A Few Thoughts About The Game, in no particular order.....

[thewildrabbit]

But it also reflects an utter lack of sound strategic planning, and some of that falls squarely on Whaley's shoulders. He hired a coach with a ground-and-pound, ball-control offensive philosophy who must've made clear his preference for big, lumbering offensive linemen and bunch formations. Instead of arming this coach with big athletic guards and tight ends, he stockpiled speedsters like Bryce Brown and Watkins, and traded for Mike Williams. I'm just not sure what the overall strategy is - what is the "elevator speech" that Whaley gives to describe the Bills' strategy on offense? Does it mirror what Marrone would say? If not, doesn't that speak volumes about the state of OBD?

We need to remember that Whaley was a rookie GM last year, and the hiring of Marrone might have been highly influenced by the teams CEO. Just as a lot of important decisions might have been influenced over the last 8 years.

 

There is a new sheriff in town, and i expect some important changes starting at the top. I'm not going to reflect upon the past very deeply because the Status quo is changing, and hopefully intelligently. I never would have thought this franchise could have surpassed the Detroit Lions in being dysfunctional under their bewildering hiring Matt Millen for president in his eight year reign of the Lions.

 

No matter what record this team finishes the season with 7-9 to 11-5. I just don't see the new owners not hiring a president of football operations to oversee the football side after this year. Good things ahead for Bills fans

[JohnC]

My friend, if you want to lose football games a good way to do so is to draft a situational scat back with a top 10 draft pick, especially if you have QB issues. And those were pre-Pettine and Mario days.

Mr. Wilson praised this selection. He said that the team needed, "excitement."

 

This team didn't win football games with Spiller. We are still not in the playoffs as we speak, but we are doing just as well without him. And btw, let me readily admit that the Bills need an upgrade at RB. I do however hope that we don't draft one too early and focus more on Guards to fill the void of the ones we stupidly let go.

 

Bill, What qb in the Spiller draft would you have taken in the Spiller draft spot? Despite your jaundiced view of him he has been a positive contributor for a consistently poor team. There isn't an offensve player on the roster since his selection who has made more big plays. What hasn't helped him is a coaching staff that has not properly utilized him. As I said in prior postings if Spiller played for the Eagles and their HC, Kelly, his talents would be better utilized.

 

I never understood your continuous hostile fixation on Spiller. For you he has become a symbol for the ineptitude of this befuddled organization. If you want to get upset at a draft selection you should be more outraged with the Torrell Troup selection in the second round of that draft. He was an undersized nose tackle who had a history of back problems. When he played for us he like he was an undersized nose tackle with a history of back problems. That should irritate you much more than the productive Spiller.

 

Where I depart from you is that I'm not going to be overly critical of a player who was drafted by an inept organization who makes plays. Whatever residual ire you have with him it should be directed to the abundance of players who were wasted picks and made little contribution.

 

 

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?season=2010

[C.Biscuit97]

My friend, if you want to lose football games a good way to do so is to draft a situational scat back with a top 10 draft pick, especially if you have QB issues. And those were pre-Pettine and Mario days.

Mr. Wilson praised this selection. He said that the team needed, "excitement."

 

This team didn't win football games with Spiller. We are still not in the playoffs as we speak, but we are doing just as well without him. And btw, let me readily admit that the Bills need an upgrade at RB. I do however hope that we don't draft one too early and focus more on Guards to fill the void of the ones we stupidly let go.

 

Generally, it is a bad idea to spend a high pick on a rb. It's a pass first league, rbs don't last long, and they are plentiful. You will need to be a generational talent to be a 1st round rb going forward.

 

That said, Spiller is hardly the problem with this team. He averages 5 ypc for his career. IMO, he should be viewed as more than a rb. He isn't built to run up the middle 25 times a game like Bettis. He should be catching passes and mismatch on LBs. A good offensive mind would be able to use him as a valuable part of the offensive. We don't have a good offensive mind. He is a sunken cost. Reggie Bush was a big part of the Saints' SB win and he went #2 overall. Spiller has those type of skills. As others have said, Spiller will end up on the Saints or Eagles and become one of the best weapons in the NFL. Watch.

[JohnC]

Generally, it is a bad idea to spend a high pick on a rb. It's a pass first league, rbs don't last long, and they are plentiful. You will need to be a generational talent to be a 1st round rb going forward.

 

That said, Spiller is hardly the problem with this team. He averages 5 ypc for his career. IMO, he should be viewed as more than a rb. He isn't built to run up the middle 25 times a game like Bettis. He should be catching passes and mismatch on LBs. A good offensive mind would be able to use him as a valuable part of the offensive. We don't have a good offensive mind. He is a sunken cost. Reggie Bush was a big part of the Saints' SB win and he went #2 overall. Spiller has those type of skills. As others have said, Spiller will end up on the Saints or Eagles and become one of the best weapons in the NFL. Watch.

 

CJ Spiller is a more talented version of Darren Sproles (my opinion). Sproles has made a major contribution playing for San Diego, N.O. and now Philadelphia because he was properly utilized. If Spiller played for Kelly in Philly he would be a more multi-faceted player whose dynamic talents would be properly utilized. The idea that one of our best players is playing behind a lumbering molasses moving OL and mostly running inside is ludicrous.

 

One of the aspects of Spiller's game that bothers NYC Bill is that he is not a workhorse back who is going to get a lot of carries. My response to that issue is so what! If you have a player who is capable of consistently making big plays (as he has done) and do it with fewer touches then what is there to complain about. Playmakers are tough to acquire; without a doubt he is a playmaker. They should be prized not vilified.

 

For some people Spiller has become a symbol for what has plagued this misbegotten organization: ineptitude. They are wrongly targeting a productive player (whose talents are not maximized) and projecting their displeasure of the organization onto him. Although I understand their frustration I strenuously disagree with their assessment.

[Coach Tuesday]

CJ Spiller is a more talented version of Darren Sproles (my opinion). Sproles has made a major contribution playing for San Diego, N.O. and now Philadelphia because he was properly utilized. If Spiller played for Kelly in Philly he would be a more multi-faceted player whose dynamic talents would be properly utilized. The idea that one of our best players is playing behind a lumbering molasses moving OL and mostly running inside is ludicrous.

 

One of the aspects of Spiller's game that bothers NYC Bill is that he is not a workhorse back who is going to get a lot of carries. My response to that issue is so what! If you have a player who is capable of consistently making big plays (as he has done) and do it with fewer touches then what is there to complain about. Playmakers are tough to acquire; without a doubt he is a playmaker. They should be prized not vilified.

 

For some people Spiller has become a symbol for what has plagued this misbegotten organization: ineptitude. They are wrongly targeting a productive player (whose talents are not maximized) and projecting their displeasure of the organization onto him. Although I understand their frustration I strenuously disagree with their assessment.

 

Again, it's about poor strategic planning. Yes, Spiller was drafted by a prior GM and coaching staff with a different strategic vision. But the incoming GM and coaching staff did little to maximize the value of this asset. Either tailor your offense more around what you have in him, or trade him for assets that better fit your scheme and strategy. Instead, Whaley has allowed Marrone to slam Spiller into a lumbering and unathletic group of interior linemen, minimizing his skills and maximizing his exposure to serious wear and tear. Poor strategic deployment of assets that falls on both men's shoulders.

[JohnC]

Again, it's about poor strategic planning. Yes, Spiller was drafted by a prior GM and coaching staff with a different strategic vision. But the incoming GM and coaching staff did little to maximize the value of this asset. Either tailor your offense more around what you have in him, or trade him for assets that better fit your scheme and strategy. Instead, Whaley has allowed Marrone to slam Spiller into a lumbering and unathletic group of interior linemen, minimizing his skills and maximizing his exposure to serious wear and tear. Poor strategic deployment of assets that falls on both men's shoulders.

 

There is no trade value. Use him or lose him. If I were Spiller I would seek other opportunities where wisdom and common sense are more prevalent.

[C.Biscuit97]

CJ Spiller is a more talented version of Darren Sproles (my opinion). Sproles has made a major contribution playing for San Diego, N.O. and now Philadelphia because he was properly utilized. If Spiller played for Kelly in Philly he would be a more multi-faceted player whose dynamic talents would be properly utilized. The idea that one of our best players is playing behind a lumbering molasses moving OL and mostly running inside is ludicrous.

 

One of the aspects of Spiller's game that bothers NYC Bill is that he is not a workhorse back who is going to get a lot of carries. My response to that issue is so what! If you have a player who is capable of consistently making big plays (as he has done) and do it with fewer touches then what is there to complain about. Playmakers are tough to acquire; without a doubt he is a playmaker. They should be prized not vilified.

 

For some people Spiller has become a symbol for what has plagued this misbegotten organization: ineptitude. They are wrongly targeting a productive player (whose talents are not maximized) and projecting their displeasure of the organization onto him. Although I understand their frustration I strenuously disagree with their assessment.

 

Good thoughts. Also, the days of the workhorse back are dumb. You are seeing more backs like Spiller. IMO, Spiller is as talented as any rb in the league.

 

And while most rbs last 3 years, I can see him playing into his 30s if use correctly. That fact that Hackett couldn't find more creative ways to use Spiller is a huge red flag. That guy should fit any system because any system can use a threat to score on any play.

[The Frankish Reich]

I'm going to give Buddy a pass on Spiller. He's produced well overall for the 9th pick in a draft. There's no honest way to call him a bust, and if the QB situation had worked out he would be known as a Darren Sproles -- a threat that has an impact well beyond his numbers.

[JohnC]

Good thoughts. Also, the days of the workhorse back are dumb. You are seeing more backs like Spiller. IMO, Spiller is as talented as any rb in the league.

 

And while most rbs last 3 years, I can see him playing into his 30s if use correctly. That fact that Hackett couldn't find more creative ways to use Spiller is a huge red flag. That guy should fit any system because any system can use a threat to score on any play.

 

The problem with the Bills offense with respect to Spiller is structural. The OL is big, slow, can't react and adjust. That OL construction is the opposite of what suits the attributes of Spiller. One of the reasons why Hackett continues to have his backs run inside is because that is what this OL is built to do. Unless the OL is reconstitued (not this year) it would be better for Spiller to seek other opportunities.

 

It is unreasonable to expect dullards to be imaginative. My advice to Spiller would be to seek an environment where flexibility prevails over inflexibillity. Find a location where your strengths and not your weaknesses are accentuated. It's certainly not where you are currently employed!

[The Frankish Reich]

He hired a coach with a ground-and-pound, ball-control offensive philosophy who must've made clear his preference for big, lumbering offensive linemen and bunch formations. Instead of arming this coach with big athletic guards and tight ends, he stockpiled speedsters like Bryce Brown and Watkins, and traded for Mike Williams. I'm just not sure what the overall strategy is

And that's a very good question. The lumbering offensive linemen are usually the kind you want for a pass protection first offense. You'll see that this weekend with the Broncos. Adam Gase and company have had huge problems creating a consistent run game with their big/relatively unathletic offensive linemen, so much so that he's gone to playing an extra tackle and a Lee Smith type at TE to get the job done. Of course, the biggest disappointment has been the speed receivers: Graham, Goodwin, and even (supposedly) Mike Williams. I don't care who's playing QB, the numbers speak for themselves. TJ (54 catches, 683 yards in 2 years) + Goodwin (18 catches, 325 yards in 1.75 years) + Williams (8 catches, 142 yards) have been almost total busts. It speaks volumes that TJ Graham has had by far the best Bills career of the bunch. And no, I'm not going for the "Marrone/Hackett have used them incorrectly" theory -- the coaching staff may be stubborn, but I have no reason to believe they're interested in committing career suicide. If Graham/Goodwin/Williams were making progress in practice and making plays in games, they'd be getting looks and catches. Those are the wasted picks and wasted money that are haunting the Bills right now.

 

EDIT: John C., you beat me to it with the comment about the nature of the O line and Spiller!

Edited December 3, 2014 by The Frankish Reich

[C.Biscuit97]

The problem with the Bills offense with respect to Spiller is structural. The OL is big, slow, can't react and adjust. That OL construction is the opposite of what suits the attributes of Spiller. One of the reasons why Hackett continues to have his backs run inside is because that is what this OL is built to do. Unless the OL is reconstitued (not this year) it would be better for Spiller to seek other opportunities.

 

It is unreasonable to expect dullards to be imaginative. My advice to Spiller would be to seek an environment where flexibility prevails over inflexibillity. Find a location where your strengths and not your weaknesses are accentuated. It's certainly not where you are currently employed!

 

We have 3 of the 5 starting offensive linemen when Spiller had his monster season in 2012. Levitre has been a huge disappointment in Tennessee. The oline has regressed and for some reason, Urbik was benched for most of the season. That points to bad coaching.

[GunnerBill]

We have 3 of the 5 starting offensive linemen when Spiller had his monster season in 2012. Levitre has been a huge disappointment in Tennessee. The oline has regressed and for some reason, Urbik was benched for most of the season. That points to bad coaching.

 

Wrong we have 4 of the 5. That line was Glenn - Levitre - Wood - Urbik - Pears if I remember correctly?

[C.Biscuit97]

Wrong we have 4 of the 5. That line was Glenn - Levitre - Wood - Urbik - Pears if I remember correctly?

 

Damn, good catch though Pears is playing Guard now. But that is pretty damning to the coaching staff and speaks to a lot of what posters are saying. Offensive players are regressing under this staff.

[Kelly the Dog]

Wrong we have 4 of the 5. That line was Glenn - Levitre - Wood - Urbik - Pears if I remember correctly?

Yes and no. Pears was playing RT where he was adequate (with apologies to TG). As a RG he is criminally bad.

[RuntheDamnBall]

I pretty much agree with all of that.

 

 

 

Pretty accurate IMO.

 

The best way I can describe his deficiency is that he seems not to trust his technique. He drives on the ball really well, and he seems to react just fine to WRs going into/coming out of their breaks. I mean, the close and ball-play he made on Mike Wallace in the Miami Thursday game (which was erroneously called as DPI) was as good a play as I've seen a CB make. He had outside responsibility, kept a 10-yard cushion, and still was able to break on the upfield shoulder of his man to break up the play. Seems like when he reacts, he does absolutely fine. When he thinks too much he gets himself in trouble. I'm hoping that his feel for the game will continue to develop, as he really does have outstanding cover skills.

Kind of like a Winfield, part deux, no?

[C.Biscuit97]

Yes and no. Pears was playing RT where he was adequate (with apologies to TG). As a RG he is criminally bad.

 

So we keep our best G on the bench for most the season and move an OT to G where he is struggling. Good stuff.

[Kelly the Dog]

So we keep our best G on the bench for most the season and move an OT to G where he is struggling. Good stuff.

The Pears experiment has been an abject failure to this point. The Marrone theory of playing your five best players regardless of position, which doesnt seem to be shared by his contemporaries as far as I can see, has just not worked. I can't honestly say he harbors grudges against players but it seems to be possible with his treatment of a few, including Urbik, which clearly has not worked. His insistence on Lee Smith and Gragg instead of an extra WR (it's his offense, not Hackett's) is IMO a complete failure.

 

He does do good things, too, and the story of the season has yet to be written.

[thebandit27]

Kind of like a Winfield, part deux, no?

 

A bit, yes. Winfield was probably a bit more fluid as an athlete and a better tackler. Gilmore is (much) bigger and has better straight-line speed. There's no question in my mind that Gilmore is the more talented between the two...it's just a question of if his ball instincts can develop beyond where they are now. That's the one thing that makes Richard Sherman good. He's not an above-average athlete for an NFL CB; he's just got excellent ball awareness and he's very aggressive on the ball (not just on the WR, as Gilmore is when he's in press man). A big part of that is Sherman's history as a WR at Stanford, which definitely helped.

[34-78-83]

So we keep our best G on the bench for most the season and move an OT to G where he is struggling. Good stuff.

 

Urbick was on the bench because he is the only Lineman not named Wood with experience at Center. The team finally apparently decided the risk was worth it (once the young guys clearly werent advancing quick enough) and put him in at G. Not saying the timing was good or poor, just stating the reason.

[Kelly the Dog]

 

 

Urbick was on the bench because he is the only Lineman not named Wood with experience at Center. The team finally apparently decided the risk was worth it (once the young guys clearly werent advancing quick enough) and put him in at G. Not saying the timing was good or poor, just stating the reason.

That cannot be it. That would be the most stupid reason ever. You don't play your best OG because he's the only backup C? That's insane.

[34-78-83]

That cannot be it. That would be the most stupid reason ever. You don't play your best OG because he's the only backup C? That's insane.

 

Pretty sure it is ... can't be 100% certain though

Early on in the process ( the line starting to struggle after game 2 or so) this was a factor mentioned by both Marrone and Chris Brown. Then it appeared they wanted to give Richardson some time in there to see if he could develop at least to a serviceable level, and then that failed. Maybe some indecision followed that until the move was finally made. The delay may have been also affected by the fact that Urbick is not Doug's "guy"/

[Kelly the Dog]

 

 

Pretty sure it is ... can't be 100% certain though

Early on in the process ( the line starting to struggle after game 2 or so) this was a factor mentioned by both Marrone and Chris Brown. Then it appeared they wanted to give Richardson some time in there to see if he could develop at least to a serviceable level, and then that failed. Maybe some indecision followed that until the move was finally made. The delay may have been also affected by the fact that Urbick is not Doug's "guy"/

I think that is coach speak or just rationalization for Chris Brown and Marrone. Again, that cannot be the actual reason. No NFL team would do that.

 

That's like in the movie "Two For The Road" where they lost the car keys and William Daniels wouldn't use the spare set because if they lost them, they'd no longer have a spare set.

[34-78-83]

I think that is coach speak or just rationalization for Chris Brown and Marrone. Again, that cannot be the actual reason. No NFL team would do that.

 

That's like in the movie "Two For The Road" where they lost the car keys and William Daniels wouldn't use the spare set because if they lost them, they'd no longer have a spare set.

when there is no #2 option at Center and (at the time) you feel you have another player who may be on equal ground with your only back up option, I can certainly see why ANY team would do it that way. Thus the real issue is that Richardson didnt develop on the fly the way they had hoped. Center can be argued to be the 2nd most crucial position on an offense, with the line calls and adjustments involved and such. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this. JMO

[Kelly the Dog]

Then you put a backup center on the practice squad. And call him up if woods is hurt for more than a partial game. You don't sacrifice half of your season with pitiful OG play knowing full well you have a better OG on the bench just in case your C gets hurt. That is really crazy. Just my opinion, too. But I don't think anyone does that, sits a better player at an important position that is killing your run and pass game just because you worry about your third center.

[34-78-83]

Then you put a backup center on the practice squad. And call him up if woods is hurt for more than a partial game. You don't sacrifice half of your season with pitiful OG play knowing full well you have a better OG on the bench just in case your C gets hurt. That is really crazy. Just my opinion, too. But I don't think anyone does that, sits a better player at an important position that is killing your run and pass game just because you worry about your third center.

I would agree but my point in there (maybe I wasn't clear enough) is that they didn't know at the time that Urbick was better.... And they liked what they were seeing from the new kid in practice and gave him a shot.... thinking he was on the same level as Urbick. Then that didn't pan out.

[Kelly the Dog]

 

I would agree but my point in there (maybe I wasn't clear enough) is that they didn't know at the time that Urbick was better.... And they liked what they were seeing from the new kid in practice and gave him a shot.... thinking he was on the same level as Urbick. Then that didn't pan out.

Got ya. I gave them the benefit of the doubt because obviously we don't see the practices. I heard Morris and Marrone talking about Richardson and saying that they had to completely teach him how to play OG in the pros because the Baylor offense was so different from what they wanted him to do, and that he was progressing nicely (although they said the same thing about Cujo) and you can't totally believe anything they say as far as what they really think about players.

 

I also used to think it was a stretch to believe that Marrone is a stubborn grudge keeper. But now I believe it's very possible. I think he showed it with MWilliams. I think he showed it with Urbik. I think he showed his stubbornness with Tuel. I think he is doing it with Lee Smith.

[A Dog Named Kelso]

 

I never understood your continuous hostile fixation on Spiller. For you he has become a symbol for the ineptitude of this befuddled organization. If you want to get upset at a draft selection you should be more outraged with the Torrell Troup selection in the second round of that draft. He was an undersized nose tackle who had a history of back problems. When he played for us he like he was an undersized nose tackle with a history of back problems. That should irritate you much more than the productive Spiller.

 

 

I think the hostility comes from the fact that really the team was flush with RB talent. That pick could have been used for another position of value. That along with the switch to the 3-4 was a set up for failure(could have used the first round pick on a defensive player suited to the new scheme). Spiller has talent and in a vacuum the pick is a good choice; however, one needs to look at the selection and consider all the factors involved with the decision of that pick.

 

Again, it's about poor strategic planning. Yes, Spiller was drafted by a prior GM and coaching staff with a different strategic vision. But the incoming GM and coaching staff did little to maximize the value of this asset. Either tailor your offense more around what you have in him, or trade him for assets that better fit your scheme and strategy. Instead, Whaley has allowed Marrone to slam Spiller into a lumbering and unathletic group of interior linemen, minimizing his skills and maximizing his exposure to serious wear and tear. Poor strategic deployment of assets that falls on both men's shoulders.

 

I totally agree with this. The problem for this team is the constant changing of schemes and continually finding and releasing personnel to fits new schemes. I understand the need for an overall vision to ones team but one of the reason, I believe, for so much failure of HCs in the NFL is this bring my scheme with me instead of maximizing talent and working schemes already in play when they take over.

 

The Pears experiment has been an abject failure to this point. The Marrone theory of playing your five best players regardless of position, which doesnt seem to be shared by his contemporaries as far as I can see, has just not worked. I can't honestly say he harbors grudges against players but it seems to be possible with his treatment of a few, including Urbik, which clearly has not worked. His insistence on Lee Smith and Gragg instead of an extra WR (it's his offense, not Hackett's) is IMO a complete failure.

 

He does do good things, too, and the story of the season has yet to be written.

I believe this probably is a college idea that works against less talent defenses. But in the Pros this is a silly idea. Again, there current asset is Spiller as a feature back who works better from screens and linemen movement which this line can not do. This is an example of throwing out something that was working well under the previous coaching staff to implement your "vision". A good HC should incorporate what was working from the before and fix what was broken. Then over time can work on incorporating their "vision". Unfortunately, more often, then not they throw out everything and start from scratch.

 

Then you put a backup center on the practice squad. And call him up if woods is hurt for more than a partial game. You don't sacrifice half of your season with pitiful OG play knowing full well you have a better OG on the bench just in case your C gets hurt. That is really crazy. Just my opinion, too. But I don't think anyone does that, sits a better player at an important position that is killing your run and pass game just because you worry about your third center.

Also, the likely hood they get injured in the same game is remote. If Wood goes down you move Urbik in .... if Urbik goes down you then and these other players as a stop gap. They woud need to look for another back up center either way.

[Dibs]

That cannot be it. That would be the most stupid reason ever. You don't play your best OG because he's the only backup C? That's insane.

 

And it is directly opposed to Marrone's stated beliefs that you put your best 5 guys on the field(also said he doesn't believe that line continuity was that important.....or at least not as important as having the best 5 on the field).

 

My guess would be that Urbik simply doesn't look as good as the other OGs(or their potential)......particularly in practice/camp. In essence, perhaps Urbik plays better than he technically looks.

[GunnerBill]

I believe, for so much failure of HCs in the NFL is this bring my scheme with me instead of maximizing talent and working schemes already in play when they take over.

 

And the success of good coaches is not doing this. It is interesting that neither Pettine nor Schwartz arrived in Buffalo and said "my scheme - screw the talent". Pettine arrived with a reputation as a "3-4 guy" and yet we had 4 down linemen on the majority of snaps last year. Schwartz arrived with a reputation as a guy who plays the wide 9 and lots of zone coverage and actually this last game against Cleveland was the first time I've really seen us do a lot of those things consistently in our defensive game plan. They have been there in other games but they have not been the staple of the defense.

 

They are bright coaches they came in, saw the talent the Bills had, and adjusted their schemes to fit. That, for me, is coaching. Saying "this is my concept, these are the core principles of my scheme now how can I acheive success with these given the talent I have available and how can I tailor the scheme to suit my talent."

Edited December 4, 2014 by GunnerBill

[Kelly the Dog]

 

 

And the success of good coaches is not doing this. It is interesting that neither Pettine nor Schwartz arrived in Buffalo and said "my scheme - screw the talent". Pettine arrived with a reputation as a "3-4 guy" and yet we had 4 down linemen on the majority of snaps last year. Schwartz arrived with a reputation as a guy who plays the wide 9 and lots of zone coverage and actually this last game against Cleveland was the first time I've really seen us do a lot of those things consistently in our defensive game plan. They have been there in other games but they have not been the staple of the defense.

 

They are bright coaches they came in, saw the talent the Bills had, and adjusted their schemes to fit. That, for me, is coaching. Saying "this is my concept, these are the core principles of my scheme now how can I acheive success with these given the talent I have available and how can I tailor the scheme to suit my talent."

Good post. And another reason why Marrone and Hackett are not doing so well.

[A Dog Named Kelso]

Good post. And another reason why Marrone and Hackett are not doing so well.

Agreed ... They have not maximized the talent on this team. In fact, the opposite, They hide or removed individuals that have had success to implement "Their scheme". We can argue over Fitz and whether we believe he was good enough or not, but there is no denying he was able to get the ball into the end zone more. We can also argue if Stevie was a number one receiver or not, but he was able to accumulate yards. You can argue whether Urbik is a quality guard or not but he see clearly superior to what was there during the first 8 weeks. With that you can argue wether Gailey's line play was really good or if Fitz made it look good, but regardless it had more success than what is instituted now. And there is certainly talent that has be shown by Mike Williams while in Tampa ... so what has happened there?

 

If you go with the assumption that Gailey's scheme's for Offense and O-Line play were average to above average and that the Defensive was a serious problem why come in and change the average to above average because it does not fit your scheme? Even the a casual fan could see the issue with the team under Gailey was the defense so, why not try and keep all the offensive pieces in place until that was fixed and slowly, after the Freshmen coach has had success implement gradual changes?

 

Obviously some of this is on the GM but in a collaborative environment, which they claim to have, it is on the coach to tell the GM what he needs to do that have success early on.

[truth on hold]

Funny stuff on Watkins. He's definetly not 100 percent.

 

Agree on Spiller, Bryce Brown is trash.

so much for the injury excuse

 

"Watkins also dismissed that he's any more banged up than any other NFL player this time of year.

 

"Later in the year, defenders read your body language, how you come off the ball," Watkins said. "There's some things I got to switch up. That comes with just changing your game up. If you do the same thing for nine or 10 weeks, people can figure out how you do things."

 

http://www.nfl.com/n...ugh-rookie-wall

Edited December 4, 2014 by JTSP