Bills offer DC job to Bates!

[Buftex]

 

As for bates not being unemployed long, consider that the DC position are almost all filled, and sitting out a year will not get you better money next year, unless he gets an HC job. I haven't heard of him being offered jobs by other clubs yet. I think he will take the position, then spring board to an HC opening next year.

584536[/snapback]

 

 

There are more jobs available than the ESPN article indicated. You have the Jets, Raiders, Texans and Bills. I have heard that the Texans were interested in him...

[MadBuffaloDisease]

There are more jobs available than the ESPN article indicated.  You have the Jets, Raiders, Texans and Bills.  I have heard that the Texans were interested in him...

The Raiders have a DC who just signed an extension. And the Texans will be using 2 coaches to be their DC, which is odd, but whatever. I thought the Jets needed one as well, but you'd think Clayton would know.

[BADOLBILZ]

   

 

You think there is something that can be done on OBD that won't get a bunch of negative posts?????

584171[/snapback]

 

Actually, give Bills fans proven quality and they fall all over themselves to praise it. If the Bills were ever able to hire a guy like Parcells or another top coach, there would be a parade. This junk about Bills fans being too negative and criticizing every move is directly related to the Bills making one bad decision after another.

 

The truth is, Levy/Jauron/Fairchild are not exceptional hires. They should be viewed skeptically. Gregg Williams and Mularkey came in and a lot of bluster was made by management about how good these guys were under the surface, and they proved to be exactly as they actually were ON the surface......inexperienced and overmatched. On the surface, Levy is inexperienced and very old for a GM, Jauron is a proven loser and Fairchild is inexperienced and DARE I SAY.....likely overmatched against Belichick and Saban's defenses? Forgive us for being realistic.

 

This ain't the NFC Norris, you can't march Dick Jauron in here and expect him to beat the best. And no, Dick Jauron is not the next Bill Belichick. Belichick got a second chance because he was an absolutely DOMINANT defensive coordinator. Dick Jauron is just a guy who was an unsuccessful HC before and was a decent coordinator/assistant. If he's the next Marv Levy, he'll just get his asss handed to him because he won't have Kelly/Bruce/Thurman and co. and he won't be coaching against Rich Kotite, Ron Meyer, Dick McPherson or Bruce Coslett.

[Kultarr]

Actually, give Bills fans proven quality and they fall all over themselves to praise it.  If the Bills were ever able to hire a guy like Parcells or another top coach, there would be a parade.  This junk about Bills fans being too negative and criticizing every move is directly related to the Bills making one bad decision after another. 

 

The truth is, Levy/Jauron/Fairchild are not exceptional hires.  They should be viewed skeptically.  Gregg Williams and Mularkey came in and a lot of bluster was made by management about how good these guys were under the surface, and they proved to be exactly as they actually were ON the surface......inexperienced and overmatched.  On the surface, Levy is inexperienced and very old for a GM,  Jauron is a proven loser and Fairchild is inexperienced and DARE I SAY.....likely overmatched against Belichick and Saban's defenses?  Forgive us for being realistic.

 

  This ain't the NFC Norris, you can't march Dick Jauron in here and expect him to beat the best.  And no, Dick Jauron is not the next Bill Belichick.  Belichick got a second chance because he was an absolutely DOMINANT defensive coordinator.  Dick Jauron is just a guy who was an unsuccessful HC before and was a decent coordinator/assistant.  If he's the next Marv Levy, he'll just get his asss handed to him because he won't have Kelly/Bruce/Thurman and co. and he won't be coaching against Rich Kotite, Ron Meyer, Dick McPherson or Bruce Coslett.

584957[/snapback]

 

Not to take the sails out of his wind or anything.

[Frez]

We need more TALENT on both sides of the ball!

[Wiz]

Actually, give Bills fans proven quality and they fall all over themselves to praise it.  If the Bills were ever able to hire a guy like Parcells or another top coach, there would be a parade.  This junk about Bills fans being too negative and criticizing every move is directly related to the Bills making one bad decision after another. 

 

The truth is, Levy/Jauron/Fairchild are not exceptional hires.  They should be viewed skeptically.  Gregg Williams and Mularkey came in and a lot of bluster was made by management about how good these guys were under the surface, and they proved to be exactly as they actually were ON the surface......inexperienced and overmatched.  On the surface, Levy is inexperienced and very old for a GM,  Jauron is a proven loser and Fairchild is inexperienced and DARE I SAY.....likely overmatched against Belichick and Saban's defenses?  Forgive us for being realistic.

 

  This ain't the NFC Norris, you can't march Dick Jauron in here and expect him to beat the best.  And no, Dick Jauron is not the next Bill Belichick.  Belichick got a second chance because he was an absolutely DOMINANT defensive coordinator.  Dick Jauron is just a guy who was an unsuccessful HC before and was a decent coordinator/assistant.  If he's the next Marv Levy, he'll just get his asss handed to him because he won't have Kelly/Bruce/Thurman and co. and he won't be coaching against Rich Kotite, Ron Meyer, Dick McPherson or Bruce Coslett.

584957[/snapback]

 

Extremely well put. Although the negativity wears on you after a while, I would prefer to listen to realists than cheerleaders putting an artificially happy face on what appear to be lousy moves.

[BADOLBILZ]

We need more TALENT on both sides of the ball! 

584961[/snapback]

 

Actually, the more talent we get the more outraged we will be when Belichick beats us with 6th round CB's and guys cut by other teams. With few exceptions, the playoffs are about the best coaches beating the best coaches.

[SDS]

Actually, the more talent we get the more outraged we will be when Belichick beats us with 6th round CB's and guys cut by other teams.  With few exceptions, the playoffs are about the best coaches beating the best coaches.

584980[/snapback]

 

BB is going to upgrade his corners from just using WR's to fill in? Crap!

[Bear]

Actually, give Bills fans proven quality and they fall all over themselves to praise it.  If the Bills were ever able to hire a guy like Parcells or another top coach, there would be a parade.  This junk about Bills fans being too negative and criticizing every move is directly related to the Bills making one bad decision after another. 

 

The truth is, Levy/Jauron/Fairchild are not exceptional hires.  They should be viewed skeptically.  Gregg Williams and Mularkey came in and a lot of bluster was made by management about how good these guys were under the surface, and they proved to be exactly as they actually were ON the surface......inexperienced and overmatched.  On the surface, Levy is inexperienced and very old for a GM,  Jauron is a proven loser and Fairchild is inexperienced and DARE I SAY.....likely overmatched against Belichick and Saban's defenses?  Forgive us for being realistic.

 

  This ain't the NFC Norris, you can't march Dick Jauron in here and expect him to beat the best.  And no, Dick Jauron is not the next Bill Belichick.  Belichick got a second chance because he was an absolutely DOMINANT defensive coordinator.  Dick Jauron is just a guy who was an unsuccessful HC before and was a decent coordinator/assistant.  If he's the next Marv Levy, he'll just get his asss handed to him because he won't have Kelly/Bruce/Thurman and co. and he won't be coaching against Rich Kotite, Ron Meyer, Dick McPherson or Bruce Coslett.

584957[/snapback]

 

My point wasn't so much that everyone would critize everything that happens, but there are ALWAYS people who will critize, no matter what is done. If Parcells was hired, there would be a handful of people who would be shouting about the new found Belichick stat.

 

As for what you say about Jauron, I agree that fans have every right to be skeptical of the hire, but the way people are acting right now is insane. The biggest problem I have is that everyone seems to be comparing him the the "Great Sherman of Green Bay", but I just don't see what all the excitement was about with him. Yes, his record was better, but it is very hard to honestly compare the two situations that they were in.

And while other teams weren't clamoring to get to Jauron, there was no line for Sherman either.

 

Unlike most here, I do not think we "settled" for Jauron. I truly do believe that he was hired because Marv/Ralph believe he can get the job done. Now whether he can or not is truly up in the air, but I just can't stand the comparisons to Sherman.

 

And looking around the league, there were no "great" hires this off-season. The coaches simply were not out there. Really, the only HC hiring this season that I think is better than ours is Kubiak in Houston, and that is nothing more than my opinion.

 

I don't have a problem with people being "realistic", so no forgiveness needed.

[nero47]

That is exactly the point.  Ralph is interviewing guys like Capers, Caldwell, April, and Jauron....any coincidence that all have no real track record of success, to base their salary demands on?  Martz (not interviewed) and Sherman (interviewed, but not hired) would have fit the criteria of HC's with experience, some success, and would likely command a much higher salary than Jauron. 

 

Believe me, Jauron, of all the guys interviewed, would have been my choice too.  If it were up to me, though (and I know it is not), I might have interviewed 6 completely different candidates....

 

If Ralph really was willing to pay coaches the market value for  established coaches, he wouldn't be hiring guys like Gregg Williams, Mike Mularkey, or Dick Jauron.  That is not even a slap at those three guys, just a fact.  Instead of hiring Williams, he could have at least made an attempt to bring in a Parcells, or even a friggin' Joe Gibbs.  Sure, they were retired at the time, but Washington and Dallas were able to make an offer big enough, they couldn't refuse. 

 

Ralph doesn't work like that. I am sure that he doesn't have as much money as Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder, but to pretrend that money has not played a factor in deciding who will coach in Buffalo, or not, is pretty naive.  I am sure it is not so much that Ralph is cheap, but he is not going to pay top dollar, because he is not likely to make back as much as he would like, with the Bills current set up, in Buffalo.  It is likely a sound business decision. 

 

In business, the object isn't only to make a profit, you set a percentage of how much profit you want to make, anything less, is a waste of your efforts.  Every business that goes out of business, does not do so, because they are not making any money.  They go out of business, because they are not making enough money....

584919[/snapback]

Joe Gibbs would not have gone back to coach anyone but the skins, and Parcells can no longer be re.lied upon to stay long enough to get the super bowl win.

 

As for others to interview, I can't think of anyone else with a proven track recordin the NFL that was available.

 

Most of the other HC's hired were previously assistant's and guys like sherman, haslett, and others were not hired by those teams either. I don't believe it was all about the money.

 

Yes, businesses are set up to make a profit, to get the most bang for the buck, but I have watched many teams throw their money around like drunken sailors and reached the holy grail, like Miami, Jets, Redskins, etc. Money doesn't always bring the desired results, whther spent on coaches or players.

[SDS]

Actually, give Bills fans proven quality and they fall all over themselves to praise it.  If the Bills were ever able to hire a guy like Parcells or another top coach, there would be a parade.  This junk about Bills fans being too negative and criticizing every move is directly related to the Bills making one bad decision after another. 

 

The truth is, Levy/Jauron/Fairchild are not exceptional hires.  They should be viewed skeptically.  Gregg Williams and Mularkey came in and a lot of bluster was made by management about how good these guys were under the surface, and they proved to be exactly as they actually were ON the surface......inexperienced and overmatched.  On the surface, Levy is inexperienced and very old for a GM,  Jauron is a proven loser and Fairchild is inexperienced and DARE I SAY.....likely overmatched against Belichick and Saban's defenses?  Forgive us for being realistic.

 

  This ain't the NFC Norris, you can't march Dick Jauron in here and expect him to beat the best.  And no, Dick Jauron is not the next Bill Belichick.  Belichick got a second chance because he was an absolutely DOMINANT defensive coordinator.  Dick Jauron is just a guy who was an unsuccessful HC before and was a decent coordinator/assistant.  If he's the next Marv Levy, he'll just get his asss handed to him because he won't have Kelly/Bruce/Thurman and co. and he won't be coaching against Rich Kotite, Ron Meyer, Dick McPherson or Bruce Coslett.

584957[/snapback]

 

Damn! That is exactly what I would have said if I kew what I was talking about! (and wasn't such a smart ass).

[nero47]

Extremely well put.  Although the negativity wears on you after a while, I would prefer to listen to realists than cheerleaders putting an artificially happy face on what appear to be lousy moves.

584970[/snapback]

Lousy moves will present themselves, if they are, next summer and fall.

 

I believe that all the moves since MM left are going along well. Although not enamored by the coaches at this point, I believe we are beginning to see an organization form. Ralph and Marv are putting together a management team, allowing the decision makers to be where they need to be to make decisions. This is ML's way, delegate - let scouts do the scouting, let financial people worry about the cap, and let the coach decide on his coaching philosophy and get the coaches and players he needs and wants to execute that philosophy.

 

And they didn't even ask our permission.

[BADOLBILZ]

Extremely well put.  Although the negativity wears on you after a while, I would prefer to listen to realists than cheerleaders putting an artificially happy face on what appear to be lousy moves.

584970[/snapback]

 

There is a bright side. I feel confident I can upgrade my season tickets now. Seriously. The team will be drafting high a lot in the near future and that will hopefully set up the next head coach for success. In hiring a bad head coach and putting him in a well coached division, it will be easier for management to cut him loose rather than having a guy who wins just enough to save his job. Hopefully, in three years or so, a great head coach will be available and the Bills will get him. Until then, we can hope for a miracle and when that fails we can focus on the draft and at least vent our frustration here. Basically, it's more of the same except without the false hope.

[BADOLBILZ]

  I truly do believe that he was hired because Marv/Ralph believe he can get the job done.

585014[/snapback]

 

So do I.

[Bear]

So do I.

585041[/snapback]

Yeah, well....at least we have the same reaction to that part of it.

[AKC]

On the surface, Levy is inexperienced and very old for a GM,  Jauron is a proven loser and Fairchild is inexperienced and DARE I SAY.....likely overmatched against Belichick and Saban's defenses?  Forgive us for being realistic.

 

584957[/snapback]

 

Since I haven't landed on a hard position regarding where we are, I'd be interested in having you entertain a slightly different position:

 

 

Outside of Saban's 64 and 65 AFL campaigns Marv Levy has overseen all of our most successful seasons. He's stayed associated with the game and made no secret of his continued fondness for the game. He isn't taking the job of HC that requires 90 hours of work every week all year long, plus he's a proven delegator.

 

Could his very good record with the Bills and continued focus on the NFL offer us any hope that he may still understand the game at a fundamental level better than generally assumed and that this could lead to the coaching staff he's assembled being much better as a unit than the sum of its individual parts suggests?

[BADOLBILZ]

I believe that all the moves since MM left are going along well. Although not enamored by the coaches at this point, I believe we are beginning to see an organization form.

585029[/snapback]

 

The coaches are important. I agree that not being enamored with them isn't important. If the reason is that they appear likely to not do a good job, that is important. I feel that way, so I don't think things are going along well. I guess the question has to be why aren't you enamored with the coaches? Is it the Count Chocula thing?

[nero47]

The coaches are important.  I agree that not being enamored with them isn't important.  If the reason is that they appear likely to not do a good job, that is important.  I feel that way, so I don't think things are going along well.  I guess the question has to be why aren't you enamored with the coaches?  Is it the Count Chocula thing? 

585070[/snapback]

Primarily because I haven't enough of the OC or know who the DC will be.

 

However, it doesn't appear that Jauron is trying to bring in his buddies from the Chicago days. This could be good.

[Orton's Arm]

Could his very good record with the Bills and continued focus on the NFL offer us any hope that he may still understand the game at a fundamental level better than generally assumed and that this could lead to the coaching staff he's assembled being much better as a unit than the sum of its individual parts suggests?

585046[/snapback]

You make an eloquent case for Marv. But even a coach like Barry Switzer can win games when the talent's there. Sure, Marv was a steadying force in the locker room, and he probably helped keep the team focused. But other than the Marchibroda hire, none of his assistants did anything innovative on offense. Other than Wade Phillips (who failed as a head coach elsewhere before Marv brought him here) none of his defensive coordinators did anything.

 

In other words, his track record of identifying coaching talent--brilliant X's and O's guys--is mixed at best. I didn't feel the Bills won all those games because they did the best job with Xs and Os. Clearly they didn't. They won because Polian selected the best athletes, and he kept those athletes together so they could develop continuity.

[BADOLBILZ]

Since I haven't landed on a hard position regarding where we are, I'd be interested in having you entertain a slightly different position:

Outside of Saban's 64 and 65 AFL campaigns Marv Levy has overseen all of our most successful seasons. He's stayed associated with the game and made no secret of his continued fondness for the game. He isn't taking the job of HC that requires 90 hours of work every week all year long, plus he's a proven delegator.

 

Could his very good record with the Bills and continued focus on the NFL offer us any hope that he may still understand the game at a fundamental level better than generally assumed and that this could lead to the coaching staff he's assembled being much better as a unit than the sum of its individual parts suggests?

585046[/snapback]

 

That's hope speaking. We don't know if that will work, and there is no indication that that type of approach will work in a league dominated by super coaches, and now super staffs. Marv has strengths, but so did Donahoe. It's not like he didn't have a ton going for him. But if you can't hire a good HC nowadays you are going to end up looking like an idiot. My suspicion is that in the interview process the candidates become more humanized and it makes certain GM's overlook their shortcomings and rationalize how they could succeed instead of demanding excellence.

[apuszczalowski]

Why is it when someone says something positive or optimistic they are considered being a cheerleader and dreaming, But when they say something negative they are being realistic.

 

PEOPLE THIS IS A NEW COACHING STAFF. WE HAVEN'T EVEN HIT FREE AGANCY AND THE TEAM IS ALREADY WRITTEN OFF AS LOSERS

 

We can't beat bellichik cause he is so great. Saban is the second coming in Miami, and manginni is going to be great cause he worked for BB. If you think BB is SUCH A GREAT COACH, go join a pats board and continue to pray to him there. Maybe we have the next Belichik, who knows. It seems no one wants to find out cause he does not have a career winning record coaching the bears and lions

[timmyk12]

Why is it when someone says something positive or optimistic they are considered being a cheerleader and dreaming, But when they say something negative they are being realistic.

 

PEOPLE THIS IS A NEW COACHING STAFF. WE HAVEN'T EVEN HIT FREE AGANCY AND THE TEAM IS ALREADY WRITTEN OFF AS LOSERS

 

We can't beat bellichik cause he is so great. Saban is the second coming in Miami, and manginni is going to be great cause he worked for BB. If you think BB is SUCH A GREAT COACH, go join a pats board and continue to pray to him there. Maybe we have the next Belichik, who knows. It seems no one wants to find out cause he does not have a career winning record coaching the bears and lions

585120[/snapback]

 

If the Jets were so great why did Fairchild pick the Bills over them anyway?

[dry martini]

If the Jets were so great why did Fairchild pick the Bills over them anyway?

585136[/snapback]

 

 

"Don't be surprised" if Ralph offered him tons more money.

[apuszczalowski]

If the Jets were so great why did Fairchild pick the Bills over them anyway?

585136[/snapback]

 

What does my post have to do with Fairchild coming to the bills overthe jets

[Dan Gross]

The coaches are important.  I agree that not being enamored with them isn't important.  If the reason is that they appear likely to not do a good job, that is important.  I feel that way, so I don't think things are going along well.  I guess the question has to be why aren't you enamored with the coaches?  Is it the Count Chocula thing? 

585070[/snapback]

 

Give it up. Coaches generally are available either because:

1. They were fired from a previous job, which generally means they are a "proven loser" (your words).

2. They are coordinators/college head coaches with no NFL head coaching experience.

 

If a coach is coaching well, teams generally try to keep them (duh).

 

There are rare exceptions, like a "proven winner" who quits/retires is lured out of retirement. Those guys will never end up in Buffalo, because while you can argue back and forth whether Ralph will pay more than minimum wage for a coach, he's not going to pay the top buck. Regardless, these "proven winner" types are drawn to more glamorous jobs/locations. Retired coaches like to coach near where they retired to, which is usually the south. They pick where they want to go based on how it suits them, generally regardless of money.

 

Regardless, just like there are no guarantees that a "proven loser" will win here, there are no guarantees that a "proven winner" will win here either. Even the highly touted Parcells has won 1 playoff game in his last 6 years coaching, and his teams have been up-and-down. Shall I even bring up Jimmy Johnson? There has yet to be a coach who has won a Super Bowl with two different teams, but yet there have been winners of Super Bowls who fit into the two categories above. Now Holmgren may change that next weekend, but if he had come here and done the same things he had done in Seattle, he wouldn't have lasted three years before the "general populace" here would have been calling for his head as well...

 

There's no magic formula. For every Kotite, there's a Belichick. For every "Parcells," there's a Bobby Ross. There are "good" coaches that lose and "bad" coaches that win in certain situations. You look at the current situation and see no reason to believe they will succeed. I look and also see no reason to believe they will fail. I won't go so far as to beg for your patience while we wait for the team to actually play against another team, but can't we at least see what the 2006 Buffalo Bills team will be comprised of (or at least where we'll start from) before you decide that it's automatic that we'll be no better than 3-13 for the next three years?

[nero47]

Give it up.  Coaches generally are available either because:

1. They were fired from a previous job, which generally means they are a "proven loser" (your words).

2. They are coordinators/college head coaches with no NFL head coaching experience.

 

If a coach is coaching well, teams generally try to keep them (duh).

 

There are rare exceptions, like a "proven winner" who quits/retires is lured out of retirement.  Those guys will never end up in Buffalo, because while you can argue back and forth whether Ralph will pay more than minimum wage for a coach, he's not going to pay the top buck.  Regardless, these "proven winner" types are drawn to more glamorous jobs/locations.  Retired coaches like to coach near where they retired to, which is usually the south.  They pick where they want to go based on how it suits them, generally regardless of money.

 

Regardless, just like there are no guarantees that a "proven loser" will win here, there are no guarantees that a "proven winner" will win here either.  Even the highly touted Parcells has won 1 playoff game in his last 6 years coaching, and his teams have been up-and-down.  Shall I even bring up Jimmy Johnson?  There has yet to be a coach who has won a Super Bowl with two different teams, but yet there have been winners of Super Bowls who fit into the two categories above.  Now Holmgren may change that next weekend, but if he had come here and done the same things he had done in Seattle, he wouldn't have lasted three years before the "general populace" here would have been calling for his head as well...

 

There's no magic formula.  For every Kotite, there's a Belichick.  For every "Parcells," there's a Bobby Ross.  There are "good" coaches that lose and "bad" coaches that win in certain situations.  You look at the current situation and see no reason to believe they will succeed.  I look and also see no reason to believe they will fail.  I won't go so far as to beg for your patience while we wait for the team to actually play against another team, but can't we at least see what the 2006 Buffalo Bills team will be comprised of (or at least where we'll start from) before you decide that it's automatic that we'll be no better than 3-13 for the next three years?

585189[/snapback]

Ditto's

[Buftex]

Joe Gibbs would not have gone back to coach anyone but the skins, and Parcells can no longer be re.lied upon to stay long enough to get the super bowl win.

 

As for others to interview, I can't think of anyone else with a proven track recordin the NFL that was available.

 

Most of the other HC's hired were previously assistant's and guys like sherman, haslett, and others were not hired by those teams either. I don't believe it was all about the money.

 

Yes, businesses are set up to make a profit, to get the most bang for the buck, but I have watched many teams throw their money around like drunken sailors and reached the holy grail, like Miami, Jets, Redskins, etc. Money doesn't always bring the desired results, whther spent on coaches or players.

585022[/snapback]

 

 

Oh, I know that Gibbs or Parcells would have never come to Buffalo, my point was, the Bills don't even try to get big, high profile guys, because (dare I say it, and offend all of the "realists") Ralph would just never pay them enough.

 

Chuck Knox (and Lou Saban part 2) was Ralphs' one HC hire that had a winning track record coming in. In 46 years, the Bills have had 14 head coaches. Only one had a successful reputation coming in. The rest were unsuccessful retreads, and unproven assistants. When Knox took the Bills to consecutive playoff appearences in 1980 and 1981, and wanted to be compensated, he was shown the door...

 

Another guy that might have been had, in the last 5 years, was Mike Holmgren. He has been on shaky ground in Seattle for about 3 or 4 years, and I just heard him this week, saying that he likely would have left Seattle, or the game altogether, if the right situation had come along...

 

Again, I am not as pissed about the Jauron hire as most, and I hardly think his record in Chicago precludes him from having success in Buffalo. I like the Fairchild hiring. I am fairly certain we will have a first time DC, when the dust settles. I just can't believe that there are those who can't see that Ralphs' reluctance to pay coaches the going rate, is affecting who our coaches will be.

 

The truth, as they say, is out there~!

[alg]

Indeed buftex, the history is there for all to read...

 

[BADOLBILZ]

I look and also see no reason to believe they will fail.  I won't go so far as to beg for your patience while we wait for the team to actually play against another team, but can't we at least see what the 2006 Buffalo Bills team will be comprised of (or at least where we'll start from) before you decide that it's automatic that we'll be no better than 3-13 for the next three years?

585189[/snapback]

 

You are such a trooper, but the best coached teams do most of the winning in the NFL today. All other factors are just too equal. Dick Jauron could succeed, my point is that we have been repeatedly sold a line of BS that guys like Williams and Mularkey were better than they appeared on the surface, and they were exactly what they appeared to be. They were what they were and that's the norm in the history of Bills hirings. Marv was the ONLY exception, but he was coaching in a different era, when talent ruled and teams could win for long periods of time with the same nucleus of star players.

 

There are never any guarantees, but Ralph's idea of re-energizing the franchise is usually hiring someone who was moderately succesfful to unsuccessful and expecting a miracle, instead of picking a brilliant young coach, a great college head coach or a proven winner at HC. Let's not forget, Williams and Mularkey were luke warm candidates at best, and Williams only really escaped Jeff Fisher's shadow when he went to Washington. You can act like good candidates don't come up, but Ken Whisenhunt is there, Kirk Ferenz is there and Martz, Sherman, Dan Reeves were right there too. They could fail too, but they are much more promising based on track record. It's common sense, and for some reason Ralph can't get his head around that.

[Dan Gross]

You can act like good candidates don't come up, but Ken Whisenhunt is there,

 

Yeah, those Pittsburgh OC's make great coaches... Besides, you'd like them to wait until after the super bowl to get the assistants?

 

Kirk Ferenz is there

Could be a Nick Saban, could be a Steve Spurrier, or Pete Carroll,

 

and Martz, Sherman,

Both took Super Bowl teams and rode them for all they were worth, then tanked them. Doesn't show "as much" with Martz, but 4 of his games every year were against the Niners and Cards, and Seattle's been hot/cold as well. Outside of the Super Bowl appearance with Vermeil's team, the only playoff game he won was against a divisional foe...Heck, even Williams out-coached him. Neither of these guys have proven that they can take a losing team and make winners out of them. In fact, they've only proven that they can't even maintain a winning team...Don't know how that's a "proven winner." Heck, in that list of candidates you forgot to mention Bill Callahan...he took a team to a Super Bowl under the same circumstances as the above two, doesn't that make him a "proven winner?"

 

Dan Reeves were right there too.

With his last team he had one great season and a bunch of mediocre-at-best seasons. Sounds like our current coach...besides, other "smarter" teams had a chance at him as well, why did the Texans take a "newbie" over a proven winner like him?

 

They could fail too, but they are much more promising based on track record.  It's common sense, and for some reason Ralph can't get his head around that.

586258[/snapback]

 

Belichick's "track record" was as a great coordinator who couldn't handle being a head coach. Cowher was a reasonable, but not particularly outstanding defensive coordinator. The Eagles were lambasted for hiring Andy Reid when there were other candidates with a "winning track record" available. Face it, it's a crapshoot.

[Kultarr]

You are such a trooper, but the best coached teams do most of the winning in the NFL today.  All other factors are just too equal.  Dick Jauron could succeed, my point is that we have been repeatedly sold a line of BS that guys like Williams and Mularkey were better than they appeared on the surface, and they were exactly what they appeared to be.  They were what they were and that's the norm in the history of Bills hirings.  Marv was the ONLY exception, but he was coaching in a different era, when talent ruled and teams could win for long periods of time with the same nucleus of star players.

 

      There are never any guarantees, but Ralph's idea of re-energizing the franchise is usually hiring someone who was moderately succesfful to unsuccessful and expecting a miracle, instead of picking a brilliant young coach, a great college head coach or a proven winner at HC.  Let's not forget, Williams and Mularkey were luke warm candidates at best, and Williams only really escaped Jeff Fisher's shadow when he went to Washington.  You can act like good candidates don't come up, but Ken Whisenhunt is there, Kirk Ferenz is there and Martz, Sherman, Dan Reeves were right there too.  They could fail too, but they are much more promising based on track record.  It's common sense, and for some reason Ralph can't get his head around that.

586258[/snapback]

 

I'll never understand how anyone could pass over Charlie Weis for Mike Mularkey.

[jahnyc]

I agree. I think C. Weiss would have been a difference maker and could have had great success with the Bills. I recall reading recently that the reason Weiss was not hired may have been related to his health. I think I read it on ESPN.

[Kultarr]

I agree.  I think C. Weiss would have been a difference maker and could have had great success with the Bills.  I recall reading recently that the reason Weiss was not hired may have been related to his health.  I think I read it on ESPN.

586596[/snapback]

 

If you look at Charlie Weis's career, he has always been a difference maker. He's like a coaching Midas.

 

Donahoe said around the time he hired Mularkey that he went with someone he didn't know well the first time, so the second time he wanted to go with someone more familiar. Familiarity won over coaching greatness. Brilliant.

[PromoTheRobot]

I'll never understand how anyone could pass over Charlie Weis for Mike Mularkey.     

586588[/snapback]

You forget the circumstances of MM's hiring. The Pats were still in preparations for the Super Bowl. Meanwhile most of the other coaching candidates were getting hired.

 

It was a huge gamble for TD to wait for Weis and Crennell. If they did, then Weis and Crennel had TD over a barrell. There were no other legitimate HC candidates if Weis/Crennell wanted to play hard ball. Also, consider the favor they would be doing for Belichick if the DELIBERATELY toyed with the Bills and then said "never mind!"

 

That is the problem for coordinators on Super Bowl teams. Hiring season goes on while they are still prepping for the big game. The "Oh-why-didn't-we-hire-Weis" lament is not that simple.

 

PTR

[Kultarr]

You forget the circumstances of MM's hiring.  The Pats were still in preparations for the Super Bowl.  Meanwhile most of the other coaching candidates were getting hired. 

 

It was a huge gamble for TD to wait for Weis and Crennell.  If they did, then Weis and Crennel had TD over a barrell.  There were no other legitimate HC candidates if Weis/Crennell wanted to play hard ball.  Also, consider the favor they would be doing for Belichick if the DELIBERATELY toyed with the Bills and then said "never mind!"

 

That is the problem for coordinators on Super Bowl teams.  Hiring season goes on while they are still prepping for the big game.  The "Oh-why-didn't-we-hire-Weis" lament is not that simple.

 

PTR

586626[/snapback]

 

Still, were we really going to "miss out" on Mularkey? Who else was hot to trot for him? TD had gone the distance before and still managed to landed Triple-G. And, frankly, to land Weis, it would've been worth it to give up a draft pick or two.

[Dan Gross]

Still, were we really going to "miss out" on Mularkey?  Who else was hot to trot for him?  TD had gone the distance before and still managed to landed Triple-G.  And, frankly, to land Weis, it would've been worth it to give up a draft pick or two.

586639[/snapback]

 

It's not just the head coach though, it's also the assistants. The ranks generally get thin the longer you wait....I really think that's a large part of what happened with Williams' first coaching staff. Though the people he picked were on the top of the "currently available" list, there's no knowing how many names happened to be above the chosen coaches in Greggo's "ideal" situation that had already been hired while the Bills waited to talk to Marvin Lewis....

[Lori]

It's not just the head coach though, it's also the assistants.  The ranks generally get thin the longer you wait....I really think that's a large part of what happened with Williams' first coaching staff.  Though the people he picked were on the top of the "currently available" list, there's no knowing how many names happened to be above the chosen coaches in Greggo's "ideal" situation that had already been hired while the Bills waited to talk to Marvin Lewis....

586728[/snapback]

Valid point.

 

And while I never joined the tar-and-feathers brigade chasing after Mularkey, I'm not real fond of him right now -- that "I'm coming back... umm, maybe not" routine he pulled cost the Bills a week's worth of interviews.

[Kultarr]

It's not just the head coach though, it's also the assistants.  The ranks generally get thin the longer you wait....I really think that's a large part of what happened with Williams' first coaching staff.  Though the people he picked were on the top of the "currently available" list, there's no knowing how many names happened to be above the chosen coaches in Greggo's "ideal" situation that had already been hired while the Bills waited to talk to Marvin Lewis....

586728[/snapback]

 

Mostly agree, but it isn't completely impossible to start putting the staff in place before the head coach officially signs. Also, my personal druthers, I wouldn't mind going 1 year with, say, a suboptimal (or green) OC or RB coach, if I had the peace of mind that I had one of the top 5 head coaches out there locked up. In other words, I'd rather start at the top and have a great head coach first and then fill in the staff (including replacing people not up to the challenge) later, than the other way around. If the head coach is bumbling his way around, it's quite likely that the staff is going to look bad too. (Actually, that applies not only to football.)

[Dan Gross]

Valid point.

 

And while I never joined the tar-and-feathers brigade chasing after Mularkey, I'm not real fond of him right now -- that "I'm coming back... umm, maybe not" routine he pulled cost the Bills a week's worth of interviews.

586736[/snapback]

 

I would think he wasn' alone in the blame game. Feels more to me like Ralph refused to "let him quit" (effectively refused to talk settlement). Could be too that he couldn't get anyone to answer his own calls as he hunted for candidates to replace the assistants that were already gone. It was clear that Mularkey was kept, but on a short leash. Who wants to sign up for that kind of insecurity? Who also knows what kinds of threats, etc. his family felt after it was announced that he was staying...

 

I really don't think it was as simple as Mularkey "dragging things out."