4merper4mer Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Was it really a committment to win when he benched Urbik when he is clearly our best G? Don't you understand? That is a question of competency and Mrs. Marrone may or may not agree. The rest is personal stuff that has no bearing on this discussion. Whether Marrone is a jerk or a saint is irrelevant. Umm....re-check the title of the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Don't you understand? That is a question of competency and Mrs. Marrone may or may not agree. Umm....re-check the title of the thread. Exactly my point. Whether you think Marrone was trying to pad his resume, or just do his job, not playing Urbik over Richardson was a bad move. Unless coaches pad their resumes by losing? "How long has Marrone planned on leaving." We've digressed from that a little bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 It was likely in the back of his head, but Orton retiring likely sealed the deal. Directly texting Pegula tips this off. We all know now he was dead set against EJ being his QB. With Orton gone, he would've been forced to play EJ next year. This probably explains the preseason blow up between Whaley and Marrone. Marrone probably want to make Orton his starter and Whaley disagreed. Probably also explains why Marrone made the unilateral decision to bench EJ during the season. It's impossible to imagine that was the argument they had in earshot of the players. Think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I think some people are missing the point. The point is this: in retrospect, Marrone knew he had the risk-free opt out as soon as the Pegula deal was finalized, and even a few weeks before that when it became evident a sale was going to happen during the season. Every decision he made since that time has to be viewed through the lens of "Was this for the good of the franchise, or was this for the good of Doug?" And its through that lens that we have to question certain decisions, including any conflicts between the Dougs over the use of certain players, etc. Example: Orton was announced as the new starter on September 29. What else was happening then? - on September 9, news broke that the Pegulas had submitted a whopping 1.4 billion dollar bid - on September 17, the NFL owners committee approved that bid - on October 8, the Pegulas purchase was finalized At the time Marrone made the move to Orton, there was a wide divergence of opinion (just read the old threads). Were they giving up on the future for a chance to make the playoffs this year, even though actually winning anything in the playoffs (if they made it) would be very unlikely? I supported the move since I thought EJ was showing no improvement. But in retrospect, if Marrone had been intending to honor his Bills contract, he might have thought sticking with Manuel would be the wise move for the long run. If he was planning to opt out (or at least considering it, knowing that option was now open), the incentive structure changed. After all, this is usually why you give coaches and GMs more than a one-year deal -- you want them to try to build for continued success, not a one-year shot at a winning record. So to me that's the point. Would he have made the move to Orton if he'd planned to coach the Bills in 2015 and 2016? (Remember, he had a 4-year deal.) We don't know, and he'll never say. Is the franchise better off that it went 9-7 this year in Orton's swan song, or would it be better off had Manuel been given 12 more games of experience? Way too soon to tell. (Note that I ascribe the starting Orton over EJ in Game 16 more to Orton's secrecy about his impending retirement than to Doug's secret plan. If Orton had announced his retirement after the Oakland debacle, which he should have, then it would have been obvious that EJ gets the full week of prep and the start.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realtruelove Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I think some people are missing the point. The point is this: in retrospect, Marrone knew he had the risk-free opt out as soon as the Pegula deal was finalized, and even a few weeks before that when it became evident a sale was going to happen during the season. Every decision he made since that time has to be viewed through the lens of "Was this for the good of the franchise, or was this for the good of Doug?" And its through that lens that we have to question certain decisions, including any conflicts between the Dougs over the use of certain players, etc. Example: Orton was announced as the new starter on September 29. What else was happening then? - on September 9, news broke that the Pegulas had submitted a whopping 1.4 billion dollar bid - on September 17, the NFL owners committee approved that bid - on October 8, the Pegulas purchase was finalized At the time Marrone made the move to Orton, there was a wide divergence of opinion (just read the old threads). Were they giving up on the future for a chance to make the playoffs this year, even though actually winning anything in the playoffs (if they made it) would be very unlikely? I supported the move since I thought EJ was showing no improvement. But in retrospect, if Marrone had been intending to honor his Bills contract, he might have thought sticking with Manuel would be the wise move for the long run. If he was planning to opt out (or at least considering it, knowing that option was now open), the incentive structure changed. After all, this is usually why you give coaches and GMs more than a one-year deal -- you want them to try to build for continued success, not a one-year shot at a winning record. So to me that's the point. Would he have made the move to Orton if he'd planned to coach the Bills in 2015 and 2016? (Remember, he had a 4-year deal.) We don't know, and he'll never say. Is the franchise better off that it went 9-7 this year in Orton's swan song, or would it be better off had Manuel been given 12 more games of experience? Way too soon to tell. (Note that I ascribe the starting Orton over EJ in Game 16 more to Orton's secrecy about his impending retirement than to Doug's secret plan. If Orton had announced his retirement after the Oakland debacle, which he should have, then it would have been obvious that EJ gets the full week of prep and the start.) Excellent point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts