Ex Syracuse assistant coach rips Marrone.

[JohnC]

People say this all the time but it's the NFL. Guys always play hard because they are competing for jobs and if you go half speed in football, you will get injuried. But I agree with your thoughts and it's why I never thought Marrone was anything special this year. You could sub almost any coach into this team and we would have the same record.

For me playing hard is not simply playing full throttle. It is also includes playing smart and playing with discipline. You can be an all out player who doesn't fulfill his responsibilities such as maintaining gaps and being suckered in to lose your assignment responsibility. A safety who doesn't know his assignments can be a major liability. An outside LB who gets suckered in to the inside when he should be maintaining an outside position containing the run is vulnerable to big running plays.

 

My point is Doug Marrone usually got his players prepared enough to compete at a high level. The major problem he had to contend with were roster limitations, mostly on the offensive side of the ball.

 

I think that the both of us believe that Marrone did a solid job. He has received a lot of unwarranted (my opinion) criticism for being overly conservative on offense. That cautiousness on offense is more attributable to deficencies in talent rather than a willingness to stretch the boundaries.

[Buftex]

Marrone couldn't even make Kotites OL coach.

 

I like it...though I went with a slightly more contemporary comparison...he thinks he's Bill Parcells, and he isn't even Tony Sparano!

[C.Biscuit97]

For me playing hard is not simply playing full throttle. It is also includes playing smart and playing with discipline. You can be an all out player who doesn't fulfill his responsibilities such as maintaining gaps and being suckered in to lose your assignment responsibility. A safety who doesn't know his assignments can be a major liability. An outside LB who gets suckered in to the inside when he should be maintaining an outside position containing the run is vulnerable to big running plays.

 

My point is Doug Marrone usually got his players prepared enough to compete at a high level. The major problem he had to contend with were roster limitations, mostly on the offensive side of the ball.

 

I think that the both of us believe that Marrone did a solid job. He has received a lot of unwarranted (my opinion) criticism for being overly conservative on offense. That cautiousness on offense is more attributable to deficencies in talent rather than a willingness to stretch the boundaries.

I think Dick Jauron's played hard for him too. IMO, Marrone's best strength was hiring DCs. He did a great job with that.

 

But IMO, good coaches elevate talent. Too many offensive players regressed - Glenn, Wood, Spiller, Pears, Johnson.

 

Marrone helped this team out big time by leaving.

[JohnC]

might one argue that his lack of innovation and offensive development might be part of why we were stuck relying on an immobile journeyman?]

 

or that strategic decisions such as gameplanning when to go run heavy vs pass heavy, and the type of scheming might have won us 1-2 more games? its not like our losses werent close. that its possible he mightve made some decisions along the way with personnel that couldve been handled better (urbik). Im not saying a different coach gets every decision right and every bounce goes his way, but i dont think its a stretch to say that marrone wasnt a "+1" coach like some others might have been.

 

as far as head coaches go, i generally agree with your sentiments about him. hes middle of the pack, and he faced some big challenges.

No I will not accept your argument that his lack of creativity on offense caused him to rely on an immobile journeyman. You have it backwards. He had no other choice but to rely on a very deficient journeyman qb because that is what he had to work with. He made the right decision to replace EJ because he simply was not ready to play. The mere fact that he preferred to rely on an inadequate veteran qb who at least knew how to play compared to the young qb who simply was too overwhelmed when he played.

 

Considering that Marrone had major talent limitations on offense he was prudent in taking a very conservative approach towards the offense. What is the point of stretching the boundaries of the offense when the qb and OL were barely capable of executing basic plays. The bottom line is that the issue of strategy was not this team's major problem; its talent level was the primary source of its failures.

 

Whaley's most important task this offseason is not finding a good replacement for Marrone. His major challenge is to find an adequate qb and to upgrade the OL so whoever replaces the departed cantankerous HC has a fair chance to succeed.

[plenzmd1]

 

 

My point is Doug Marrone usually got his players prepared enough to compete at a high level. The major problem he had to contend with were roster limitations, mostly on the offensive side of the ball.

 

I think that the both of us believe that Marrone did a solid job. He has received a lot of unwarranted (my opinion) criticism for being overly conservative on offense. That cautiousness on offense is more attributable to deficencies in talent rather than a willingness to stretch the boundaries.

John, i understand your point, just do not agree with it.

 

In my world, if you have limitations on offense, all the more reason to be aggressive and understand that every possession, especially one in positive or close to positive territory is precious. I think he coached liked he had an elite offense that could score with regularity. I believe it goes to more than 4th, but also 3rd down plays etc.

 

I will give him credit for the series in the Cleveland game where he ran on 3rd knowing he would go for it on 4th. It worked. I believe had he approached more situations where he trusted his D, instead of focusing on field position, this team could have been in a better position at the end of the year.

[C.Biscuit97]

John, i understand your point, just do not agree with it.

 

In my world, if you have limitations on offense, all the more reason to be aggressive and understand that every possession, especially one in positive or close to positive territory is precious. I think he coached liked he had an elite offense that could score with regularity. I believe it goes to more than 4th, but also 3rd down plays etc.

 

I will give him credit for the series in the Cleveland game where he ran on 3rd knowing he would go for it on 4th. It worked. I believe had he approached more situations where he trusted his D, instead of focusing on field position, this team could have been in a better position at the end of the year.

Given how they call pass inference, you should just throw the ball down the field once a quarter.

[JohnC]

I think Dick Jauron's played hard for him too. IMO, Marrone's best strength was hiring DCs. He did a great job with that.

 

But IMO, good coaches elevate talent. Too many offensive players regressed - Glenn, Wood, Spiller, Pears, Johnson.

 

Marrone helped this team out big time by leaving.

No coach is going to succeed with the caliber of qbing this team had playing behind a very mediocre line. Regardless who the HC was this past season the fundamental problem was lack of talent on offense (QB &OL) and not the caliber of coaching.

 

I like you am not fretting over Marrone's departure. He is a very replaceable commodity. It is better that he left sooner rather than later because it was apparent that he was not on the same page as the GM and front office.

[BuffOrange]

FWIW this strikes me as 100% sour grapes. I lived in the Syracuse area and have some insight into this. Casullo has had previous stints as an assistant coach at Syracuse without her head coaches and is typically been let go. He was simply a barely competent wherever he has been. Marrone fire him because he was bad at his job. In my opinion Casullo has embarrassed himself with this report. He says nothing at all about Marrone. While at Syracuse there were no issues whatsoever regarding his alleged self-centeredness, etc. In my opinion this is basically all crap. Why do you think Casullo hasn't been able to get a coaching job since? All of his other assistant coaches sang his praises. For him it was just a matter of putting together the best coaching staff he could to win games.

This stuff has gotten way out of hand. Take it with a grain of salt would be my suggestion .

 

Reasonable enough take but people always complain about anonymous sources & this guy is sour grapes so who do you want quoted on record, Belichick?

Not really a big deal on its own but just more smoke signaling fire.

[JohnC]

John, i understand your point, just do not agree with it.

 

In my world, if you have limitations on offense, all the more reason to be aggressive and understand that every possession, especially one in positive or close to positive territory is precious. I think he coached liked he had an elite offense that could score with regularity. I believe it goes to more than 4th, but also 3rd down plays etc.

 

I will give him credit for the series in the Cleveland game where he ran on 3rd knowing he would go for it on 4th. It worked. I believe had he approached more situations where he trusted his D, instead of focusing on field position, this team could have been in a better position at the end of the year.

I respectfully but strenuously disagree with your position.

 

Due to talent limitations on offense how do you aggressively call plays in which your qb and OL can't execute? Marrone was smart enough to rely on our defense and special teams to win games. The Green Bay game was an example of that approach. What is the percenatage of success of calling a play for Orton that he physically can't make? What is the percentage of success of calling for a slow developing creative play when the OL can't protect?

 

Marrone was smart enough to realize how good his defense was and how bad his offense was. In my opinion the conservative offensive approach was the right approach to take. There was simply no other way to take in order to have a chance to win.

[PromoTheRobot]

Anyone just catch NFL Insiders on ESPN just now? Marrone an early topic. Played the comments by Casullo ripping him (and calling Russ Brandon an idiot for giving him the opt out clause.) Adam Caplan and Phil Savage laughed the comments off as coming from a disgruntled former employee and reaffirmed their belief Marrone is still a hot coaching prospect. though they admit the bad press is hurting him. Caplan insisted the Jets interview went "very well." Well, but no offer.

 

That Casullo fellow did sound a lot like Coach Dickerson.

Edited January 6, 2015 by PromoTheRobot

[NoSaint]

No I will not accept your argument that his lack of creativity on offense caused him to rely on an immobile journeyman. succeed.

i guess my point was, if you drop EJ into the lap of a guy thats better at nurturing a young qb, do you really think he couldnt have played as well as orton? its not a terribly high bar to reach, and despite the disaster of no QB coach, no offensive vision, no signs of being able to develop a qb he was pretty close to ortons performance.

[plenzmd1]

I respectfully but strenuously disagree with your position.

 

Due to talent limitations on offense how do you aggressively call plays in which your qb and OL can't execute? Marrone was smart enough to rely on our defense and special teams to win games. The Green Bay game was an example of that approach. What is the percenatage of success of calling a play for Orton that he physically can't make? What is the percentage of success of calling for a slow developing creative play when the OL can't protect?

 

Marrone was smart enough to realize how good his defense was and how bad his offense was. In my opinion the conservative offensive approach was the right approach to take. There was simply no other way to take in order to have a chance to win.

To me aggressive does not mean only throwing the ball downfield. Misdirection plays, creative plays like end arounds and WR screens, using tempo, using your one true speed receiving threat who was taking the top of the D when in the game to free the underneath stuff... more calls on 3rd to set up 4th down plays...and yes the occasional throw down the field.

 

Aggressive does not only mean 30 yrd throws. I know the 4th downs will get pointed to, and they bother me as well, but not the only thing in terms of "being aggresive". This offense, with its limitations, needed to extend drives and hold the ball, not play to give it back to the other team as often as it did.

 

I would point to he Green Bay as an example of why being so conservative on offense hurt. Get two picks, seven drops by Green Bay, punt return for a TD...and still one play away from losing when your D dominated the game. Percentages say you lose the majority of games when they play that way on offense..

Edited January 6, 2015 by plenzmd1

[TPS]

The one thing he knows well is how to interview. He helped Petrine get the browns gig too.

[JohnC]

To me aggressive does not mean only throwing the ball downfield. Misdirection plays, creative plays like end arounds and WR screens, using tempo, using your one true speed receiving threat who was taking the top of the D when in the game to free the underneath stuff... more calls on 3rd to set up 4th down plays...and yes the occasional throw down the field.

 

Aggressive does not only mean 30 yrd throws. I know the 4th downs will get pointed to, and they bother me as well, but not the only thing in terms of "being aggresive". This offense, with its limitations, needed to extend drives and hold the ball, not play to give it back to the other team as often as it did.

 

I would point to he Green Bay as an example of why being so conservative on offense hurt. Get two picks, seven drops by Green Bay, punt return for a TD...and still one play away from losing when your D dominated the game. Percentages say you lose the majority of games when they play that way on offense..

If you have an offensive line that can't move and block the most creative and well designed play will not work. The Bills didn't extend series by making first downs and moving the chains because the OL was overwhelmed and the qb was so immobile that he was stuck in the mud. In the Green Bay game the offense was usually in a three and out situation because it was embarrassingly inept.

 

My point is simple: It doesn't matter what plays were called if your OL and qb can't execute them. Garbage is garbage. It's about the talent level and not the strategy.

[Ted William's frozen head]

Tipster, at least as one poster noted, I have argued my support of Marrone and the coaching job he did elsewhere on the board. I'll just say this. The Bills were 9-7 which was the best record they had in 10 years. Marrone gets the lion's share of the credit for this. That's how it works for a head coach for better or for worse. He did not under accomplish by any means whatsoever. Go ahead, you get the last word.

The defense, and the defensive staff deserve the credit. We won 9 games in spite of Marrone.

[JohnC]

i guess my point was, if you drop EJ into the lap of a guy thats better at nurturing a young qb, do you really think he couldnt have played as well as orton? its not a terribly high bar to reach, and despite the disaster of no QB coach, no offensive vision, no signs of being able to develop a qb he was pretty close to ortons performance.

Marrone was not into nurturing qbs. His focus was on winning in the present. As bad as Orton played Marrone still believed that he gave the team a better chance to win this season[/b[. He was right. You have to remember that EJ did start for I believe 4 games. After watching him play and reviewing the tapes he pulled the plug. The bottom line is that DM was not willing to sabotage a season for a qb he didn't believe in. There is no doubt that Orton was horrible. The HC still believed that he gave the team the best chance to succeed. What does that say about the HC's assessment of the young qb's prospects?

[3rdand12]

You seem to be definitive here about EJ. Ej lost the team during the Houston game and had to be pulled before he got killed or got Woods or Watkins killed.

That wasnt the O lines fault.

Marrone sabotaged the team, we just did not see it yet. He was very stealthy about it from a fans viewpoint . But its becoming more obvious now that his motivations were not as we had hoped.

and thats a shame.

[BuffaloBill]

What I find interesting is that, to my knowledge, no one has come out and defended him or said that he was a good guy. It seems that it has all been negative. I am beginning to believe that this was a blessing in disguise for us.

Welcome to the board. I absolutely agree.