Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 97

Thread: Bills shouldn't stay the course: unassailable logic from WGR

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Posts
    26,189

    Default

    Buffalo Bills

    FREE iPad Download

    Quote Originally Posted by chandler81 View Post
    Really it is not one opinion versus another opinion. NFL history shows Mr. Simon's plan to be much more likely to succeed than the opinion to stay the course. Not all opinions are created equal.

    History really doesn't show that.

    If changing coaches and plans every three years or so was more likely to result in success, we'd be very successful here in Buffalo the last twelve years or so.

    It very much is a case of one opinion versus another. Unfortunately. And it will continue to be so until they invent a machine to look into the future with.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    8,763

    Default

    I think what history shows is that good coaches stay more than 3 years, so there's no need to change. Pretty sure the key is hiring a good coach because the frequency of turnover depends on the quality of the coach you hire.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Western NY
    Posts
    809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thurman#1 View Post
    History really doesn't show that.

    If changing coaches and plans every three years or so was more likely to result in success, we'd be very successful here in Buffalo the last twelve years or so.

    It very much is a case of one opinion versus another. Unfortunately. And it will continue to be so until they invent a machine to look into the future with.
    No, it isn't. If continuity were as important as people say then the Eagles would be winning the superbowl, or the Titans would have played in a superbowl in the last decade.

    Continuity doesn't mean jack, a quality staff is what is actually important. When you put together a good staff then they don't get fired after 3 years (shocking I know) and then you have continuity.

    The cases in which a failing coaching staff was retained and they got better is infinitesimally small.

    You can have any opinion you want, but as the guy earlier said, opinions aren't created equally. You wishing to keep your head in the sand regarding facts doesn't make your opinion valid.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thurman#1 View Post
    History really doesn't show that.

    If changing coaches and plans every three years or so was more likely to result in success, we'd be very successful here in Buffalo the last twelve years or so.

    It very much is a case of one opinion versus another. Unfortunately. And it will continue to be so until they invent a machine to look into the future with.
    Do you think OBD believes that Chan is a good coach?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The Seventh Gate Of Toronto
    Posts
    2,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thurman#1 View Post
    Hardly unassailable logic.

    Certainly a legit opinion, but so's the opposite.

    And as for comparing Carroll to Gailey, Carroll was on a team that didn't fully rebuild. They kept a bunch of older guys on the roster that first year, and that is always going to allow a team to do better in the early years than the team that does a full rebuild as Buffalo did. His GM also brought some upper-level and mid-level FAs, including Matt Flynn, Sidney Rice, Zach Miller, McQuistan and Marshawn. They were trying to win early. They were also lucky/smart enough to draft Russell Wilson.

    It's not reasonable to blame the coach of a team whose QB is Fitz for not being as good offensively as a team whose QB is Russell Wilson.
    ok, here to me is Howard's argument in a nutshell:


    "There is merit in the argument that teams need continuity but that doesn’t mean changes shouldn’t be made when warranted.

    Chan Gailey enters Sunday’s game at Miami with a 15-31 record as Bills Head Coach....

    Actually Gailey is keeping with the fine tradition of the franchise having below average coaches....

    ... a grand total of 1 win over a team that ended up with a winning record(New England, 2011).

    When you break down this season, some will point out that Gailey’s 5 wins have come over teams with a combined record of 20-50 but this is the NFL and plenty of teams “fatten” their record against mediocre competition. The more ****ing statistic is the Bills record against teams that currently have a winning record. It is 0-6 and in those defeats, the Bills have been outscored 225-101."

    he's not saying change for the sake of change; but change when it's warranted after waiting patiently for three years to see positive results.

    please give a logical counter-argument that says why Chan Gailey, after three years and the results we've seen, deserves a chance to coach another year with the Bills.

    i like him as a human being and if there's a reasonable chance he could succeed, i'd be all for it. please detail with logical reason why he deserves another year with us.
    Jason
    Toronto, Canada
    Go Bills!!!

    The doctors, the lawyers and G-men are living in fear!

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    5,178

    Default

    Gailey has to be gone....

    His record is terrible and he needs to be held accountable for this season. You spend $120 million on free agents, you have "your QB," and you have a cupcake schedule. If you turn that into 6 or 7 wins you need to be fired
    Find a way to get Clowney or Mack!

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jasonb View Post
    ok, here to me is Howard's argument in a nutshell:


    "There is merit in the argument that teams need continuity but that doesn’t mean changes shouldn’t be made when warranted.

    Chan Gailey enters Sunday’s game at Miami with a 15-31 record as Bills Head Coach....

    Actually Gailey is keeping with the fine tradition of the franchise having below average coaches....

    ... a grand total of 1 win over a team that ended up with a winning record(New England, 2011).

    When you break down this season, some will point out that Gailey’s 5 wins have come over teams with a combined record of 20-50 but this is the NFL and plenty of teams “fatten” their record against mediocre competition. The more ****ing statistic is the Bills record against teams that currently have a winning record. It is 0-6 and in those defeats, the Bills have been outscored 225-101."

    he's not saying change for the sake of change; but change when it's warranted after waiting patiently for three years to see positive results.

    please give a logical counter-argument that says why Chan Gailey, after three years and the results we've seen, deserves a chance to coach another year with the Bills.

    i like him as a human being and if there's a reasonable chance he could succeed, i'd be all for it. please detail with logical reason why he deserves another year with us.
    Good post. I'm still waiting for the answer. Thurman#1 are you there?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thurman#1 View Post
    History really doesn't show that.

    If changing coaches and plans every three years or so was more likely to result in success, we'd be very successful here in Buffalo the last twelve years or so.

    It very much is a case of one opinion versus another. Unfortunately. And it will continue to be so until they invent a machine to look into the future with.
    Oh, it's history all right and those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

    FACT: In th last 25 years 83 coaches have began their tenures with three straight losing season; 72 were axed or 87%.

    FACT: Of those 11 who were retained, only one (Belichick in Cleve.) eventually lead his team to the playoffs. That's a 91% failure rate.

    FACT: If one goes back further, to the merger in 1970, only 4 of 18 retained coaches made the playoffs. That's a 78% failure rate. (And one could argue that Starr in GB really didn't succeed. Yes, he made the playoffs in his 4th year: but he went 8-7-1, and never again made the playoffs in 5 more years. The other three are HOFer Noll, to-be HOFer Belichick, and John McKay who took over an expansion team.)CORRECTION: 8-7-1 was Starr's best full season. He actually made the playoffs only in the strike year of 1982 at 5-3-1.

    So, while we can't indeed predict the future, history does indeed tell us that keeping a coach as unsuccessful as Mr. Gailey has been will end in failure. And, in fact, the NFL does not often even give such unsuccessful men another try. You may want Mr. Gailey to stay, but you surely can't be expecting success given what has happened in the last 40+ years in the NFL. No opinions there.
    Last edited by chandler81; 12-21-2012 at 01:51 PM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Posts
    26,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by starrymessenger View Post
    Do you think OBD believes that Chan is a good coach?

    Jeez, I can't speak for them.

    If I had to guess, I'd guess they think, as I do, that he hasn't yet had an opportunity to win, that the Fitz-led roster simply isn't good enough right now. I know they have an understanding that it takes longer than people generally assumes it does, even if the coach is really good (Kubiak, for instance), but that if the coach is bad it'll never improve.

    That's about all I can say.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Posts
    26,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chandler81 View Post
    Oh, it's history all right and those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

    FACT: In th last 25 years 83 coaches have began their tenures with three straight losing season; 72 were axed or 87%.

    FACT: Of those 11 who were retained, only one (Belichick in Cleve.) eventually lead his team to the playoffs. That's a 91% failure rate.

    FACT: If one goes back further, to the merger in 1970, only 4 of 18 retained coaches made the playoffs. That's a 78% failure rate. (And one could argue that Starr in GB really didn't succeed. Yes, he made the playoffs in his 4th year: but he went 8-7-1, and never again made the playoffs in 5 more years. The other three are HOFer Noll, to-be HOFer Belichick, and John McKay who took over an expansion team.)

    So, while we can't indeed predict the future, history does indeed tell us that keeping a coach as unsuccessful as Mr. Gailey has been will end in failure. And, in fact, the NFL does not often even give such unsuccessful men another try. You may want Mr. Gailey to stay, but you surely can't be expecting success given what has happened in the last 40+ years in the NFL. No opinions there.

    Those are cool numbers, but they don't prove what you think they do.

    Out of those 72 of 83 coaches who were fired after three losing seasons, how many would have won the next year if they'd been kept? We don't know.

    Out of the ones who were retained and failed, how many failed because of bad coaching and how many failed because of bad rosters, and might have done much better with better rosters? We don't know.

    You're assuming that the coaches who failed failed because they were bad coaches. That's not a fair assumption. A quick example, for instance is that we know Dick Jauron had the capability of taking a team to the playoffs, as he did it. But he lost the first three years in Buffalo. Now, I don't think he's a good coach, but he's good enough to take a team to the playoffs under the right circumstances. Your scheme counts him as a guy who was not good enough. How many others are out there like that, good enough but stifled by crappy rosters, bad GMs, or whatever?

    Where are you getting those stats by the way? Sounds like a really good source if you can so quickly tabulate up stuff like that. Let me know where those are available.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Posts
    26,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GoomzyLoveJoyBuffalo View Post
    Good post. I'm still waiting for the answer. Thurman#1 are you there?
    I do have a life. If you want to get hold of me, PM me. Otherwise, hold your water.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    8,763

    Default

    Reality is that pretty much any coach could make the playoffs with a great roster. The key is having a coach who uses the talent he's got while trying to improve that talent in the offseason. Gailey has failed in nearly every aspect as a coach: player development, hiring good assistants, utilizing the talent he has, etc. And anyone who watches the games should be able to see this.

    It's a weak excuse to blame the roster. Good coaching is evident no matter what talent level you have, especially over the course of three seasons. Buffalo does not have good coaching.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thurman#1 View Post
    Jeez, I can't speak for them.

    If I had to guess, I'd guess they think, as I do, that he hasn't yet had an opportunity to win, that the Fitz-led roster simply isn't good enough right now. I know they have an understanding that it takes longer than people generally assumes it does, even if the coach is really good (Kubiak, for instance), but that if the coach is bad it'll never improve.

    That's about all I can say.
    Fair enuf. Not sure I am hearing much from them outside of the "continuity" argument. Whether one agrees with your view or not, and, with respect, I do not, your reasons sound better than theirs. If your thinking is implied by the "continuity" argument, they should come out and be clear about it. If they don't do that it suggests to me that they are uncomfortable defending that position, which presumably they would then have to do. Based on things Buddy has said in the past, and I think Buddy is a straight shooter, you would think that they had higher expectations for the Bills this year. If they have fallen short, then they were wrong.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Posts
    26,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jasonb View Post
    ok, here to me is Howard's argument in a nutshell:


    "There is merit in the argument that teams need continuity but that doesn’t mean changes shouldn’t be made when warranted.

    Chan Gailey enters Sunday’s game at Miami with a 15-31 record as Bills Head Coach....

    Actually Gailey is keeping with the fine tradition of the franchise having below average coaches....

    ... a grand total of 1 win over a team that ended up with a winning record(New England, 2011).

    When you break down this season, some will point out that Gailey’s 5 wins have come over teams with a combined record of 20-50 but this is the NFL and plenty of teams “fatten” their record against mediocre competition. The more ****ing statistic is the Bills record against teams that currently have a winning record. It is 0-6 and in those defeats, the Bills have been outscored 225-101."

    he's not saying change for the sake of change; but change when it's warranted after waiting patiently for three years to see positive results.

    please give a logical counter-argument that says why Chan Gailey, after three years and the results we've seen, deserves a chance to coach another year with the Bills.

    i like him as a human being and if there's a reasonable chance he could succeed, i'd be all for it. please detail with logical reason why he deserves another year with us.

    OK, though I feel like I've done so in countless threads already. Still, here goes.

    1) Teams that do a full rebuild as Buffalo did are going to tend to suck for two or three years. That's what happens when you do a full rebuild. When you take a given three year period and look at the teams with the worst records, they'll likely be teams that had the first year of their rebuild on the first year of your three year period.

    2) I agree, they haven't beaten the good teams. The main reason, I would argue, is that we're a bad team and bad teams have a hard time beating good teams. Is that because Chan Gailey is our coach, or because Ryan Fitzpatrick is our QB and the roster, though finally starting to look semi-decent this year, was absolutely lousy for the first two years? I'm not convinced Gailey is good yet, but I'm absolutely convinced the roster was awful in 2010 and 2011, and I also think that with a better or more consistent QB, we'd have looked a lot better this year.

    3) The defense is finally starting to look better. There's a major difference between the first seven games and the last seven games this year. Gailey gets his share of the credit for that, just as he gets his share of the blame for how lousy the offense has been.

    4) Each of the past three years, the offense has looked good at the beginning of the year and tailed off. Why? I can't think of any reason as likely as the obvious one, that Gailey does a terrific job of building new ideas into the scheme at the beginning of the year, making the personnel look better than they really are. But as the season goes along, teams catch on and figure out how to defense that wrinkle and the teams starts to look only as good as their personnel actually make them. IMHO, those good starts are down to Gailey.

    5) It's really hard to look like a good coach with Fitz as your QB. You know the old Shula quote, "Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck."

    Having said that, if he loses the locker room, he should be gone. And if we get crushed the next two games, things would deservedly look very bad for him, IMHO.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thurman#1 View Post
    Those are cool numbers, but they don't prove what you think they do.

    Out of those 72 of 83 coaches who were fired after three losing seasons, how many would have won the next year if they'd been kept? We don't know.

    Out of the ones who were retained and failed, how many failed because of bad coaching and how many failed because of bad rosters, and might have done much better with better rosters? We don't know.

    You're assuming that the coaches who failed failed because they were bad coaches. That's not a fair assumption. A quick example, for instance is that we know Dick Jauron had the capability of taking a team to the playoffs, as he did it. But he lost the first three years in Buffalo. Now, I don't think he's a good coach, but he's good enough to take a team to the playoffs under the right circumstances. Your scheme counts him as a guy who was not good enough. How many others are out there like that, good enough but stifled by crappy rosters, bad GMs, or whatever?

    Where are you getting those stats by the way? Sounds like a really good source if you can so quickly tabulate up stuff like that. Let me know where those are available.
    Mark Gaughan compiled the data in a recent News article; I attached percentages to the data.

    Since such a huge percentage of the unsuccessful coaches who actually were given a 4th year failed, I think it is reasonable to assume that Gailey would more likely fall into the fail list as opposed to the other list which contains 2 HOFers. Again, we can only go by what's happened in the past. By the way, the last coach who began with three straight losing seasons to be retained was our own Dick Jauron, and suffice it to say he didn't beat the odds. I think if the Bills are to improve they should try doing things like most teams do. Fighting these odds seems just about as likely to succeed as elevating a marketing man to be GM.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Psychoville
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Stay the course

    "What matters is two years and three years down the road, if we have this thing turned around in the right direction and we're winning," Nix said. "I know before I'm asked this, you're going to think I'm crazy, but we're not that far away."


    “Russ and I scanned a list of possible candidates,” Wilson said. “We didn’t know them. I didn’t know them. I don’t think Russ did. We narrowed it down to two candidates for the job of general manager of football, two in-house candidates.”

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Posts
    26,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by starrymessenger View Post
    Fair enuf. Not sure I am hearing much from them outside of the "continuity" argument. Whether one agrees with your view or not, and, with respect, I do not, your reasons sound better than theirs. If your thinking is implied by the "continuity" argument, they should come out and be clear about it. If they don't do that it suggests to me that they are uncomfortable defending that position, which presumably they would then have to do. Based on things Buddy has said in the past, and I think Buddy is a straight shooter, you would think that they had higher expectations for the Bills this year. If they have fallen short, then they were wrong.

    I had higher expectations too. I had a hard time deciding between 8-8 and 9-7. Went back and forth a hundred times. Finally decided on 9-7. Doh!

    Never had really high expectations this year, though, as while I hoped Fitz would have a big improvement with the fundamentals coaching, I thought it was highly unlikely. And I thought that putting in a new defensive scheme before the season would mean the defense would look pretty bad in the first half of the season.

  18. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thurman#1 View Post
    I do have a life. If you want to get hold of me, PM me. Otherwise, hold your water.
    Your annoying. Everything you say is based on what ifs. You get a life instead of defending losers all day.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Psychoville
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thurman#1 View Post
    OK, though I feel like I've done so in countless threads already. Still, here goes.

    1) Teams that do a full rebuild as Buffalo did are going to tend to suck for two or three years. That's what happens when you do a full rebuild. When you take a given three year period and look at the teams with the worst records, they'll likely be teams that had the first year of their rebuild on the first year of your three year period.

    2) I agree, they haven't beaten the good teams. The main reason, I would argue, is that we're a bad team and bad teams have a hard time beating good teams. Is that because Chan Gailey is our coach, or because Ryan Fitzpatrick is our QB and the roster, though finally starting to look semi-decent this year, was absolutely lousy for the first two years? I'm not convinced Gailey is good yet, but I'm absolutely convinced the roster was awful in 2010 and 2011, and I also think that with a better or more consistent QB, we'd have looked a lot better this year.

    3) The defense is finally starting to look better. There's a major difference between the first seven games and the last seven games this year. Gailey gets his share of the credit for that, just as he gets his share of the blame for how lousy the offense has been.

    4) Each of the past three years, the offense has looked good at the beginning of the year and tailed off. Why? I can't think of any reason as likely as the obvious one, that Gailey does a terrific job of building new ideas into the scheme at the beginning of the year, making the personnel look better than they really are. But as the season goes along, teams catch on and figure out how to defense that wrinkle and the teams starts to look only as good as their personnel actually make them. IMHO, those good starts are down to Gailey.

    5) It's really hard to look like a good coach with Fitz as your QB. You know the old Shula quote, "Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck."

    Having said that, if he loses the locker room, he should be gone. And if we get crushed the next two games, things would deservedly look very bad for him, IMHO.
    Define "full rebuild" for us because I see many Jauron players still on this team including a very average guy playing the most important position in the NFL.
    "What matters is two years and three years down the road, if we have this thing turned around in the right direction and we're winning," Nix said. "I know before I'm asked this, you're going to think I'm crazy, but we're not that far away."


    “Russ and I scanned a list of possible candidates,” Wilson said. “We didn’t know them. I didn’t know them. I don’t think Russ did. We narrowed it down to two candidates for the job of general manager of football, two in-house candidates.”

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Posts
    26,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chandler81 View Post
    Mark Gaughan compiled the data in a recent News article; I attached percentages to the data.

    Since such a huge percentage of the unsuccessful coaches who actually were given a 4th year failed, I think it is reasonable to assume that Gailey would more likely fall into the fail list as opposed to the other list which contains 2 HOFers. Again, we can only go by what's happened in the past. By the way, the last coach who began with three straight losing seasons to be retained was our own Dick Jauron, and suffice it to say he didn't beat the odds. I think if the Bills are to improve they should try doing things like most teams do. Fighting these odds seems just about as likely to succeed as elevating a marketing man to be GM.

    Jauron's good evidence for my side, IMHO. He has proved he is good enough to take a team with a good roster to the playoffs.

    What's more, Gailey has already proved that he is good enough to take a team to the playoffs, by doing just that.

    I would argue that most of the coaches who fail in their fourth year fail because the roster doesn't improve enough. No question that some fail because they're not good coaches, too. But Belichick got fired after four of five losing years. After his first three years, people were screaming that he would never be more than a Wade Phillips guy, a good DC who can't be a head coach. The same things they said about Kubiak. The same things they say about a lot of people. Sometimes they're right. Sometimes not.

    Your numbers show only eleven guys in the last twenty-five years even had a chance. You have to figure that a large number of those guys simply never got playoff-worthy rosters. However many are left surely aren't a statistically significant sampling.

    You may think it's reasonable to figure he'll fall into the fail list, but your evidence isn't compelling, though it's certainly interesting. And thanks for letting me know about the Gaughan article. I'll go take a look.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •