Best Case Scenario

[K-9]

I'm having trouble finding that bit of information. How about providing a source for our edification?

 

Me, too. But in my post above yours I included a proof source for the contrary.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[RI Bills Fan]

And, Bill Parcells had a team with Ray Lucas and Rick Mirer as the starting QBs and still did not have a losing season.

 

What year was this? I don't remember Rick Mirer ever Starting for the Jests.

[Lori]

Looking behind the numbers...

Jauron's starting QBs by year:

1999: Miller 3, Matthews 7, and McNown 6

-Erik Kramer, the best QB the Bears have had since Jim McMahon, was released before training camp. McNown held out for most of camp, making Matthews was the opening-day starter; Bears were 3-2 when a hamstring injury put him out for the next two games. He re-aggravated the injury in his next start and was inactive for four more games. McNown took over, but obviously wasn't ready. Miller came in and played well for a couple of weeks, but missed the last four games due to suspension, leaving the team in the hands of the rookie and the journeyman with a bad leg.

 

2000: Miller 2, Matthews 5, and McNown 9

-Miller, the probable starter, was injured in preseason, so McNown won the job by default. Jauron stayed with the kid that Mark Hatley traded half of his 1999 draft to get through a 1-7 start. McNown separated his shoulder in the ninth game, making Miller the starter until he shredded his Achilles in a game at the Ralph. Matthews went the rest of the way.

 

2001: Matthews 3, and Miller 13

-Miller was still coming back from the Achilles injury, so Matthews began the season as the starter. Bruised ribs knocked him out of the lineup in week 3, and Miller reclaimed the job. He separated his shoulder in the playoff loss.

 

2002: Burris 1, Chandler 7, and Miller 8

-Miller started the first five weeks before leaving with tendinitis in his elbow. Chris Chandelier came in and started a couple of games before sustaining yet another concussion. Still battling shoulder and elbow issues, Miller started three of the next four before a knee injury ended his season.

 

2003: Grossman 3, Chandler 6, Stewart 7

-Stewart started the first six games, and the Bears were rewarded with a 1-5 record and a new quarterback. The official word was that Kordell had a thigh injury, but most observers considered the move a benching. Chandler lasted six games before the inevitable injury (shoulder); Stewart came back in and resumed sucking, so they gave the rookie some playing time.

 

2006: Losman 16

-Losman took every snap from center.

 

2007: Edwards 9, Losman 7

Losman: sprained MCL in week 3, out for four weeks. Edwards: sprained wrist in week 8, also out for four weeks, although he might have been ready to come back before then.

If anything, he's almost too loyal to the guy who's starting that week. Another coach wouldn't have given either McNown or Stewart half the season, and he apparently thought he owed Losman a chance to retake the job after Edwards' injury. And if Jim Miller had managed to stay healthy, those numbers above -- and the Bears' W-L records for those seasons -- would look a lot different.

[Adam]

It's amazing how reading this thread people become so defensive about Jauron. (no pun intended) I don't understand the allegiance to a HC who's made it into the playoffs once in 7 full seasons and promptly lost his only post-season game, despite being a #1 seed.

With all the bad jobs in the league, I think Gary Kubiak is the only genius- he didn't take one until the right job opened. Ask Wade Phillips, Greg Williams and Mike Mularkey what their opinion is on the Buffalo job

[Lurker]

With all the bad jobs in the league, I think Gary Kubiak is the only genius- he didn't take one until the right job opened. Ask Wade Phillips, Greg Williams and Mike Mularkey what their opinion is on the Buffalo job

There's something to be said for that...waiting for the perfect job. But in the cold, cruel world of the NFL, unless you're a golden child candidate like Kubiak, it's almost impossible to not take the job that's available, rather than hold out for the ideal one. There are only 5-6 openings a year, after all. The same principal applies to lower round draft picks and UDFA's (how many shots do you really get?)

 

Inevitably, it's why so many coaches wash out: bad teams are hard to fix, especially if the player personnel department's not top notch, as they typically are in those situations. Intangibles, like the QB injury carousel in CHI, or Brady's ankle injury in SB XLII or Thurman's fumble in XXVIII, determine so much of what happens to a team's W-L record.

 

This isn't to say that Jauron doesn't make his fair share of mistakes, he's human after all. But I seem to recall more than a few HOF coaches having brain cramps at inopportune times, or making ill advised decisions--yet retaining their aura of invincibility. The expectation levels these guys work under, with so many fans viewing this as a real-life game of Madden, are hard to believe.

[ax4782]

Looking behind the numbers...

 

If anything, he's almost too loyal to the guy who's starting that week. Another coach wouldn't have given either McNown or Stewart half the season, and he apparently thought he owed Losman a chance to retake the job after Edwards' injury. And if Jim Miller had managed to stay healthy, those numbers above -- and the Bears' W-L records for those seasons -- would look a lot different.

 

Or he wanted to make sure that Edwards didn't get back in there too soon and reaggrivate the injury. A lesson he learned in Chicago through the rocky QB years you described. Also, none of those guys was really a bona fide NFL starter, and he was able to cobble together a 13-3 team without a legit starting QB. Imagine what he might be able to do in Buffalo with the team he and the FO have finally put together. Give him a chance. Getting rid of coaches too soon has been a huge part of what killed this team over the past seven years. Too many coaching and FO shake ups. Time for some stability. Jauron has made the Bills competitive again. Give him another couple years to really get this team going. I have a good feeling that we will be in the hunt for the WC this year, and if the Cheatriots are having an off year due to a loss of talent, we might have a shot at the division.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Here is a link after 10 seconds of looking.

 

http://www.nfluk.com/features-display.php?id=3010

[Sisyphean Bills]

What year was this? I don't remember Rick Mirer ever Starting for the Jests.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nyj/1999.htm

[Sisyphean Bills]

If anything, he's almost too loyal to the guy who's starting that week. Another coach wouldn't have given either McNown or Stewart half the season, and he apparently thought he owed Losman a chance to retake the job after Edwards' injury. And if Jim Miller had managed to stay healthy, those numbers above -- and the Bears' W-L records for those seasons -- would look a lot different.

I think you're wrong that another coach wouldn't have given his 1st round pick a chance. (You're definitely not thinking of Tom Coughlin.) I also think that you are wrong that this other coach wouldn't have given Stewart a chance after courting him in free agency to be his starter. No, the problem wasn't that Jauron was "too loyal", it was that Jauron pulled the trigger to bring in bad, brittle, and bust QBs to lead his team. He's not alone in that department. Wayne Fontes changed QBs more often than his boxers too.

 

Jauron: 0.189 lifetime against playoff teams.

 

[Edit] I don't buy the point about Miller either. Miller shouldn't be dismissed as "garbage", that I agree with. But, his career is one of a fairly pedestrian QB (a 75.2 rating). Beyond the brittleness, he just wasn't a big time QB.

[Adam]

I think you're wrong that another coach wouldn't have given his 1st round pick a chance. (You're definitely not thinking of Tom Coughlin.) I also think that you are wrong that this other coach wouldn't have given Stewart a chance after courting him in free agency to be his starter. No, the problem wasn't that Jauron was "too loyal", it was that Jauron pulled the trigger to bring in bad, brittle, and bust QBs to lead his team. He's not alone in that department. Wayne Fontes changed QBs more often than his boxers too.

 

Jauron: 0.189 lifetime against playoff teams.

Wayne Fontes had a similar problem- he played all those QB's because he didn't have one

[Dibs]

..........it was that Jauron pulled the trigger to bring in bad, brittle, and bust QBs to lead his team. He's not alone in that department. Wayne Fontes changed QBs more often than his boxers too.

How is it you can be shown that your perceptions are incorrect time & again & yet still persist with the fallacy?

 

1999.....draft McNown.....he was a bust. No bad there since at least 3 in 4 1st round QBs(not including #1 overall) are busts.

2001.....Goes with Miller who does pretty good.....but gets injured.

By this stage(2002) he has no say in personnel decisions & had to go with Chandler(who was so old he had gray pubes).

In comes the useless Stewart in 2003.

 

How do you get "Jauron pulled the trigger to bring in bad, brittle, and bust QBs to lead his team" from that history?

 

In Buffalo he started the incumbent(JPL)......and drafted a very promising young QB(TE).....he has not had any time to show one way or the other with the Bills.

 

I couldn't care less if you think DJ is a terrible coach(personally I am withholding judgment for now).....but to continually put forward BS statements even after they are thoroughly refuted is annoying.

[Lori]

I think you're wrong that another coach wouldn't have given his 1st round pick a chance. (You're definitely not thinking of Tom Coughlin.) I also think that you are wrong that this other coach wouldn't have given Stewart a chance after courting him in free agency to be his starter. No, the problem wasn't that Jauron was "too loyal", it was that Jauron pulled the trigger to bring in bad, brittle, and bust QBs to lead his team. He's not alone in that department. Wayne Fontes changed QBs more often than his boxers too.

 

Jauron: 0.189 lifetime against playoff teams.

 

So now that I've disproven your theory that Jauron "switches" quarterbacks often, we're back to the "he had complete control in Chicago." Sorry, but that one's not true either:

The amazing journey: what kind of a leader was Chicago's Dick Jauron? He engineered one of the greatest turnarounds in recent NFL history - Coach of the Year

...

A 19-45 record from 1997 through 2000 prompted the Bears to hire their first general manager in 14 years. Jerry Angelo came on board in June 2001 and was given complete authority over football operations, including the hiring and firing of coaches. While Jauron was assured of being retained for 2001, the common perception was that Angelo would bring in his own coach after that.

 

...and further down in the same article...

EXECUTIVE OF THE YEAR

 

Mark Hatley, Bears. We know, we know--this appears to be a strange pick, seeing as Hatley now works in the Packers front office. But take a closer look, and you'll realize it makes perfect sense. Most Bears fans were glad when Hatley left for Green Bay soon after running the Bears' 2001 draft, citing the two major blunders of his four-year stewardship in Chicago: the drafting of Curtis Enis and Cade McNown. But following a 2001 season in which the Bears defied all expectations, a lot of those fans wish he were back in Chicago. Many of the players central to the Bears' success were brought in by Hatley, including Brian Urlacher, Anthony Thomas, Ted Washington, Keith Traylor, R.W. McQuarters, Rosevelt Colvin, Warrick Holdman, Marty Booker, Mike Brown, Brad Maynard, Jim Miller, Olin Kreutz, and Tony Parrish. That's quite a roll call.--William Wagner

[Lurker]

Here is a link after 10 seconds of looking.

 

http://www.nfluk.com/features-display.php?id=3010

Thanks...but I'm a little suspect of a fanboy site like Connor Bryne's, based in the UK of all places.

 

How about taking another 10 seconds and finding me a legit site...I'll gladly eat crow if you can show me that Jauron was making the draft and FA decisions, not the late Mark Hatley and then, as Lori's link shows, Jerry Angelo (who gave Juaron a 3-year extension after the 2001 season, then canned him after botching the next two drafts).

 

Thanks in advance.

 

While in Chicago, Hatley led the Bears' scouting efforts at both the professional and college levels, directed the annual draft and oversaw the team's free agency activity.

 

Of the 30 players selected in Hatley's initial three drafts in Chicago (1998-2000), 28 remain in the NFL today. Hatley's 2000 draft yielded three all-rookie performers: linebacker Brian Urlacher, safety Mike Brown and kicker Paul Edinger. Urlacher garnered consensus rookie 'Defensive Player of the Year' honors while also earning a trip to the 2001 Pro Bowl. Hatley's '98 effort generated all-rookie safety Tony Parrish.

 

Via trade and free agency, Hatley brought in starters such as Blake Brockermeyer, Jim Miller, Mike Wells, Thomas Smith, Phillip Daniels and Glyn Milburn. Milburn's performance in 1999 earned all-pro and Pro Bowl recognition. Of the Bears' 2001 potential starters, 11 are products of Hatley's four drafts. Players Hatley acquired via free agency and trade amount to nine other potential starters and key contributors.

[Sisyphean Bills]

So now that I've disproven your theory that Jauron "switches" quarterbacks often, we're back to the "he had complete control in Chicago." Sorry, but that one's not true either:

Thank you for all the corrections. Apparently, I wasn't reading all the legit sources. There were no "QB switches often" and Jauron is just a helpless victim. I got it now.

[Lurker]

Thank you for all the corrections. Apparently, I wasn't reading all the legit sources. There were no "QB switches often" and Jauron is just a helpless victim. I got it now.

Thanks in advance.

[Beerball]

3) Hardy is not a criminal.

I was very skeptical about Hardy after reading about his incident in college with his girlfriend/child, but after listening to his combine PC and then the Bills organization I have high hopes for this young man. He appears truthful and we know that the Bills investigated this and found him 'clean'. He has overcome huge odds already in his life, and I think the best is yet to come.

4) I think that R.Rich was right about this kid.

I hate it when that happens.

5) Butler keps progressing. This is freaking huge.

We need this in a big way.

6) Duke Preston is cut. I don't care if he is replaced by a udfa. He is a bad football player.

9) Parrish doesn't get broken in half.

I don't think we will see him return punts any longer. IF he does it is because the rooks failed.

 

10) Last but far from least, Trent Edwards needs to be even almost as good as I think that he will be. It is a ton to ask or expect from a kid with 9 starts, but I really do see great things in this kid. How perfect would it be for us if he shows enough to unite the crowd at OBD, let alone TSW?

Hope he turns into the next great Bills QB.

GO BILLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sisyphean Bills]

Thanks in advance.

For what?

 

Actually, now that I have you two to answer all my questions, can I fire away?

 

- When was Jauron hired as HC of the Bears?

 

- When was Angelo hired as GM of the Bears?

 

- Did Wannstedt have control of personnel before Jauron?

 

- Was Jauron's contract structured differently than that of Wannstedt's? In what ways?

 

- Who was GM of the Bears after Wannstedt was fired and before Angelo was hired?

 

- Who was the Bears last GM before Jerry Angelo?

 

- Can you post a copy of Jauron's contract? And Angelo's as well?

 

- Is the Chicago Tribune worth reading?

 

- When was Cade McNown drafted?

 

- When was Rex Grossman drafted?

 

- Do you have a link from a legit source that says Miller was the #1 going into the 2000 season?

 

- When was McNown released?

 

- Was the problem that McNown was not the "perfect QB" for Crowton's college offense brought up from the bayou or was it that Crowton's offense wasn't up to the task in the NFL? Who hired Crowton?

 

- How many starts does a QB need to be declared a bust?

 

- What is the definition of a bust?

 

- Did the Bears have "nothing but garbage" at QB as some have said? Or was Jim Miller a special QB that was a victim of fate and injury, as Lori implied?

 

- Was Dick a liar when he said McNown gave his team the best chance to win?

 

- When McNown was benched, how prepared was Miller?

 

- Did Chris Chandler start and win a playoff game? Did Chris Chandler start in a Super Bowl? Are QBs that start Super Bowls customarily categorized as busts or garbage? What does it take to be considered "not garbage"?

 

- Did Chris Chandler make a Pro Bowl? How many?

 

- If a guy plays in the NFL for 17 years, is he a bust?

 

- Is having a QB with a history of concussions run a QB sneak a wise coaching move?

 

- Did Kordell Stewart make a Pro Bowl? If so when and how far removed was that from his days in Chicago?

 

- How many starts does it take to develop a "project" player? A project QB? How many starts for a #1 overall, blue chip QB? Is there any difference between a project and a blue chip QB, or more generally regardless of position?

 

- When will Dick Jauron stop being a victim and emerge as the best coach ever?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

[Edit]

 

PS: This is more of a philosophical question.

 

- What is your definition of leadership? Does leadership entail authority, responsibility or accountability? If so, to what degree? Is it just a matter of convenience? Can leadership exist where there is no authority, responsibility or accountability?

[Pyrite Gal]

Looking behind the numbers...

 

If anything, he's almost too loyal to the guy who's starting that week. Another coach wouldn't have given either McNown or Stewart half the season, and he apparently thought he owed Losman a chance to retake the job after Edwards' injury. And if Jim Miller had managed to stay healthy, those numbers above -- and the Bears' W-L records for those seasons -- would look a lot different.

My sense of the Bills QB situation was that the choices made as to which QB should start were much more forced by reality than by DJ or anyone's preference as to who they judged was the QB to invest in. Specifically:

 

1. Drafting Edwards took some independent action which went against the norm as we already had a young QB who had a troubled career (but a trouble overarching situation under the twists and turns of TD) but who had started 16 straight the year before and left the fanbase fairly hopeful he might actually be the answer. Yet, the move was more than defensible and in retrospect a no-brainer as Edwards was a clear second round talent who had the endorsement of old sage Bill Walsh, It was now clear that Nall was a marginal answer at best as the #2 who MIGHT do the job necessary as a fill-in but almost certainly would not develop into the QB of the future.

 

Edwards was a gutsy choice but really this showed few signs of a regime that desperately was looking for an alternative to JP but instead if an opportunity fell to them they had no reluctance to take it.

 

Again great reaction but few signs of a pro-active campaign to make the QB situation follow a particular path.

 

2. Making Edwards the #2 had clear implications for JP IF he got injured, but again this showed good reactive instincts by the Bills rather than a pro-active plan to make Edwards the starter ASAP. If anything, the most proactive part of this had an impact on Craig Nall as he was shipped out in addition to being passed over.

 

3. JP got illegally hit by Woolfork and reality dictated that Edwards start. Again if someone wanted to hatch a conspiracy theory that DJ had it out for JP the decision which made this a reality was getting rid of Nall as there was no decision to have Woolfork kill JP.

 

4. A fight might have emerged over whether to bench Edwards and bring JP back under the oft observed cliche that a player should not lose his job due to injury. However, giving JP another week of recovery was not outlandish with the decision to go with Edwards as starter against NYJ. The proof was in the pudding as to whether JP had recovered enough physically to play as he led the team to a victory in relief of Edwards. However, he was winning generally and playing well so this was at most a reactive decision rather than some proactive plot. Even more to the point when Edwards went down it was no one's plan but reality simply forced JP in.

 

5. The next decision was also a tribute to reaction as by now it seemed pretty clear that the Bills braintrust wanted to go with the guy they drafted who had been incredibly impressive for a rookie when he was forced into the line-up. However, reality again dictated that the Bills react in a particular way as JP had been the QB when the team pulled off a winning streak which put them in contention at least for a playoff spot. Reactions again dictated not that the Bills fulfill some conspiracy but that they keep JP as the starting QB. They did this.

 

However, ultimately JP did the coaches the favor of all calling himself out by declaring the Jax game make or break and by anyone's estimation he broke,

So I reject the notion that the Bill braintrust are and have always been operating within some nefarious plan at QB. The braintrust pretty much has done what the realities of injuries and the perceived realities of the marketplace forced them to do.

 

They probably were pleased with the way they were forced to go but that is just the game.

[Lori]

Thank you for all the corrections. Apparently, I wasn't reading all the legit sources. There were no "QB switches often" and Jauron is just a helpless victim. I got it now.

I don't care one way or the other about Jauron. In fact, if you go back into the archives here, you'll find that I was on the Mike Sherman bandwagon.

 

But you said, "Look it up." So I did. I also talked to Chris Villarrial about Miller and Jauron while he was here. Is that "legit" enough for you?

 

You're welcome.

[Lurker]

Thanks

You're welcome...carry on with your boulder.

[Sisyphean Bills]

I don't care one way or the other about Jauron. In fact, if you go back into the archives here, you'll find that I was on the Mike Sherman bandwagon.

 

But you said, "Look it up." So I did. I also talked to Chris Villarrial about Miller and Jauron while he was here. Is that "legit" enough for you?

I don't understand your question. Did I say Chris Villarrial was not legit? No. On the other hand, you don't even mention what he said. So, are you just name dropping?

You're welcome.

I take it that means you aren't going to answer all my questions.

 

I'd like one more attempt to set the record straight.

 

Dick Jauron was hired as head coach of the Chicago Bears when Jerry Angelo was working in Tampa. Dick, like Wannstedt before him, at least as far as what I recall, was given both the head coach and personnel responsibilities. (No, I don't have his contract.) The Bears had no GM at this time. Jerry Angelo was hired later and was given overlapping responsibilities with Jauron as far as player personnel and staff. Unsurprisingly, this became a problem.

 

I overstated that Jauron was in complete control; typically, these decisions are made by more than 1 person. Still, I find it disingenuous to read repetitious arguments that Jauron has no say in anything that happens in relation to the teams he coaches. I will adopt the party line though and assume that is true from now on.

 

I don't really follow all the arguments about which QBs are "obvious busts" and which are not and who deserves a chance and who has had a chance and who sucks and doesn't deserve a chance and so on. I consider football a team sport and it is thus impossible to focus on a single position and lay all the blame at one player's feet. In the case of Cade McNown, who was more interested in chasing bleach blondes with larger bra sizes than IQs than being a QB, he was a major mistake as a 1st round pick. Anyway, it is all subjective unless the terms can be defined as to which QB sucks and which one doesn't. Since no one (and I don't mean you personally, Lori) will define terms, it's not worth debating.

[ax4782]

I don't understand your question. Did I say Chris Villarrial was not legit? No. On the other hand, you don't even mention what he said. So, are you just name dropping?

 

I take it that means you aren't going to answer all my questions.

 

I'd like one more attempt to set the record straight.

 

Dick Jauron was hired as head coach of the Chicago Bears when Jerry Angelo was working in Tampa. Dick, like Wannstedt before him, at least as far as what I recall, was given both the head coach and personnel responsibilities. (No, I don't have his contract.) The Bears had no GM at this time. Jerry Angelo was hired later and was given overlapping responsibilities with Jauron as far as player personnel and staff. Unsurprisingly, this became a problem.

 

I overstated that Jauron was in complete control; typically, these decisions are made by more than 1 person. Still, I find it disingenuous to read repetitious arguments that Jauron has no say in anything that happens in relation to the teams he coaches. I will adopt the party line though and assume that is true from now on.

 

I don't really follow all the arguments about which QBs are "obvious busts" and which are not and who deserves a chance and who has had a chance and who sucks and doesn't deserve a chance and so on. I consider football a team sport and it is thus impossible to focus on a single position and lay all the blame at one player's feet. In the case of Cade McNown, who was more interested in chasing bleach blondes with larger bra sizes than IQs than being a QB, he was a major mistake as a 1st round pick. Anyway, it is all subjective unless the terms can be defined as to which QB sucks and which one doesn't. Since no one (and I don't mean you personally, Lori) will define terms, it's not worth debating.

 

I hate jumping into these sorts of frackuses but on this one I'm going to. Everything that happened in Chicago is in the past. None of the QBs he had were good. Chandler was old enough to remember when Dinosaurs roamed the earth at the time he was playing in Chicago, and just because he played in a Super Bowl doesn't mean he was a great NFL QB. No one would say that Trent Dilfer was a great NFL QB and he won a Super Bowl, so try to keep your reality goggles on for just a moment.

 

Grossman has been extremely inconsistent and was only a rookie in Jauron's last season as a coach. To say that the world should have been expected of Grossman at that time was ludicrous. Also, during his tenure, his QBs were getting hurt relatively more frequently than one would expect and none of those QBs was anything more than mediocre. He was not in charge of player personnel. He may have decided who plays, but he didn't control who they brought in in FA and in the draft.

 

Also, Jauron proved he can be an exceptional coach in Chicago. In 2001, the team went 8-0 in games decided by 7 points or less. That requires good coaching and good defense.

 

Now, looking at the present, let's see what Jauron has done. In his two years at the helm, the Bills have been a much better football team. Compared with Williams and Mularkey, Jauron is a fantastic coach. He gets his players to play hard every down and on a team that had 12 players each of whom had astared a game last year, we were still in the playoff hunt to the bitter end of the season. If Jauron was the one in charge of personnel here, he has done a heck of a job. However, he isn't. He's just the coach, just like he was in Chicago, and this year, if he can get the players to play at the same level that they did last year, Buffalo wins ten games and goes to the playoffs.

 

You may not like the Jauron for your own personal reasons. So far you haven't made those clear. But using history from a completely different team in a completely different situation to say that Jauron is a bad coach now is a bit ridiculous. Norv Turner was a terrible coach for Oakland and Washington, but he did a pretty good job last year in San Diego. Maybe that has something to do with the players on those teams when Turner was the coach? But, I guess that's his fault anyway, right?

 

So here's a few questions for you that maybe will clear some things up.

 

What's the real reason you dislike Jauron?

Because he doesn't play mind games like Parcells, and make all the players hate his guts?

What did he do so poorly last season with half a defense filled with PS players while still winning 7 games?

Will you say the same thing at the end of the season if Buffalo wins ten games? Eleven? Twelve?

What if Buffalo makes the playoffs, will he still be a bad coach?

What if they win the division?

Go to the AFC Championship?

Win the Super Bowl?

Would you still say the same thing then?

 

If so, hey, congratulations, you're a person of conviction. You have your beliefs and you stick to them. If not, you're a band wagon fan who will love Jauron when he's up and hate him when he's down. I guess that's all right to, but consistency counts for something. Perhaps if we all felt the way you do about Jauron we'd be Jets fans?

[Sisyphean Bills]

So here's a few questions for you that maybe will clear some things up.

 

What's the real reason you dislike Jauron?

Do you mean personally? I never said I hated Jauron.

Because he doesn't play mind games like Parcells, and make all the players hate his guts?

Hunh?

What did he do so poorly last season with half a defense filled with PS players while still winning 7 games?

Who are the these so called practice squad players? Schobel, Tripplett, Williams, Kelsay, Whitner, McGee, Crowell are more than 1/2 the defense.

Will you say the same thing at the end of the season if Buffalo wins ten games? Eleven? Twelve?

What if Buffalo makes the playoffs, will he still be a bad coach?

What if they win the division?

Go to the AFC Championship?

Win the Super Bowl?

Would you still say the same thing then?

All that would be great and an incredible change of spots. Are you guaranteeing this for this upcoming season?

[Lurker]

I take it that means you aren't going to answer all my questions.

What's the point. Even if I could exhume Mark Hatley and have a seance, or get Jerry Angelo to call you personnally...I'm doubtful you'd change your outlook.

 

Que Sera, Sera...

[ax4782]

Do you mean personally? I never said I hated Jauron.

 

Hunh?

 

Who are the these so called practice squad players? Schobel, Tripplett, Williams, Kelsay, Whitner, McGee, Crowell are more than 1/2 the defense.

 

All that would be great and an incredible change of spots. Are you guaranteeing this for this upcoming season?

 

You didn't have to say that you disliked Jauron, because it was clear from your posts and your attitude that you hated him. And since you ducked the question, which was clearly asking why YOU, yes you, disliked him, you have confirmed the answer. The questions weren't hard or unclear, you just didn't want to answer them, so I'll pose them to you again.

 

The second question too which you responded "hunh?" was contingent on the first. Do you not like him because he isn't a Parcels "in your face" kind of coach whose players don't like him? Easy enough to answer.

 

As for the defense. Kyle Williams was NOT a starter. The only starters that were playing on D for most of the season were Schobel, Triplett, Kelsay, Whitner, Crowell. McGee was out for a total of four weeks last season with injuries too, IIRC. Whitner was also out for either three or four weeks as well. Kelsay was also out for a number of weeks, which is why Ryan Neill had to play. The only starters on defense that played every game last year were:

 

Aaron Schobel

Larry Triplett

Angelo Crowell

 

Players who replaced injuries in the secondary were:

 

George Wilson (PS)

Jon Corto (PS)

John DiGiorgio (UDFA)

John Wendling (PS)

Ryan Neill (PS)

Corey Mace (PS)

 

There were others who came in only for a short time, but these four got significant playing time in the secondary. Such was the reason that our pass D was ranked 30th last year. Neill and Mace were called up while Kelsay, Denney, Al Wallace and Hargrove were out, leaving us with Schobel and Jason Jefferson as outside pass rushers. Thus, for a number of games, the MAJORITY of the defense were either UDFAs or PS players. I'm not saying they played poorly. They did not. They played admirably and kept the team in the playoff hunt, but some of that credit has to go to Jauron. He got all those players, who came in due to injury and were basically new to the system, and got them to play as a TEAM. That's how good teams win in the NFL. They all have some talent, but they play as a team and that is what Jauron has been able to do. He has been a good coach for this team and I have enjoyed watching them play under him. Much moreso than under Williams or Mularkey. Give him a real chance.

[Dibs]

.....Kyle Williams was NOT a starter.

I hate to do this but.....yeah he was a starter. 16 games. Not that I think it detracts from your point.....we were still riddled with injuries on the D all season....but I'm a stickler for accuracy.

[ax4782]

I hate to do this but.....yeah he was a starter. 16 games. Not that I think it detracts from your point.....we were still riddled with injuries on the D all season....but I'm a stickler for accuracy.

 

Point taken. I can admit that I made a mistake there. I recalled that he appeared in 16 games, but I didn't think he had started all 16 games. Either way, that doesn't change my point, which you adequately pointed out. Thanks for the correction.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

When will Dick Jauron stop being a victim and emerge as the best coach ever?

One hundred and twenty-six days, 12 hours.

[Pyrite Gal]

For what?

 

 

- When will Dick Jauron stop being a victim and emerge as the best coach ever?

To answer your question directly, I am virtually certain that Jauron will never emerge as the best coach ever.

 

However, I think that it is pretty clear looking at the Bills right here and right now that Jauron is a pretty good HC.

 

My reasons for drawing this conclusion:

 

1. Jauron took over as HC of a team which had posted a 5-11 record and which performed so badly in the year before he got here that the GM got canned and the HC jumped ship.

 

Being HC of the squad their record improved to 7-9. Does Jauron deserve all the credit for this? No. HCs routinely get too much credit for wins and too much blame for losing, However, as the highest ranking on field person and the main spokesperson for the team after a game (W or L) the buck does stop with him

 

Like it or not when one looks at the only stat that really counts, Jauron did a good job his first year as HC of the Bills (and some would credibly say though ultimately I would disagree with them he did a VERY good job as HC given the disarray and relatively poor players and units he inherited.

 

2. The record did not improve in his second year and a couple of winnable games (Dallas) were loss. However, along with the sad reality of no improvement in the W/L the fact simply is that this team had more players on the IR than any other team in the league.

 

Does this excuse the team having an inadequate record? No.

 

However, the disruptions of this team were real and though ultimately there is no excuse for losing, they are a real world reason why this team did not perform as well as they should/could have.

 

Producing the same record was at worst average and actually I think can reasonably be called a good coaching job.

 

I am not saying that you should love how he coaches or love him, but I think on the face of it Jauron has done a average job at worst and actually a good job considering him working with a number of key factors he could not really control (players signed to longer term contracts and the injuries which were different enough as not to be indicative of any specific flaw like not warming up, etc).

 

DJ is and likely will never emerge a great HC, but the simple fact is that for whatever reasons (he is a nice guy, he has learned from his failings in Chicago, dumb luck which is simply part of the game) he appears to be a good one.

 

Am I satisfied with this. yes, for now, call me in a year when it is rational to draw conclusions about his work as a Bill HC.

[1billsfan]

To answer your question directly, I am virtually certain that Jauron will never emerge as the best coach ever.

 

However, I think that it is pretty clear looking at the Bills right here and right now that Jauron is a pretty good HC.

 

My reasons for drawing this conclusion:

 

1. Jauron took over as HC of a team which had posted a 5-11 record and which performed so badly in the year before he got here that the GM got canned and the HC jumped ship.

 

Being HC of the squad their record improved to 7-9. Does Jauron deserve all the credit for this? No. HCs routinely get too much credit for wins and too much blame for losing, However, as the highest ranking on field person and the main spokesperson for the team after a game (W or L) the buck does stop with him

 

Like it or not when one looks at the only stat that really counts, Jauron did a good job his first year as HC of the Bills (and some would credibly say though ultimately I would disagree with them he did a VERY good job as HC given the disarray and relatively poor players and units he inherited.

 

2. The record did not improve in his second year and a couple of winnable games (Dallas) were loss. However, along with the sad reality of no improvement in the W/L the fact simply is that this team had more players on the IR than any other team in the league.

 

Does this excuse the team having an inadequate record? No.

 

However, the disruptions of this team were real and though ultimately there is no excuse for losing, they are a real world reason why this team did not perform as well as they should/could have.

 

Producing the same record was at worst average and actually I think can reasonably be called a good coaching job.

 

I am not saying that you should love how he coaches or love him, but I think on the face of it Jauron has done a average job at worst and actually a good job considering him working with a number of key factors he could not really control (players signed to longer term contracts and the injuries which were different enough as not to be indicative of any specific flaw like not warming up, etc).

 

DJ is and likely will never emerge a great HC, but the simple fact is that for whatever reasons (he is a nice guy, he has learned from his failings in Chicago, dumb luck which is simply part of the game) he appears to be a good one.

 

Am I satisfied with this. yes, for now, call me in a year when it is rational to draw conclusions about his work as a Bill HC.

 

While Dick Jauron was and still is a calming and steadying influence as the Bills head coach, this does NOT mean that he is, was or will ever be a good NFL head coach. Jauron's coaching style will never lend itself to a team's goals of achieving greatness. He simply does not trust his offensive playmakers enough to make plays in the passing game. He's clearly much too afraid of the foward pass ending up in an interception. This is his fatal flaw as a head coach. The only way that Jauron saves his job is to allow Edwards the opportunity throw the ball to Lynch, Evans, Jackson, Hardy and Parrish when the defenses do not expect it. That would be on first and second downs, third and short. If he continues to not trust in his offensive players other than Lynch up the middle, Lynch left and Lynch right, he might as well pack his bags now. Our offense was a joke last season because Jauron failed to let the offense loose. Yes, his style will always get you around .500. But is that what we Bills fans are happy with now???? His style will NEVER beat any of the good teams. Good teams force you to beat them by taking what is called "RISKS", buy risks I mean attacking the opponent with the passing game as well as the running game. It's my opinion that that Dick Jauron will be fired if he does not change his "play not to lose, never take any chances, let the other team beat themselves" coaching style in 2008. Because this team will win no more than eight games and the mob will be finally significant enough that Wilson could not possibly think he will ever get this team to the promised land. No matter how nice and classy the guy is, breaking even every year isn't going to cut it for a team with a non-playoff streak as long as ours.

[Lurker]

He simply does not trust his offensive playmakers enough to make plays in the passing game. He's clearly much too afraid of the foward pass ending up in an interception. This is his fatal flaw as a head coach. The only way that Jauron saves his job is to allow Edwards the opportunity throw the ball to Lynch, Evans, Jackson, Hardy and Parrish when the defenses do not expect it. That would be on first and second downs, third and short. If he continues to not trust in his offensive players other than Lynch up the middle, Lynch left and Lynch right, he might as well pack his bags now. Our offense was a joke last season because Jauron failed to let the offense loose. Yes, his style will always get you around .500. But is that what we Bills fans are happy with now???? His style will NEVER beat any of the good teams. Good teams force you to beat them by taking what is called "RISKS", buy risks I mean attacking the opponent with the passing game as well as the running game. It's my opinion that that Dick Jauron will be fired if he does not change his "play not to lose, never take any chances, let the other team beat themselves" coaching style in 2008. Because this team will win no more than eight games and the mob will be finally significant enough that Wilson could not possibly think he will ever get this team to the promised land. No matter how nice and classy the guy is, breaking even every year isn't going to cut it for a team with a non-playoff streak as long as ours.

Ever thought that with marginal talent across half the 22 starters, a rookie QB and only one legit WR that a conservative game plan may have been the best approach to getting Ws in 2007?

 

Yes, Fairchild called more than a few poor games, and I agree his reluctance to throw on first down was maddening. But the concept of keeping the game close by not forcing a square peg talent pool into a round hole game plan wasn't the major problem, IMO.

 

In hockey, it's akin to playing the neutral zone trap and hoping you can capitalize on the other team's mistakes. It's a way for teams to pull out wins they have no business getting on the basis of talent alone.

 

That said, with better talent (particularly on D), the Bills should have the freedom to take more chances this year. Jauron has said as much at every opportunity ("we have to score more") and basically put his head on the block if they don't.

 

That's a pretty good motivator.

 

(BTW, ever heard of a 'paragraph'?)

[BillsVet]

At this point, Dick Jauron's greatest enemy is not any other team. It's himself. All too often in his coaching career, he's demonstrated an inability to win against better teams. The latest examples remain the Dallas and Denver games from last season. Those were perfectly winnable games which, because of incompetent coaching, went down as losses.

 

What about 2006? Anyone recall the San Diego game when 2 timeouts were used to review a Peerless Price non-catch? Or losing at Detroit when Roy Williams ran roughshod over the secondary? Tennessee anyone in 2006? There is a trend here, and it's not going away. People talk about continuity, but if the HC is continually bad, little will change.

 

Some will say it's DJ's lack of personnel. That may have been the case in 06 and parts of 07 but won't be that way in 08. Buffalo has been rebuilding since DJ became HC in 06 and this season, barring injuries to the entire team, I expect to see a playoff team. That's the worst case scenario. Anything less is unacceptable.

[1billsfan]

Ever thought that with marginal talent across half the 22 starters, a rookie QB and only one legit WR that a conservative game plan may have been the best approach to getting Ws in 2007?

 

Yes, Fairchild called more than a few poor games, and I agree his reluctance to throw on first down was maddening. But the concept of keeping the game close by not forcing a square peg talent pool into a round hole game plan wasn't the major problem, IMO.

 

In hockey, it's akin to playing the neutral zone trap and hoping you can capitalize on the other team's mistakes. It's a way for teams to pull out wins they have no business getting on the basis of talent alone.

 

That said, with better talent (particularly on D), the Bills should have the freedom to take more chances this year. Jauron has said as much at every opportunity ("we have to score more") and basically put his head on the block if they don't.

 

That's a pretty good motivator.

 

(BTW, ever heard of a 'paragraph'?)

 

 

Jauron was conservative because of a lack of talent? To this I say, Marshawn Lynch had a pitiful 18 receptions last year. Yet Lynch had a better yards per catch average than Westbrook and LT and had the same yards per catch average as T.J. Houshmandzadeh and Hines Ward. Can you defend why Jauron decided not to use Lynch in the passing game when everyone knew he was a threat when catching the ball and proved it when given his limited chances?

 

I don't think he truly believes his neck is on the line in 2008. Too many flowers have been tossed at his feet by the fans and media of this team for him to feel this way. I'll believe he's changed when I see it on Sunday's.

 

Jauron's only seems motivated when he's playing the weak teams of the NFL, when he plays the big boys he's more than happy to keep the game close and lose. I laugh at his stupid press conferences after those games. "'I'm proud of our guys"..."They played hard"..."We just didn't get the breaks"..."Blah blah blah blah". I've had it with him. I can now only wait and hope he can change his style and actually beat the good teams in 2008. History says he won't do that.

[BillsVet]

I laugh at his stupid press conferences after those games. "'I'm proud of our guys"..."They played hard"..."We just didn't get the breaks"..."Blah blah blah blah". I've had it with him. I can now only wait and hope he can change his style and actually beat the good teams in 2008. History says he won't do that.

 

How about this gem after the season finale against Philly?

 

"Offensively we did a pretty good job of not turning (the ball) over. I think the fact that we didn't turn the ball over today at all, and didn't have very many penalties in that football game, kept us in the game. Obviously, the fact that we don't score, we don't get it in the endzone, is the difference in the football game.

[Pyrite Gal]

While Dick Jauron was and still is a calming and steadying influence as the Bills head coach, this does NOT mean that he is, was or will ever be a good NFL head coach. Jauron's coaching style will never lend itself to a team's goals of achieving greatness. He simply does not trust his offensive playmakers enough to make plays in the passing game. He's clearly much too afraid of the foward pass ending up in an interception. This is his fatal flaw as a head coach. The only way that Jauron saves his job is to allow Edwards the opportunity throw the ball to Lynch, Evans, Jackson, Hardy and Parrish when the defenses do not expect it. That would be on first and second downs, third and short. If he continues to not trust in his offensive players other than Lynch up the middle, Lynch left and Lynch right, he might as well pack his bags now. Our offense was a joke last season because Jauron failed to let the offense loose. Yes, his style will always get you around .500. But is that what we Bills fans are happy with now???? His style will NEVER beat any of the good teams. Good teams force you to beat them by taking what is called "RISKS", buy risks I mean attacking the opponent with the passing game as well as the running game. It's my opinion that that Dick Jauron will be fired if he does not change his "play not to lose, never take any chances, let the other team beat themselves" coaching style in 2008. Because this team will win no more than eight games and the mob will be finally significant enough that Wilson could not possibly think he will ever get this team to the promised land. No matter how nice and classy the guy is, breaking even every year isn't going to cut it for a team with a non-playoff streak as long as ours.

I think your post shows the issue here in the words that you chose to express your thoughts.

The first sentence says his work does note mean he is. was, or will ever be a GOOD NFL HC. In the second sentence it seems to want to support this conclusion by stating his coaching style will never achieve our goal of GREATNESS.

 

This would seem to be a pretty rugged standard to set for the Bills in the specific context of the reality that they faced when Marv was hired to lead the decision making for hiring a new HC for the Bills after TD was canned and MM took a powder.

 

I assume that the standard which you felt that Marv should have stuck too for hiring was to hire an HC whom he (you, the fans who agree with you) would judge as capable of achieving greatness. Only in this context could a judgment reasonably be rendered that he was the right HC even if the team's record demonstrably improved in his first year and the record held steady in the face of real world events like having more players on the IR than any other team in the NFL (again this is no excuse for failure as like it or not we simply failed, however though this is not an excuse to justify total forgiveness it is a real world reason which one can choose to ignore if you want to ignore reality).

 

My sense is that you merge the two standards together as if they are the same thing (you can only be GOOD if I judge you can become GREAT) when though one can set whatever standard one wants (setting standards is what we fans are entitled to do even if they are unreasonable standards), this particular one would seem to me to virtually impossible to obtain unless one can see the future (last I saw no one could do this with an accuracy and consistency which far exceeded coincidence).

 

Who is it that you think the Bills should have hired to be HC back when Marv was cleaning up the mess which TD left in the wake of his firing (when actually TD was hired to clean up a mess left in the wake of Ralph and Butler screwing up his leaving).

 

IMHO GOOD and GREAT are two different things (do you disagree?).

 

Even to the extent you want to claim that you are not GOOD unless you can become GREAT, then my question to anyone setting that standard would be who made you god?

 

One only has to look at the real world of Marv's achievements in his first go round as an NFL HC to see that the past does not gaurantee the outcomes of the future. The question is not simply one of who achieved greatness before and he is the only one you should hire (by this standard you only want to hire Bill Parcells or maybe Joe Gibbs and everyone else is either a big risk or a silly move). You certainly would not hire someone like Sherman as some advocated. Perhaps NYG should not have hired Tom Coughlin (who actually did show every sign of being an idiot with the way he handled Carolina and in his initial record with NYG until they turned it around in the middle of last season).

 

Will Jauron ever be great? I really doubt it (though I never would have guessed that Marv would make the HOF for his coaching work after his start turn at KC and even in the days of the Bickering Bills).

 

However, I think that one is simply ignoring reality to not see that being HC of a team you inherited which:

 

1. finished 5-11,

2. who had an owner who had done a horrendous job with the loss of his last three GMs (do you think the canning of Polian, the desertion of Butler, and the canning of TD demonstrate anything beyond that the owner has clear weaknesses which hold us back

3. which still suffers on the field from a series of QB assessment/handling errors dating back to the handshake deal around Jimbo's retirement.

 

is actually doing a pretty good job and roughly the maximum which could be achieved with a significant improvement in W/L his first year and holding his own at 7-9 in the face of the reality of events like:

 

1. the calling himself out in a make or break game in which he broke by the QB he inherited,

2. the continuing disarray lent to it by an owner who clearly feels that the current financial model of the NFL is so bad he has to be one of two votes of 32 against it

3. the presence of a media which continually demonstrates in the stances taken by the only sports radio station in town and voices in the media a dedication to flaming QB and other controversies so they can sell ads rather than objective reporting which does recognize the team's deficits (budget uncertainty and future ownership uncertainty depending upon the unknowable of when Ralph dies, the QB uncertainty, the relative youth of the team) but also the strengths ( (a promising corps of stars and potential stars, a rebuilding OL, the ship of state at least being righted from the 5-11 record, potential solutions for the unknowable of Ralph's death, and the relative youth of the team).

 

Its fine to rag on Jauron for not having done a good job, but this opinion is easily ignored when it is depending upon past events as the main argument. Its harder to ignore if it acknowledges what I think is the reality that he has done a good job "merely" by overseeing the team's immediate improvement but claiming that their are real world indications that he has not changed the basics which stop him from being great.

 

However, folks seem to want to make what I see as an inherently weak argument that the mere act of righting the ship of state against some really bad situations (the team which went to 5-11, Ralph sucking at hiring and holding GMs, a fiercely competitive league where significant chunks of the media does not share the team's goals of winning it all as highly as they value their own goals of selling ads) does not constitute good work because DJ will never be great.

 

I doubt also he will be great (but stranger things have happened like Marv doing well enough to make the HOF after his disastrous start). I also recognize the reality that though he will probably never be great he has done a good job in his first two years.

 

Just as with draftees, I think it is reasonable to really question any conclusions about judging an HC and his work with THIS team until after three years. The first time is just an episode good or bad. the second result MAY just merely be a coincidence. The third year though allows for a clearer assertion of events being a trend.

 

I think DJ has some relatively clear challenges to overcome in his third year:

 

1. He needs to demonstrate something he has never shown which is hiring the right OC to work under his guidance to form a working offense.

 

Can Schoenert do this? We will see. He does have some reasonable working parts to start with which actually are demonstrably better than what DJ inherited:

 

A. An improved situation at RB (I would take Lynch/Jackson/Wright over McGahee/whatever any day)

B. An OL finally showing signs of stability though there are questions (pro-bowler Peters/vet Dockery/et al. is far better than Mike Williams/Villarial

C. The QB situation though muddled is better than it was (I think the hopes of Edwards backed up by the experience of the backup (JP) before he leaves next year is better than the JP/Nall, Bledsoe/JP. Bledsoe/AVP, RJ/DF situations we have had.

 

There are major challenges with the state of the passing game (WRs, TEs) and overall O scheme issues which are uncertain but not insurmountable.

 

2. DJ is a defensive specialist HC and really the D story is a wing and a prayer that really has led us to a slightly below average record with a team which achieved 5-11 before he got here. The FA/drafting of the past two years hold the potential that all three units could actually be areas of strength for this team- Whitner/McKelvin, Mitchell/Pos, DL rotation.

 

3. The ST is potentially dominant though there will have to be a major reloading by April (Moorman, Lindell, McGee/Parrish are across the board among the best in the NFL at what they do).

 

Will this be great. Doubtful but we will see as no one knows the future for sure. Ralph and his mismanagement of the leavings of Polian, Butler, TD would seem to be a far greater rate limiting factor than any DJ issues. Fish rot from the head and poor DJ ain't the head of this fish.

[Sen. John Blutarsky]

I'm not a DJ fan. Never have been and never will be. He's been called a Monday through Saturday coach by some around here, and that's not good enough in the high stakes NFL world. Make no mistake this season, he's had ultimate control over this roster (see Draft Day 06-08) and his success depends on how well he can get those players to play. He couldn't do it in Chicago, and didn't become a HC for three years after being fired there.

If those things occur, the talent on paper has the potential to win a lot of games. QB play and coaching will be huge.

To be fair to Jauron, his Chicago teams got ravaged by injuries. Say what you will baout him the BIlls had multiple opportunities to pack it in last year and they played hard all year. I've never cared for his choics at OC and I'm hoping Schonert is an improvement. DJ WILL keep the players motivated though and they've done a good job of bringin in a lot of leaders and self starters. I'd rather have a less talented team that's going balls out than a better team that turns it on and off. The on and off teams break your heart.

[billfan63]

5. The next decision was also a tribute to reaction as by now it seemed pretty clear that the Bills braintrust wanted to go with the guy they drafted who had been incredibly impressive for a rookie when he was forced into the line-up. However, reality again dictated that the Bills react in a particular way as JP had been the QB when the team pulled off a winning streak which put them in contention at least for a playoff spot. Reactions again dictated not that the Bills fulfill some conspiracy but that they keep JP as the starting QB. They did this.

Wow! Now thats some hyperbole

[ax4782]

While Dick Jauron was and still is a calming and steadying influence as the Bills head coach, this does NOT mean that he is, was or will ever be a good NFL head coach. Jauron's coaching style will never lend itself to a team's goals of achieving greatness. He simply does not trust his offensive playmakers enough to make plays in the passing game. He's clearly much too afraid of the foward pass ending up in an interception. This is his fatal flaw as a head coach. The only way that Jauron saves his job is to allow Edwards the opportunity throw the ball to Lynch, Evans, Jackson, Hardy and Parrish when the defenses do not expect it. That would be on first and second downs, third and short. If he continues to not trust in his offensive players other than Lynch up the middle, Lynch left and Lynch right, he might as well pack his bags now. Our offense was a joke last season because Jauron failed to let the offense loose. Yes, his style will always get you around .500. But is that what we Bills fans are happy with now???? His style will NEVER beat any of the good teams. Good teams force you to beat them by taking what is called "RISKS", buy risks I mean attacking the opponent with the passing game as well as the running game. It's my opinion that that Dick Jauron will be fired if he does not change his "play not to lose, never take any chances, let the other team beat themselves" coaching style in 2008. Because this team will win no more than eight games and the mob will be finally significant enough that Wilson could not possibly think he will ever get this team to the promised land. No matter how nice and classy the guy is, breaking even every year isn't going to cut it for a team with a non-playoff streak as long as ours.

 

Actually, yes. That is the point. Jauron has never been a coach in a stable situation where he has a QB and an offense that he can trust. Point to one instance last season where there was any stability at the QB position. You won't. You had a veteran who had proven that he couldn't get the job done and a rookie. Which one would you trust to unleast that vicious passing attack? I choose neither and stick to a conservative philosophy that at least gives us a chance to stay in and win games. No, it wasn't pretty, but we were competitive with a lot of injuries and a lot of rookie talent. Keep in mind, Jauron wasn't making the offensive play calls. The inept Steve Fairchild was. So to suggest that the failure to take risks is all on Jauron is completely inaccurate.

 

As for risks, I would direct you to the Dallas game that you seem to use as the bastion call for why Jauron is a bad coach. They took a number of risks on offense in that game, the players failed to execute and we lost. The best example, was on first an nine they called a pass to Evans in the endzone. The ball was not well thrown, but Evans had a shot at it. Instead of going for the ball he stood there and made no effort to get to it. Instead he watched Terrence Newman come down with pick and start back the other way. That was execution. It was a gutsy call when we were ahead 24-13, but he did take the risk. Keep in mind, we probably would have won the Denver game had it not been for poor offensive execution.

 

And to say he won't throw long is ridiculous. I seem to recall a 70 yard pass play called in the Fourth Quarter of the Jests game last year that put the game away 13-3. To say that they won't call that play is ludicrous. And that they never take risks is ludicrous. When you have a young team with a rookie quarterback, the SMART coaching move is to be a bit more conservative. The funny thing is, this year they have all stated that there will be a greater reliance on the passing game and that they have a settled QB situation that is not going to change barring injury. If Buffalo wins 10 games and makes the playoffs this whole conversation will be nothing but vapor anyway. But until then, give the guy a shot to do something with the team he and the FO have so painstakingly put back together.

[Beerball]

Dick Jauron is not a top caliber NFL head coach. He has had one strong year and that was achieved with smoke and mirrors. How anyone can not see this is beyond me. I don't give a rip about stats outside of wins/losses and he fails that stat test miserably. Quit with the excuses and look at wins & losses.

 

For those who point to last year...I have 2 words for you...fins, jests.

 

Do I want him to succeed in Buffalo? Absofreakinlutely. Do I think he will? Sadly, no I do not. We will run the best 5 yard square outs in the league though.

[ax4782]

Dick Jauron is not a top caliber NFL head coach. He has had one strong year and that was achieved with smoke and mirrors. How anyone can not see this is beyond me. I don't give a rip about stats outside of wins/losses and he fails that stat test miserably. Quit with the excuses and look at wins & losses.

 

For those who point to last year...I have 2 words for you...fins, jests.

 

Do I want him to succeed in Buffalo? Absofreakinlutely. Do I think he will? Sadly, no I do not. We will run the best 5 yard square outs in the league though.

 

Yes, because there is no other reality beyond wins and losses. Circumstances off and on the field that are out of a person's control, like injuries, don't have any impact on a teams ability to win or lose. I guess when Belicheat was in Cleveland sucking it up on the football field his first time around as a coach, he should have been thrown out of the league. When Marv was losing all those games in KC, Buffalo should have only paid attention to his win loss record and never considered the other parts of his ability to coach that made him great. Many of the qualities that Marv had, I see in Jauron. He had horrendous teams in Chicago, and yet he still managed to go 13-3. I like how when a coach people don't like has a good season, it must have been done by smoke and mirrors, because there's no way it could have been a good coaching job. No way Chicago's 8-0 record that year in games where the differential was 7 points or less could have had anything to do with the coaching job. But hey, it's his fault when a team with 12 starters on IR can't win 12 games. Those injuries have nothing to do with whether the Bills win or lose, right?

 

Give me a break.