---yet they still spent a 3rd on Wilson, just in case They quickly figured out he should be their starter. Wilson didn't come in for an injured #1, nor did he come in for a poorly playing #1 midseason. That's pretty astute judge of talent. At QB.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted August 31, 2014 Author Share Posted August 31, 2014 Still not right. The Seahawks made several simultaneous moves to identify a starting QB. Mainly, they signed (overspent on) Flynn figuring he was their guy---yet they still spent a 3rd on Wilson, just in case They quickly figured out he should be their starter. Wilson didn't come in for an injured #1, nor did he come in for a poorly playing #1 midseason. That's pretty astute judge of talent. At QB.... Which part was astute -- Whitehurst or Flynn? The Wilson draft pick was obviously smart (and lucky). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockinon Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) I will concede this to you. I have no rebuttal at this time . Chandler? Glenn? Edited August 31, 2014 by Rockinon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Which part was astute -- Whitehurst or Flynn? The Wilson draft pick was obviously smart (and lucky). Flynn was the top guy available. They had a desperate need for a QB. He was a hot comodity at the time. Whitehurst was never considered to be the starter, so I don;t know what your point is there. They signed Flynn. Many figured it was a logical move. Yet they still picked Wilson (who was hardly an unkown comodity at the time). Contrast that with the Bills, who were also depserate for improved QB play. They did....nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Chandler? Glenn? Chandler has regressed. Glenn is the only possibility but as I stated, he showed well under Gailey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bananathumb Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 have we been in the p-layoffs since Polian? yes, we're clueless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Still not right. The Seahawks made several simultaneous moves to identify a starting QB. Mainly, they signed (overspent on) Flynn figuring he was their guy---yet they still spent a 3rd on Wilson, just in case They quickly figured out he should be their starter. Wilson didn't come in for an injured #1, nor did he come in for a poorly playing #1 midseason. That's pretty astute judge of talent. At QB.... He absolutely did come in for an injured #1, that is how he got the job. Flynn hurt his shoulder or elbow, and Wilson played game #3 in preseason, and that's when they realized his height wasn't going to affect him. In fact, it was an amazing call by Carroll to just start him in the regular season opener. I bet 90% of the coaches would have gone back to their 25m FA starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 He absolutely did come in for an injured #1, that is how he got the job. Flynn hurt his shoulder or elbow, and Wilson played game #3 in preseason, and that's when they realized his height wasn't going to affect him. In fact, it was an amazing call by Carroll to just start him in the regular season opener. I bet 90% of the coaches would have gone back to their 25m FA starter. After nearly 27,000 posts, surely you realize that facts, statistics, examples and logic have no place here whilst proving one's point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 After nearly 27,000 posts, surely you realize that facts, statistics, examples and logic have no place here whilst proving one's point. If only the facts, statistics, examples and logic that actually proved points around here were for the positive. Today the apologist crowd takes solace every time other team makes ONE of the mistakes that the Bills make on a regular basis. Like EBall with the "so the way to be a good organization is to draft Ryan Mallet in round 3 and trade him for a 6th rounder?". Yeah forget about great QB play and great coaching and operating systematically......it's all about trying to find company in their misery and push that off as optimism. Looking foward to a new organizational directive in 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 31, 2014 Share Posted August 31, 2014 Are we talking about the entire front office or are we separating the coaching staff from the rest of the front office. There's clearly a change at OBD, but doesn't look like it was a quantum leap that many of us hoped for. Whaley deserves credit for moving to improve the QB position, but he's also the guy who felt comfortable with EJ, Tuel, Lewis and Dixon as the camp bodies. He was also part of the staff that felt that Fitz was way overpaid at $4 million/yr, but now has to pay Orton $5 milion. So long story short, Whaley doesn't seem to be afraid to move quickly to fix his errors, but a bit of better forward thinking could save him from overpaying for obvious mistakes. Hopefully he's a faster learner that the QB he's staking his reputation on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 He absolutely did come in for an injured #1, that is how he got the job. Flynn hurt his shoulder or elbow, and Wilson played game #3 in preseason, and that's when they realized his height wasn't going to affect him. In fact, it was an amazing call by Carroll to just start him in the regular season opener. I bet 90% of the coaches would have gone back to their 25m FA starter. You are probably right, but it does not negate the adeptness of Seattle's FO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts