The Rockpile Review - Not Enough in Indianapolis

[Shaw66]

His play is killing the team!
People are commenting that the team has lost faith in Chan ... I think they have lost faith in Fitz.
When he totally misses wide open receivers it kills the morale.

You overstate it, but I get your point. Overstate because his play didn't kill the team against the Pats - it kept the Bills IN the game.

My point is not that Fitz will win championships with the Bills. My point is Fitz is one, the most important one, of several examples why the Bills don't win as much as their talent would suggest they should. Gailey is so right when he says they (not just Fitz, "they") need to learn how to win. But when he says the he's really pointing the finger it himself. What he should say is he hasn't taught them how to win. He hasn't lead the team in a way that would get a stop against the Titans to win the game, to fill their lanes to prevent a punt return for six. They aren't winners. I'll agree, Fitz isn't a winner, he's part of the problem, and he's a big part of the problem, but Fitz wasn't primarily responsible for losing to the Pats or the Titans.

This team can and should win more games with Fitz at QB. But it needs someone better than Fitz if it's going to win a lot of games.

[Otishawk]

The Rockpile Review - by Shaw66



Think about the talent the Buffalo Bills have. CJ Spiller is the 10th leading rusher in the league, even though he has 43 to 146 fewer carries than the guys who are 1-9. Think about that. If Spiller had 200 carries, fewer than the top five rushers in the league, he'd still lead the
league in rushing by 100-300 yards over his nearest pursuers.

You couldn't be more wrong. He is effective because he doesn't have to carry the load himself. Whne they are in the red zone or need a yard for a first down you usually see Jackson. If Spiller were getting more carries his yards per carry would drop well in to the low five's and he would not be as effective. Jackson is by far the better back.

Mario Williams, the guy everyone likes to dump on, is 11th in the league in sacks. Although the Bills have given up a lot of rushing yards, they aren't giving them up on Mario's side.

Meaningless. When you really need a sack, where is he??? Bruce Smith was always there!

Sunday Marcel Dareus looked like a force.

I can't disagree, but one game in 11.................he is an underachiever!

Jairus Byrd is really good. Stephon Gilmore also is a player. Leodis McKelvin suddenly looks like an NFL cornerback, and he's a big-time threat returning kicks.

What game are you watching??? McKelvin can not play CB at this level.

Spiller went over 100 yards Sunday, and Stevie Johnson did, too.

So the Bills have stars, and they have stars producing. They're still not winning.

[B]If they were producing we would be winning. Statistics are meaningless![ /B]

What I saw Sunday: I saw a LOT of heart from Stevie Johnson. In fact, that was one of the most encouraging things about the game. Stevie played like he was personally responsible for the outcome, and that's what it takes, from every player.

You are easily impressed.

I saw a completely inexplicable series of downs to end the first half. I mean, are you serious, Chan? From your own seven, or wherever, a minute and a half to go, when the strength of your offense is running the ball and the Colts with two timeouts, you're passing? That was simply horrible. Why didn't you just put three points on a silver platter, walk across the field and present the points to the Colts?

AGREED!

I saw a QB who doesn't know how to throw the deep ball, and it cost him the game. CJ Spiller and Donald Jones open beyond the defense for touchdowns. It's much tougher to hit that receiver throwing a flat pass. Fitz threw three and completed one.

Agreed

I also saw a lot of Seattle-Miami while watching the Bills at Chicago Sams. After watching both games, I had two questions: Would I trade TJ Graham for Russell Wilson?
I would have taken Mohammad Sanu over either.

Memo to the offensive coordinator: Defense prepare for screen passes by the Bills. That creates opportunities elsewhere. Take advantage.

I saw Jairus Byrd make plays, but I see that every week.

Agreed



Bills-Dolphins and Bills-Colts looked like the same games. Bills should have rolled to victory fairly easily in both games, because the defense was nearly dominant. Unfortunately, the offense was barely serviceable.

What makes you think the BIlls are better than either of these teams?

Bills should be 7-4 today (Colts, Pats, Titans). For two years now, the Bills' coach has been saying "we have to learn how to win," and it's oh so painfully obvious he's right. If Chan knew how to win, shouldn't he have taught these players by now?

You live in a fantasy world. Not only should they have not beaten the Colts, they should not have beaten the Cardinals.

I said a few weeks ago that it'll be Tarvaris Jackson at QB next season, and I still think so. This offense needs a change, and only a new QB can make real change. Jackson can throw. Guys get open deep, he'll deliver it. He's spending this season learning the system, he'll get plenty of opportunity to work in it during the off-season, and Chan likes his mobility. He wouldn't be my choice, but he's probably the best option the Bills will have. \\

That is not the solution

It's so discouraging for a fan to see the potential and to discover that the glass is, once again, so much less than half full.

Maybe next season.

This is what happens when your team hasn't made the playoffs in 13 years. You make something out of nothing. You take things that should be a given and get excited about it. You accept Mediocrity!

[Shaw66]

This is what happens when your team hasn't made the playoffs in 13 years. You make something out of nothing. You take things that should be a given and get excited about it. You accept Mediocrity!

Who's accepting mediocrity? I'm simply pointing out good things that happened.

You're just completely negative. Every negative comment I made, you agree with, everything that is even remotely positive, you disagree with.

Take McKelvin. What in the world was wrong with McKelvin's play on Sunday. He was regularly in tight coverage, he didn't get beaten deep, and he returned kicks well, as usual. How can you conclude, based on a game where he CLEARLY played at an-NFL level, that he isn't an NFL-level corner. That's stupid.

Uh, as for Bruce, you're wrong. I happened to watch the comeback game the other day. As the Oilers are driving for the game-tying field goal, the Bills got a stop on third down that would have won the game in regulation, except for Bruce foolishly roughing the passer.

Williams got sacks. There is never a time when the outcome of the game is in doubt that sacks are unimportant. But in your world everything is bad, so the good plays the Bills make have to be bad. Good work.

[mrr0622]

This is just simply untrue. The more Spiller touches the ball, the more likely he is to bust a long one. The more long ones he busts, the higher his YPA is.

Let's look at the numbers....


ATT YDS AVG TD
BUF @ NYJ L 28-48 14 169 12.07 1
BUF KAN W 35-17 15 123 8.20 2
BUF @ CLE W 24-14 4 16 4.00 0
BUF NWE L 28-52 8 33 4.13 0
BUF @ SFO L 3-45 7 24 3.43 0
BUF @ ARI W 19-16 12 88 7.33 1
BUF TEN L 34-35 12 70 5.83 0
BUF @ HOU L 9-21 6 39 6.50 0
BUF @ NWE L 31-37 9 70 7.78 0
BUF MIA W 19-14 22 91 4.14 0
BUF @ IND L 13-20 14 107 7.64 0

Let's see, Spiller's YPA on the season is ... 6.7

Spiller's YPA when carrying more than 10 times is ..... 7.28

Futhermore, all of his rushing TD's have come in games where he has carried it more than 10 times.

When he carries it more than 20 times in a game he averages 4.14 a carry and 0 TD's. Of course, on average, he will have more TD's if he carries the ball more.

Here is a pretty good article on this topic.

http://wgr550.com/It-Isn-t-Broke--So...son-C/14837952

[mrr0622]

I question Chan's playcalling sometimes, but there are a lot of plays that are left on the field. He actually has a pretty good offensive system. I question his decision-making as a head coach more than I do about his offense. I can't imagine you would get much more production out of Fitz in another scheme or another coach.

Here this is from the Bills season preview in the NY times and I think it pretty much summarizes our current situation.
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2...eason-preview/

Last season, quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick, playing in a spread offense that Chan Gailey and the coordinator Curtis Modkins tailored for him, posted 14 touchdowns and a passer rating of 97.8 in leading the Bills to a 5-2 start. Wanting to get the 29-year-old Fitzpatrick locked up before his value climbed even further, the Bills signed him to a seven-year, $62 million contract extension ($24 million guaranteed). What followed, of course, was a 1-8 faceplant.

Most likely, Fitzpatrick did not get content after his big deal – he just got figured out and exposed. Call it the Tommy Maddox syndrome. Often, mid-level quarterbacks who find themselves in the right scheme will flourish early on. Teams will study them more closely and eventually solve the scheme. No coach in the history of football has ever concocted a scheme that befuddled an entire league for years and years.

Fitzpatrick simply does not appear to have the talent to be an elite quarterback. His arm strength is just O.K. His accuracy runs hot and cold. Because he mixes these traits with a gunslinger’s mentality, he can be somewhat prone to mistakes. The Bills are hoping that extensive off-season work with the new quarterbacks coach David Lee will smooth some of Fitzpatrick’s flaws. (Being from Harvard and spending the bulk of his early career as a fringe backup, Fitzpatrick had never had anyone diligently work on his mechanics before.) Perhaps it can help, but at the pro level, players generally are what they are (case in point: the newly signed backup Vince Young has reportedly struggled to learn Buffalo’s offense and will most likely fail to supplant Tyler Thigpen).

A coach can only work with the players he has. Give Gailey credit for recognizing what Fitzpatrick truly is and adapting his offense accordingly. Gailey could have built a conservative system that minimized his quarterback’s impact, but he realized that Fitzpatrick’s limitations do not extend to the mental side of the game. Unlike most so-so-armed passers, Fitzpatrick reads the field fairly well. Because he tends to play fast when his pocket quivers, he is better reading things before the snap than after the snap. So, Gailey built a horizontal spread offense. A horizontal spread often involves quick-strike decisions off three- and five-step drops, which means the quarterback can often determine where the ball goes before the snap.

This type of quick-strike system can help mitigate the effect of defenses figuring out how to exploit Fitzpatrick’s limitations. But Fitzpatrick isn’t the only limited player. A big reason Buffalo got figured out last season was their wide receiving group wasn’t very good. It still isn’t.

[D'love]

The part that is absolutely killing me and other football guys I talk with is: 14 carries for Spiller?!! Week after week Chan, for reasons that are unknown to anyone reasonable, Refuses to Let The Man Run Wild!

Does Anyone have an answer for this? because Chan sure doesn't...

I kind of agree, but at the same time he's getting 15+ touches per game. That's quite a few in general, especially when there are two good backs on the team... almost nobody gets 20+ carries a game, and those that do don't last very long.

[nutts252]

When he carries it more than 20 times in a game he averages 4.14 a carry and 0 TD's. Of course, on average, he will have more TD's if he carries the ball more.

Here is a pretty good article on this topic.

http://wgr550.com/It-Isn-t-Broke--So...son-C/14837952

He has only ran for more than 20 carries a game ONCE in his career. That sample size is far too small to look at. It was also against a defense that is giving up less than 97 rushing yards per game. To me, he looked more like Spiller of 2010 and 2011 on that night.

I agree, he is far better with Jackson in the line-up. However, I disagree that his YPC would go down with more touches.

Do you honestly think if he had more runs late in the game, when the defense is tired, that he would suddenly only run for 3-4 yards per carry ??

Spiller should be getting 15-25 runs with Jackson getting 10-15.

[mrr0622]

He has only ran for more than 20 carries per game ONCE in his career. That sample size is far too small to look at. It was also against a defense that is giving up less than 97 rushing yards per game. To me, he looked more like Spiller of 2010 and 2011 on that night.

I agree, he is far better with Jackson in the line-up. However, I disagree that his YPC would go down with more touches.

Do you honestly think if he had more runs late in the game, when the defense is tired, that he would suddenly only run for 3-4 yards per carry ??

Spiller should be getting 15-25 runs with Jackson getting 10-15.

I know it's too small of a sample size, but I think yours was too. We seem to be pretty much in agreement though.

Why do I think his YPC would decrease if he had more touches? From a probability standpoint I would say because nobody in the NFL has ever done it before.

But, there are others reasons. For example, you have games like the Miami game. You would also have teams only focus on stopping him. Also, yes, he might have a 50 yarder if he had more touches. But, he would also have a lot more -1, 2, 3, 1 etc. I'm not saying it would be low, it just wouldn't be as high as it has been. Moreover, there would be a lot more situations where he would get the ball 3 and 1 (situations Fred might run the ball now) or other short-yardage situations (first and goal from the 2). He might get a yard or two. Those would add up. Like I said, Charles still looks really good this year. He's been getting a lot of touches. But, defenses play them differently now. He doesn't have anywhere near the space (and he never needs much space at all, just like Spiller). People are down on Fred, but Fred also runs the ball in different situations.

[caffeine addict]

I question Chan's playcalling sometimes, but there are a lot of plays that are left on the field. He actually has a pretty good offensive system. I question his decision-making as a head coach more than I do about his offense. I can't imagine you would get much more production out of Fitz in another scheme or another coach.

Here this is from the Bills season preview in the NY times and I think it pretty much summarizes our current situation.
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2...eason-preview/

Last season, quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick, playing in a spread offense that Chan Gailey and the coordinator Curtis Modkins tailored for him, posted 14 touchdowns and a passer rating of 97.8 in leading the Bills to a 5-2 start. Wanting to get the 29-year-old Fitzpatrick locked up before his value climbed even further, the Bills signed him to a seven-year, $62 million contract extension ($24 million guaranteed). What followed, of course, was a 1-8 faceplant.

Most likely, Fitzpatrick did not get content after his big deal – he just got figured out and exposed. Call it the Tommy Maddox syndrome. Often, mid-level quarterbacks who find themselves in the right scheme will flourish early on. Teams will study them more closely and eventually solve the scheme. No coach in the history of football has ever concocted a scheme that befuddled an entire league for years and years.

Fitzpatrick simply does not appear to have the talent to be an elite quarterback. His arm strength is just O.K. His accuracy runs hot and cold. Because he mixes these traits with a gunslinger’s mentality, he can be somewhat prone to mistakes. The Bills are hoping that extensive off-season work with the new quarterbacks coach David Lee will smooth some of Fitzpatrick’s flaws. (Being from Harvard and spending the bulk of his early career as a fringe backup, Fitzpatrick had never had anyone diligently work on his mechanics before.) Perhaps it can help, but at the pro level, players generally are what they are (case in point: the newly signed backup Vince Young has reportedly struggled to learn Buffalo’s offense and will most likely fail to supplant Tyler Thigpen).

A coach can only work with the players he has. Give Gailey credit for recognizing what Fitzpatrick truly is and adapting his offense accordingly. Gailey could have built a conservative system that minimized his quarterback’s impact, but he realized that Fitzpatrick’s limitations do not extend to the mental side of the game. Unlike most so-so-armed passers, Fitzpatrick reads the field fairly well. Because he tends to play fast when his pocket quivers, he is better reading things before the snap than after the snap. So, Gailey built a horizontal spread offense. A horizontal spread often involves quick-strike decisions off three- and five-step drops, which means the quarterback can often determine where the ball goes before the snap.

This type of quick-strike system can help mitigate the effect of defenses figuring out how to exploit Fitzpatrick’s limitations. But Fitzpatrick isn’t the only limited player. A big reason Buffalo got figured out last season was their wide receiving group wasn’t very good. It still isn’t.

This is the best commentary on Fitz and Chan that I've read in a long time. Thanks.

[ysuconductor]

I see three BIG problems: 1. Head Coach--the buck starts at the top and Chan's record is LOUSY and if we need to 'learn how to win' how long does it take; e.g. Jim Harbough took an underachieving team to the NFC CHampionships in one season. the Colts were 2-11 last year and are 7-4 2. Franchise QB--we all like Fitz, but he is NOT an NFL QB- weak arm with a good mind and an approach to the game that only works when you also have the physical tools 3. Playmakers who show up every week -- yes, we spent money, but NO the guys are not uniformly committed and executing. SO, and while I hate the thought, we look for a new coach (maybe a GM, too) and we are a much more attractive team with MUCH better talent than we had when Gailey was hired; we draft a talented QB even if it costs us draft picks; and we hope that the new regime can get the players to maximize their talents. GO BILLS

[Run_N_Shoot]

I love how sensitive people are here.

This is a forum where people give and discuss their opinions. The fact that some of my opinions turn out to be wrong and some of your opinions turn out to be right is completely pointless - that's true about every discussion involving opinions.

What I don't do is come on here and declare I was right when a particular opinion of mine turns out to be correct, although I often come here to admit that a particular opinion of mine turned out be incorrect. I don't understand why people think it's important to declare themselves the winner.

There were winners and losers in the Spiller debate, winners and losers in the Fitz debate, winners and losers in the Leodis McKelvin debate. I really don't care who won any of those debates, including me. It seems to be important to you, so go ahead, pat yourself on the back.

But while you're doing so, it would be nice for the rest of us who are actually talking Bills football if you would take a minute to add SOMETHING to the conversation.

Its not about being sensitive or about trying to prove Im the winner. Ive been a loser because Im a fan of a team that time and time again has let us all down. I tried at the beginning of the Gailey regime to lay out thoughtful and well reasoned arguments as to why it was a bad idea to bring Gailey aboard. And all I got was told countless times that I was a negative nancy and that I need to give him a chance....blah blah blah he won with Dallas blah blah...

It sucks that its come to this yet again. So yeah Im taking some solice in watching many of those people who blasted me for my opinion eating some well deserved crow. Maybe if some here practiced what they preached then there wouldnt be these types of situations.

In the end we all want the same things....theres no one sure fire way to get there. But Gailey was a bad hire from day one. Maybe he was the best we could get...but theres no way I was ever going to get on board with him. I knew this was going to happen. Sorry I was right....sorry many of you chose to be fooled by what was right infront of you. Thats a you problem, not a me problem.

[Josh14069]

I agree 100% with the OP comments about the games & situation being BORING! Coaches, players etc. it's just become boring to watch.

[treid022]

LOL.....yeah, I want to see the season ticket count next year if Tarvaris Jackson is sold to the fanbase as our next QB.

No way will that happen.

he will be and they will draft a wideout in the first round..bring in another big star free agent... I see it now. Maybe Issac Bruce will come out of retirement and they'll bring him in with Marvin Harrison... yep yep.. GO BILLS!

[BuffaRuKuS]

Perhaps the most overrated storyline of the season, or maybe I am just sick of the guys on WGR, is just give Spiller the ball and he will have the same numbers. Spiller is great, and he should touch the ball more (or at least be on the field more). But, his average per carry will decrease. The closest example to the Bills situation was the timeshare between Thomas Jones and Jamaal Charles in 2010. Charles averaged 6.38 yards per carry that year....so close to beating the all time record set by Jim Brown. Everyone in Kansas City was complaining that Jones touched the ball. Why? It was working great. Charles would bust a couple long runs every game. Now it is 2012. Charles is still an awesome back. In fact, I can't think of two players who are more fun to watch than Spiller and Charles. But, bar one week against the Saints, Charles is not busting off huge runs like he used to. He is averaging about 4.8 yards a carry. Take away that one game against the Saints, it would be a lot less. He needs a Thomas Jones. Spiller is better with Jackson in the game getting touches.

As a side note, I'm so sick of hearing all these people who bashed the Spiller pick now crying because he isn't used enough. The Spiller pick is the best pick of the Buddy Nix era...by far. There are 3 or 4 players like him in a draft. You take them if they are there no matter what. The best free agent acquisition of Buddy Nix? Mario Williams. Easy. I'm so sick of the crying about him too. Even though the Bills looked like garbage again, I can't remember the last time we had the best player on the field when our offense was on the field (Spiller) and when our defense was on the field (Mario). You need difference makers.

Unfortunately, we lack a difference maker at the most important position. Our offense is so limited by the skills of the QB. For as much as the Gailey is getting bashed right now, Fitz has left so many plays on the field it's ridiculous. I have a lot of respect for Fitz as a man. But, his time as a starting QB has run its course. Fitz and our offense will their good days. They are what they are though and I have no faith in Fitz when it matters.

I'm not sure what the Bills should do. Gailey seems out of sorts. But, I'm intrigued by the defense. Maybe Wanny isn't that bad after all. The defense is playing a lot better. Might I say they have looked good. For how much they have been bashed this year, they are improving (although you couldn't get much worse...some of that had to do with turnovers and playing the Pats twice though). I would love to see us have a sizeable lead for once and see how they play. I doubt that will happen though.

It's always funny about that learn to win. There is nothing to learn. You just have to be better than the other team. The Patriots never had to learn to win. They have a better coach and a better QB. Same with the Giants. Same with the Ravens. Same with the Falcons. Same with the Broncos. Same with the Saints...oh wait, their coach is suspended. If anyone knows how to win, it's the Steelers. They didn't forget how to win this weekend. They had a crappy QB.

Nice write-up Shaw...as always.

while shaw will get the glory this post is pretty good as well

[BuffaRuKuS]

I question Chan's playcalling sometimes, but there are a lot of plays that are left on the field. He actually has a pretty good offensive system. I question his decision-making as a head coach more than I do about his offense. I can't imagine you would get much more production out of Fitz in another scheme or another coach.

Here this is from the Bills season preview in the NY times and I think it pretty much summarizes our current situation.
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2...eason-preview/

Last season, quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick, playing in a spread offense that Chan Gailey and the coordinator Curtis Modkins tailored for him, posted 14 touchdowns and a passer rating of 97.8 in leading the Bills to a 5-2 start. Wanting to get the 29-year-old Fitzpatrick locked up before his value climbed even further, the Bills signed him to a seven-year, $62 million contract extension ($24 million guaranteed). What followed, of course, was a 1-8 faceplant.

Most likely, Fitzpatrick did not get content after his big deal – he just got figured out and exposed. Call it the Tommy Maddox syndrome. Often, mid-level quarterbacks who find themselves in the right scheme will flourish early on. Teams will study them more closely and eventually solve the scheme. No coach in the history of football has ever concocted a scheme that befuddled an entire league for years and years.

Fitzpatrick simply does not appear to have the talent to be an elite quarterback. His arm strength is just O.K. His accuracy runs hot and cold. Because he mixes these traits with a gunslinger’s mentality, he can be somewhat prone to mistakes. The Bills are hoping that extensive off-season work with the new quarterbacks coach David Lee will smooth some of Fitzpatrick’s flaws. (Being from Harvard and spending the bulk of his early career as a fringe backup, Fitzpatrick had never had anyone diligently work on his mechanics before.) Perhaps it can help, but at the pro level, players generally are what they are (case in point: the newly signed backup Vince Young has reportedly struggled to learn Buffalo’s offense and will most likely fail to supplant Tyler Thigpen).

A coach can only work with the players he has. Give Gailey credit for recognizing what Fitzpatrick truly is and adapting his offense accordingly. Gailey could have built a conservative system that minimized his quarterback’s impact, but he realized that Fitzpatrick’s limitations do not extend to the mental side of the game. Unlike most so-so-armed passers, Fitzpatrick reads the field fairly well. Because he tends to play fast when his pocket quivers, he is better reading things before the snap than after the snap. So, Gailey built a horizontal spread offense. A horizontal spread often involves quick-strike decisions off three- and five-step drops, which means the quarterback can often determine where the ball goes before the snap.

This type of quick-strike system can help mitigate the effect of defenses figuring out how to exploit Fitzpatrick’s limitations. But Fitzpatrick isn’t the only limited player. A big reason Buffalo got figured out last season was their wide receiving group wasn’t very good. It still isn’t.

ehh i understand that he probably is trying to take advantage of fitz strengths, but he deserves no credit for the mistakes he himself has made that has cost this team, most importantly the ones involving putting the game in a below average qbs hands more often then not. its one thing to sling it when your down, another to intentionally call 3 pass plays in a row when your tied or up, most importantly when your run game is working, but regardless thats the case. 2nd n 6, 3rd n 5 even if the run just manages a few yards, seems a better way to have a quick strike three step spread o become successful. if your saying our recievers arent that great well....thats just icing on the cake of where chan continues to be stubbornly wrong in his gameplanning. hes been exposed, i agree! but chan is the last one to know.

[mrr0622]

ehh i understand that he probably is trying to take advantage of fitz strengths, but he deserves no credit for the mistakes he himself has made that has cost this team, most importantly the ones involving putting the game in a below average qbs hands more often then not. its one thing to sling it when your down, another to intentionally call 3 pass plays in a row when your tied or up, most importantly when your run game is working, but regardless thats the case. 2nd n 6, 3rd n 5 even if the run just manages a few yards, seems a better way to have a quick strike three step spread o become successful. if your saying our recievers arent that great well....thats just icing on the cake of where chan continues to be stubbornly wrong in his gameplanning. hes been exposed, i agree! but chan is the last one to know.

Remember last year when it was third and short and Brad Smith would come in and run the Wildcat and get the first down? Then about halfway through the season it just stopped. What happened to that? I agree. Some things are baffling.

[Buddo]

Remember last year when it was third and short and Brad Smith would come in and run the Wildcat and get the first down? Then about halfway through the season it just stopped. What happened to that? I agree. Some things are baffling.

Apparently, Smith was required, due to injuries, to become a WR, and they didn't then practise much with him in the Wildcat. That first part of last season, was the only period in years, when I have been confident we were getting the 3rd and short yards, for another set of downs.
It's one thing to try and protect your players to an extent, but if winning is the object of the exercise, you also have to be prepared to throw them back into the fire.

Imho, from the talent side of things, there's an awful lot to be optimistic about, providing key additions are made. QB and WR being top of my personal list, with OT (again) needing addressing. LB and CB are also areas where we aren't good enough.

The coaching staff are absolutely correct that consistency has been a major issue for this team, and the Indy game was a perfect example of this. The part of the game that the Bills lost, which meant losing the whole game, was STs. As a unit, the Indy loss is on them. The other aspects of the team matched their counterparts.

That being said, although the D looked for the large part the best of the 3 phases, they couldn't get themselves off the field enough. Too often, good play on the first two downs, was counteracted by letting up a 3rd and long. Since getting his wrist sorted out, Mario is looking like 'as advertised', and the front four generally, are performing much better, as a unit. Where we are getting exposed, is by our LB play and in the secondary. Wannstedt may not be quite the problem he's being seen to be imho. The issues we are having with (some) inadequate LB and CB play, could well mean that he's much less inclined to go away from the base packages.

Offensively, inconsistency rules. One week the WRs catch stuff like they have fly-paper hands, the next week they drop routine catches. Fitz's inaccuracy, will not help with this, but if the football hits you in the guts, as it did Dickerson, early on in the Indy game, for what would have been a big gain, you have to catch it. For all that Spiller may know what he's supposed to be doing now, when asked to block, his execution leaves a fair bit to be desired. He whiffed impressively on one that lead directly to a sack on Fitz on Sunday. A betting man might be tempted to say that that is still part of the reason he isn't on the field as much as everyone would like. Thing is, I believe that the scheme should be adjusted to allow for this, as Spiller is an exceptional talent. Now he has patience with his blockers, he's incredibly fun to watch. Get both him and Freddie out there, and let Fred do the majority of the blocking, if we decide it's a pass play.
Generally, I like what Chan's offense tries to do. The problem is that the right quality of player isn't there to do it. On Sunday, the O-Line play reminded me of about 3 years ago, it was so poor. It started with Hairston, and while for a big guy he doesn't move badly, to combat Freeney and Mathis etc. he has to move much quicker than he appears to be capable of. Good lines can cope with all types of rushers.
Invariably, the mistakes seem to occur when we least need them to. And they occur in all 3 aspects of the game. Good teams make their errors when it matters least. This, to me, is a result of some sub-standard players, but also coaching.
I suspect that Gailey and Wannstedt are very good technical coaches, but somewhere along the way, you need to get some sort of a fire going. I don't see that from this coaching staff. That bit of fire, is desperately needed. It helps get players focused, and focus is something that will help consistency.
Talent wise, I believe that this group of players is generally a good bit above average. As a team, they don't cut it. As others have said, they are lacking leadership, generally, both on the field and on the sidelines.
As a HC, Chan needs to take a leaf from the Tom Coughlin book of coaching, but rather than eas off on how disciplined he expects his players to be, he needs to go the other way, and demand more discipline from them - especially on the field. There needs to be more of an in your face attitude if this team is going to perform to the best of it's ability.
In all honesty, that won't still be good enough, imho. Fitz isn't good enough to take them anywhere further than the playoffs, but that could have been a possibility, if they had had more fire and focus from the beginning. 7-4 as opposed to 4-7 should not have been beyond them, at all.

[Shaw66]

Its not about being sensitive or about trying to prove Im the winner. Ive been a loser because Im a fan of a team that time and time again has let us all down. I tried at the beginning of the Gailey regime to lay out thoughtful and well reasoned arguments as to why it was a bad idea to bring Gailey aboard. And all I got was told countless times that I was a negative nancy and that I need to give him a chance....blah blah blah he won with Dallas blah blah...

It sucks that its come to this yet again. So yeah Im taking some solice in watching many of those people who blasted me for my opinion eating some well deserved crow. Maybe if some here practiced what they preached then there wouldnt be these types of situations.

In the end we all want the same things....theres no one sure fire way to get there. But Gailey was a bad hire from day one. Maybe he was the best we could get...but theres no way I was ever going to get on board with him. I knew this was going to happen. Sorry I was right....sorry many of you chose to be fooled by what was right infront of you. Thats a you problem, not a me problem.

Thanks for the response. By the end, you sort of miss the point, but the rest of what say makes sense. What you say is my problem is actually your problem - posting for the sole purpose of saying you were right. It makes you look small and obnoxious.

But your explanation of how you feel makes sense. I may have been one of those arguing with you, not because I was sure Gailey would succeed, but because he wasn't an unreasonable choice, particularly given the choices. There were a lot of reasons why he might have turned out to be the right guy, just like there were a lot of reasons why Jauron might have been the right guy. Kudos to you for understanding that Gailey wouldn't be able to do the job.

All the GM can do is hire coaches and players and see how they work out. Some of their decisions work out, some don't; some of them are big successes (Stevie, I guess) and some are big failures (Maybin). Nix is not the only guy who's head coach hasn't worked out.

What's interesting is the Bills hired a defensive head coach (Jauron) whose defenses never during his tenure in Buffalo never were better than 14th in the league, and then they hired an offensive head coach (Gailey) whose offenses have never been better than 14th.

[Maine-iac]

Is it just me or has Fitz gotten worse at throwing the deep ball. I get it that his arm isn't the strongest but he used to hit throws deep with some regularity. Stevie in the Pitt game, T.O. the game he took over and a number of others. It seems like he's gone from batting 500 to not being able to hit ANYTHING deep.

[Shaw66]

Is it just me or has Fitz gotten worse at throwing the deep ball. I get it that his arm isn't the strongest but he used to hit throws deep with some regularity. Stevie in the Pitt game, T.O. the game he took over and a number of others. It seems like he's gone from batting 500 to not being able to hit ANYTHING deep.

I've had the same sense. Forgot about Stevie's. TO's 99-yarder was well thrown.

What bothered me on Sunday was all three long balls, complete to Stevie and incomplete to CJ and Jones, were flat throws - that is, he threw them with a lower trajectory. Stevie in the Pittsburgh game and TO's bomb, as I recall, were higher trajectory and fell to the receiver in stride.

It's harder to be accurate throwing a flat trajectory long ball.. That throw has to have higher velocity to get there because it doesn't have the hang-time that a high ball has. For a guy with less than great arm strength, throwing a high velocity ball requires more body motion, and as you add body motion, you lose accuracy.

Sunday I began wondering whether the off-season coaching mechanics has actually HURT Fitz's accuracy.