eball Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Linky An excerpt: "Jauron emerged as the favorite Wednesday, according to people in and outside the organization familiar with the Bills' interview process." Now that's a funny statement. What exactly does familiarity with the interview process have to do with anything? Do the Bills always select the person interviewed on a Tuesday? Yet another reporter trying desperately to "scoop" the story. Leo says Jauron is in the lead, but later on he adds the following: "[sherman] may be open to accepting a reduced role with the Bills, given that he is not a candidate for any of the three other coaching openings, in Houston, Oakland or St. Louis." <Sigh> This article tells me nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 While I would prefer Sherman I will not go into meltdown mode like many, if Jauron is selected. I'm just a silly fan and cannot see beyond the W-L record to know if Sherman is actually the better fit for this team or not. Jauron had garbage offensive rosters in Chicago. He won with Defense that one magical year, while having Jim Miller at QB and Anthony Thomas at RB. Those are 2nd, 3rd stringers to most coaches. I know Jauron knows Defense and would tighten that up pretty fast. His selection of a OC would be key. For instance, if Sam Wyche agrees to sit upstairs and call the plays... then I'm fine with it. If the OL issues are addressed, then Jauron may have just as good a shot at winning as Sherman would. I keep an open mind and know I have limited information to the actual abilities of any coaching candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 I agree, Mark. What's frustrating is the back-and-forth by reporters trying to say "the Bills are leaning THIS way" or "the Bills are leaning THAT way" first. It's a ridiculous profession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick in* england Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I agree, Mark. What's frustrating is the back-and-forth by reporters trying to say "the Bills are leaning THIS way" or "the Bills are leaning THAT way" first. It's a ridiculous profession. 573751[/snapback] They are just fans like you and I - the difference being they get paid to give out their opinion... Trust me they know way less than they let on - that much you can probably gather... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duey Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Linky<Sigh> This article tells me nothing. 573739[/snapback] I thought the same thing. His article is no different then half the posts on this board...just a bunch of guessing based on the minimal information available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I'm a little surprised we got to these two candidates so quickly. I'm not all that impressed with either, but I think Sherman is the safer bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I just did a quick head count of NFL coaches and imho the majority of sucessful head coaches come from the defensive side of the ball. i think that is interesting. having said that, i still think i prefer Sherman over Jauron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I thought the same thing. His article is no different then half the posts on this board...just a bunch of guessing based on the minimal information available. 573785[/snapback] Plus an attention grabbing headline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duey Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Plus an attention grabbing headline. 573795[/snapback] Yep. Dope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 I just did a quick head count of NFL coaches and imho the majority of sucessful head coaches come from the defensive side of the ball. i think that is interesting. having said that, i still think i prefer Sherman over Jauron. 573790[/snapback] In the AFC, more HCs come from the defensive side of the ball, period. Last season, there were only 5 of 16 HCs with offensive backgrounds. Of those 5, only 2 had success recently (Vermeil and Shanahan), for a 40% rate. Of the 11 HCs with a defensive background, however, the "recent success" rate is 8-3, or 73%. One could also argue that 2 of the 3 "question marks" will be successes (Crennel certainly has an upside, and Fisher has experienced success in the past). I define "recent success" as a playoff berth in 2004 or 2005. Successes: ------------ Belechick -- D Cowher -- D Lewis -- D Dungy -- D Del Rio -- D Shanahan -- O Schottenheimer -- D Vermeil -- O Saban -- D Edwards -- D Failures/Question Marks: --------------------------- Mularkey -- O Fisher -- D Crennel -- D Turner -- O Capers -- D Billick -- O (he DID win a SB, but certainly not because of the offense) In the NFC, a different picture emerges. 7 of the 9 offensive HCs (78%) have enjoyed recent success. However, 5 of 7 defensive HCs (71%) were also successful. Successes: ------------ Reid -- O Holmgren -- O Coughlin -- D Gibbs -- O Parcells -- D Tice -- O Smith -- D Gruden -- O Mora -- D Fox -- D Martz -- O Sherman -- O Failures/Question Marks: --------------------------- Green -- O Nolan -- D Mariucci -- O Haslett -- D Overall, 18 of the 32 HCs last season were defensive oriented, and have a recent success rate of 72%. The 14 offensive oriented HCs have a success rate of 64%. Does this mean anything? The AFC has recently been the dominant conference, and it is heavily defense-oriented. Should Jauron therefore be the pick? Anyway, I found your point interesting so I took a few minutes to compile this info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 In the AFC, more HCs come from the defensive side of the ball, period. Last season, there were only 5 of 16 HCs with offensive backgrounds. Of those 5, only 2 had success recently (Vermeil and Shanahan), for a 40% rate. Of the 11 HCs with a defensive background, however, the "recent success" rate is 8-3, or 73%. One could also argue that 2 of the 3 "question marks" will be successes (Crennel certainly has an upside, and Fisher has experienced success in the past). I define "recent success" as a playoff berth in 2004 or 2005. Successes: ------------ Belechick -- D Cowher -- D Lewis -- D Dungy -- D Del Rio -- D Shanahan -- O Schottenheimer -- D Vermeil -- O Saban -- D Edwards -- D Failures/Question Marks: --------------------------- Mularkey -- O Fisher -- D Crennel -- D Turner -- O Capers -- D Billick -- O (he DID win a SB, but certainly not because of the offense) In the NFC, a different picture emerges. 7 of the 9 offensive HCs (78%) have enjoyed recent success. However, 5 of 7 defensive HCs (71%) were also successful. Successes: ------------ Reid -- O Holmgren -- O Coughlin -- D Gibbs -- O Parcells -- D Tice -- O Smith -- D Gruden -- O Mora -- D Fox -- D Martz -- O Sherman -- O Failures/Question Marks: --------------------------- Green -- O Nolan -- D Mariucci -- O Haslett -- D Overall, 18 of the 32 HCs last season were defensive oriented, and have a recent success rate of 72%. The 14 offensive oriented HCs have a success rate of 64%. Does this mean anything? The AFC has recently been the dominant conference, and it is heavily defense-oriented. Should Jauron therefore be the pick? Anyway, I found your point interesting so I took a few minutes to compile this info. 573818[/snapback] your post was a lot more interesting than mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2003Contenders Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Not to say there is anything in Leo's article that is really news -- but I'm not nearly as put off by the article as many of you are. Maybe, just maybe RW and Marv themselves haven't reached a decision yet about who they will hire. And even if they do already know which coach they will hire, it is prudent for them to at least keep that information to themselves until they have concluded all of the interviews so as not to present the subsequent interviews, including the mandated minority one, as a charade. Right? Leo, who has covered the Bills for many years now, is pretty much just making an educated guess that he thinks that they'll ultimately lean toward Jauron because his salary demands are likley less than Sherman's, he has a prior "relationship" with Marv, and is less likely than Sherman to demand full control of the team. While this conjecture is not really any more insightful than anything we write on here, at least I think he carries more weight than the guys at ESPN. And the truth is, until it leaks out that a decision has been made, what's he supposed to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Of course, everyone that gets the D&C paper has access to the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRT88 Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Linky An excerpt: "Jauron emerged as the favorite Wednesday, according to people in and outside the organization familiar with the Bills' interview process." Now that's a funny statement. What exactly does familiarity with the interview process have to do with anything? Do the Bills always select the person interviewed on a Tuesday? Yet another reporter trying desperately to "scoop" the story. Leo says Jauron is in the lead, but later on he adds the following: "[sherman] may be open to accepting a reduced role with the Bills, given that he is not a candidate for any of the three other coaching openings, in Houston, Oakland or St. Louis." <Sigh> This article tells me nothing. 573739[/snapback] patients, the answer will be revealed in the next few days. these clowns do not know any more than we do, and they couldn't determine if water was wet without help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachChuckDickerson Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 ["Jauron emerged as the favorite Wednesday, according to people in and outside the organization familiar with the Bills' interview process." Now that's a funny statement. What exactly does familiarity with the interview process have to do with anything? Do the Bills always select the person interviewed on a Tuesday? Considering that Ralph is now President again and Marv is the new GM, how are people within the organization "familiar" with how the interview processes work as it is all new? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerstm Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 In the AFC, more HCs come from the defensive side of the ball, period. Last season, there were only 5 of 16 HCs with offensive backgrounds. Of those 5, only 2 had success recently (Vermeil and Shanahan), for a 40% rate. Of the 11 HCs with a defensive background, however, the "recent success" rate is 8-3, or 73%. One could also argue that 2 of the 3 "question marks" will be successes (Crennel certainly has an upside, and Fisher has experienced success in the past). I define "recent success" as a playoff berth in 2004 or 2005. Successes: ------------ Belechick -- D Cowher -- D Lewis -- D Dungy -- D Del Rio -- D Shanahan -- O Schottenheimer -- D Vermeil -- O Saban -- D Edwards -- D Failures/Question Marks: --------------------------- Mularkey -- O Fisher -- D Crennel -- D Turner -- O Capers -- D Billick -- O (he DID win a SB, but certainly not because of the offense) In the NFC, a different picture emerges. 7 of the 9 offensive HCs (78%) have enjoyed recent success. However, 5 of 7 defensive HCs (71%) were also successful. Successes: ------------ Reid -- O Holmgren -- O Coughlin -- D Gibbs -- O Parcells -- D Tice -- O Smith -- D Gruden -- O Mora -- D Fox -- D Martz -- O Sherman -- O Failures/Question Marks: --------------------------- Green -- O Nolan -- D Mariucci -- O Haslett -- D Overall, 18 of the 32 HCs last season were defensive oriented, and have a recent success rate of 72%. The 14 offensive oriented HCs have a success rate of 64%. Does this mean anything? The AFC has recently been the dominant conference, and it is heavily defense-oriented. Should Jauron therefore be the pick? Anyway, I found your point interesting so I took a few minutes to compile this info. 573818[/snapback] wow.. nice math... nice point... would u coach the Bills? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I think here's why some of us may seem frustrated with the Jauron talk. 1) He had mediocre succes in Chicago (one luck-infused 13-3 season) 2) What the heck did he do with the Lions? 3) What the heck did he do with the Lions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I think here's why some of us may seem frustrated with the Jauron talk. 1) He had mediocre succes in Chicago (one luck-infused 13-3 season) 2) What the heck did he do with the Lions? 3) What the heck did he do with the Lions? 574259[/snapback] What the heck has ANYONE done with the Lions since Millen took over as GM? (And for a long time before that, come to think of it...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 In the AFC, more HCs come from the defensive side of the ball, period. Last season, there were only 5 of 16 HCs with offensive backgrounds. Of those 5, only 2 had success recently (Vermeil and Shanahan), for a 40% rate. Of the 11 HCs with a defensive background, however, the "recent success" rate is 8-3, or 73%. One could also argue that 2 of the 3 "question marks" will be successes (Crennel certainly has an upside, and Fisher has experienced success in the past). I define "recent success" as a playoff berth in 2004 or 2005. Successes: ------------ Belechick -- D Cowher -- D Lewis -- D Dungy -- D Del Rio -- D Shanahan -- O Schottenheimer -- D Vermeil -- O Saban -- D Edwards -- D Failures/Question Marks: --------------------------- Mularkey -- O Fisher -- D Crennel -- D Turner -- O Capers -- D Billick -- O (he DID win a SB, but certainly not because of the offense) In the NFC, a different picture emerges. 7 of the 9 offensive HCs (78%) have enjoyed recent success. However, 5 of 7 defensive HCs (71%) were also successful. Successes: ------------ Reid -- O Holmgren -- O Coughlin -- D Gibbs -- O Parcells -- D Tice -- O Smith -- D Gruden -- O Mora -- D Fox -- D Martz -- O Sherman -- O Failures/Question Marks: --------------------------- Green -- O Nolan -- D Mariucci -- O Haslett -- D Overall, 18 of the 32 HCs last season were defensive oriented, and have a recent success rate of 72%. The 14 offensive oriented HCs have a success rate of 64%. Does this mean anything? The AFC has recently been the dominant conference, and it is heavily defense-oriented. Should Jauron therefore be the pick? Anyway, I found your point interesting so I took a few minutes to compile this info. 573818[/snapback] does vermeil really come from the offensive side of the ball?? he's been a head coach and head coach only going back over 30 years to his ucla days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts