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

[Shaw66]

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.

Yeah, I'd like to know, too.

Thurmie, you make some good arguments, but I think Chandler is right on this one. Yes, it's possible that a coach with three straight years of bad outcomes can start to get good outcomes the following year, and yes there are all kinds of reasons why a team might be bad three years in a row.

However, when you get three bad years in a row with a coach, you have to look at those years and ask yourself what were the reasons for such poor performance. And when you ask THAT question about the 20010-2012 Bills, an awful lot of the answers seem to point to the head coach. For example:

The head coach said the 3-4 defense was the way to go in the NFL when he was hired. That, among other things contributed to Poz leaving. After two years, he changed the defense.

The defensive coordinator was fired. Who hired him?

The Bills have gone three years saying they can win with Fitz at QB. Who's decision was that?

The Bills have a guy who, at least in terms of apparent talent, is a top 10, maybe top 5 running back, and he consistently gets too few touches per game.

The Bills are consistently outplayed to open the second half.

The Bills are consistently outplayed in the fourth quarter.

The Bills lose 8 games in a row.

The Bills lose 9 games in a row.

The offense is regularly ineffective. Who's the offensive coordinator? Who hired him?

Those are all characteristics of head coaching problems, and when you have a lot of identifiable coaching problems, then there isn't a lot of reason to believe that a fourth year is going to be different from the first three. Could be, but I'd have to say the odds aren't good.

Consistency is important, I agree, but if you have Bozo the Clown as the head coach, 20 years on the job isn't going to change the outcome. I don't think Chan is Bozo the Clown, but there have been enough signs that, for all his talent, Chan doesn't have what it takes to win games.

So I think Gailey should go. I DON'T think Nix should go, especially if he's willing to fire Gailey. I DO think Nix should be on a short leash for two reasons: He hired the wrong heac coach, and he's mismanaged the QB position. I think he gets this off-season to fix those mistakes; if he takes no significant action, then I'm ready for him to be unemployed, too.

[EscapedfromNY]

Does continuity breed success or, does success lead to continuity? I think it is more often the latter.

It is, and the Lions and Matt Millen reinforced that theory.

[Shaw66]

Remember Nix saying "it's time to win?" That didn't mean in 2013. IF Ralph is on top of things Chan is gone. There isn't even a question.

It's that simple.

This is the best statement in the thread. Remember that? Beginning of the season, right? Buddy said "it's time to win," and you're right, he didn't mean 2013. He meant he'd put together enough talent so that the Bills could perform on the field.

He didn't say it this way, but it was a flat out challenge to Chan. There are, after all, only two ingredients to winning: players and coaching. (Luck and injuries, too, I suppose, but Bills have been okay onthe injury front, and they haven't lost a game to bad luck, unless giving up 50 points happens because of bad luck.) Buddy meant the team had the players.

I remember being happy when Buddy said that. He was suggesting there was some accountability.

Well, Buddy, the team didn't win. And unless someone comes up with some argument I haven't thought of, there's only guy who should be held responsible.

As Chan says, "this is a production business." Chan hasn't produced.

Get Chip Kelly, put Tarvaris Jackson at QB, run read-option plays, use Spiller and score some points.

[intimidatortj]

Nine times out of ten NFL teams dismiss coaches with records like Coach Gailey has compiled after three years (three losing seasons). The few times such coaches are brought back (and Dick Jauron was, perhaps predictably, the last such coach brought back for a 4th year) they overwhelmingly fail, that is, their teams never make the playoffs. 91% of such coaches have failed over the last 25 years and 78% have failed since the 1970 merger.

Why would anyone think the Bills would beat the odds by bringing this coach back?

I think part of Buddy's hesitation is the fear of not being able to find a better coach willing to take the job. If Chip Kelly was blowing up Buddy's cell phone, I bet Buddy would be singing a different tune.

[intimidatortj]

Get Chip Kelly, put Tarvaris Jackson at QB, run read-option plays, use Spiller and score some points.

The Buffalo Bills franchise should consider an unconventional offense, including a lot of read-option, etc.

If you can't get an Elite QB, go with a Chip Kelly offense for the NFL. Does Chip Kelly really have the best QBs in college, or, is it his offense that is successful?

[WhenTheFitzHitsTheChan]

This is the best statement in the thread. Remember that? Beginning of the season, right? Buddy said "it's time to win," and you're right, he didn't mean 2013. He meant he'd put together enough talent so that the Bills could perform on the field.

He didn't say it this way, but it was a flat out challenge to Chan. There are, after all, only two ingredients to winning: players and coaching. (Luck and injuries, too, I suppose, but Bills have been okay onthe injury front, and they haven't lost a game to bad luck, unless giving up 50 points happens because of bad luck.) Buddy meant the team had the players.

I remember being happy when Buddy said that. He was suggesting there was some accountability.

Well, Buddy, the team didn't win. And unless someone comes up with some argument I haven't thought of, there's only guy who should be held responsible.

As Chan says, "this is a production business." Chan hasn't produced.

Get Chip Kelly, put Tarvaris Jackson at QB, run read-option plays, use Spiller and score some points.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...in-some-games/

“We’ve done some things right, but it’s time for us to close it out and win some games,” Nix said, via the team’s Twitter account as the Bills began gathering for training camp. “We have to step up. It’s time.”

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/nf...eam-to-step-up

“We're realistic enough to know that the first year or two we didn't have enough depth and enough playmakers to make a difference and probably contend all the way through the year,” Nix said. “But I think the feeling is different now ... It's time to close it out and win some games and until we do, it's not complete.”

http://m.nfl.com/news/0ap1000000053342/

"No, I like high expectations. I've never been many places where if you didn't have 'em, that good things happen," he told the Toronto Sun . "So I think they oughta expect a lot of us. We expect a lot out of ourselves. New England, the AFC -- they don't scare me. I think we can compete with any of 'em, and our intention is to try to win the division."

[WhenTheFitzHitsTheChan]

Yeah, I'd like to know, too.

Thurmie, you make some good arguments, but I think Chandler is right on this one. Yes, it's possible that a coach with three straight years of bad outcomes can start to get good outcomes the following year, and yes there are all kinds of reasons why a team might be bad three years in a row.

However, when you get three bad years in a row with a coach, you have to look at those years and ask yourself what were the reasons for such poor performance. And when you ask THAT question about the 20010-2012 Bills, an awful lot of the answers seem to point to the head coach. For example:

The head coach said the 3-4 defense was the way to go in the NFL when he was hired. That, among other things contributed to Poz leaving. After two years, he changed the defense.

The defensive coordinator was fired. Who hired him?

The Bills have gone three years saying they can win with Fitz at QB. Who's decision was that?

The Bills have a guy who, at least in terms of apparent talent, is a top 10, maybe top 5 running back, and he consistently gets too few touches per game.

The Bills are consistently outplayed to open the second half.

The Bills are consistently outplayed in the fourth quarter.

The Bills lose 8 games in a row.

The Bills lose 9 games in a row.

The offense is regularly ineffective. Who's the offensive coordinator? Who hired him?

Those are all characteristics of head coaching problems, and when you have a lot of identifiable coaching problems, then there isn't a lot of reason to believe that a fourth year is going to be different from the first three. Could be, but I'd have to say the odds aren't good.

Consistency is important, I agree, but if you have Bozo the Clown as the head coach, 20 years on the job isn't going to change the outcome. I don't think Chan is Bozo the Clown, but there have been enough signs that, for all his talent, Chan doesn't have what it takes to win games.

So I think Gailey should go. I DON'T think Nix should go, especially if he's willing to fire Gailey. I DO think Nix should be on a short leash for two reasons: He hired the wrong heac coach, and he's mismanaged the QB position. I think he gets this off-season to fix those mistakes; if he takes no significant action, then I'm ready for him to be unemployed, too.

Solid post

[adrenaline]

Bump

[Jm2009]

Yeah, I'd like to know, too.

Thurmie, you make some good arguments, but I think Chandler is right on this one. Yes, it's possible that a coach with three straight years of bad outcomes can start to get good outcomes the following year, and yes there are all kinds of reasons why a team might be bad three years in a row.

However, when you get three bad years in a row with a coach, you have to look at those years and ask yourself what were the reasons for such poor performance. And when you ask THAT question about the 20010-2012 Bills, an awful lot of the answers seem to point to the head coach. For example:

The head coach said the 3-4 defense was the way to go in the NFL when he was hired. That, among other things contributed to Poz leaving. After two years, he changed the defense.

The defensive coordinator was fired. Who hired him?

The Bills have gone three years saying they can win with Fitz at QB. Who's decision was that?

The Bills have a guy who, at least in terms of apparent talent, is a top 10, maybe top 5 running back, and he consistently gets too few touches per game.

The Bills are consistently outplayed to open the second half.

The Bills are consistently outplayed in the fourth quarter.

The Bills lose 8 games in a row.

The Bills lose 9 games in a row.

The offense is regularly ineffective. Who's the offensive coordinator? Who hired him?

Those are all characteristics of head coaching problems, and when you have a lot of identifiable coaching problems, then there isn't a lot of reason to believe that a fourth year is going to be different from the first three. Could be, but I'd have to say the odds aren't good.

Consistency is important, I agree, but if you have Bozo the Clown as the head coach, 20 years on the job isn't going to change the outcome. I don't think Chan is Bozo the Clown, but there have been enough signs that, for all his talent, Chan doesn't have what it takes to win games.

So I think Gailey should go. I DON'T think Nix should go, especially if he's willing to fire Gailey. I DO think Nix should be on a short leash for two reasons: He hired the wrong heac coach, and he's mismanaged the QB position. I think he gets this off-season to fix those mistakes; if he takes no significant action, then I'm ready for him to be unemployed, too.

spot on post.

[Chris]

I think its incredible that you think Gailey hasn't had an opportunity to win. His team plays against their opponent and their coach. He's poison.

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.

[Chris]

Ditto

Yeah, I'd like to know, too.

Thurmie, you make some good arguments, but I think Chandler is right on this one. Yes, it's possible that a coach with three straight years of bad outcomes can start to get good outcomes the following year, and yes there are all kinds of reasons why a team might be bad three years in a row.

However, when you get three bad years in a row with a coach, you have to look at those years and ask yourself what were the reasons for such poor performance. And when you ask THAT question about the 20010-2012 Bills, an awful lot of the answers seem to point to the head coach. For example:

The head coach said the 3-4 defense was the way to go in the NFL when he was hired. That, among other things contributed to Poz leaving. After two years, he changed the defense.

The defensive coordinator was fired. Who hired him?

The Bills have gone three years saying they can win with Fitz at QB. Who's decision was that?

The Bills have a guy who, at least in terms of apparent talent, is a top 10, maybe top 5 running back, and he consistently gets too few touches per game.

The Bills are consistently outplayed to open the second half.

The Bills are consistently outplayed in the fourth quarter.

The Bills lose 8 games in a row.

The Bills lose 9 games in a row.

The offense is regularly ineffective. Who's the offensive coordinator? Who hired him?

Those are all characteristics of head coaching problems, and when you have a lot of identifiable coaching problems, then there isn't a lot of reason to believe that a fourth year is going to be different from the first three. Could be, but I'd have to say the odds aren't good.

Consistency is important, I agree, but if you have Bozo the Clown as the head coach, 20 years on the job isn't going to change the outcome. I don't think Chan is Bozo the Clown, but there have been enough signs that, for all his talent, Chan doesn't have what it takes to win games.

So I think Gailey should go. I DON'T think Nix should go, especially if he's willing to fire Gailey. I DO think Nix should be on a short leash for two reasons: He hired the wrong heac coach, and he's mismanaged the QB position. I think he gets this off-season to fix those mistakes; if he takes no significant action, then I'm ready for him to be unemployed, too.

[WilliamCody]

If they don't fire him in the offseason, something tells me we'll have an interim coach by the bye week.

[eregitano]

The team has improved the talent with the same or worse results. This team has been historically bad in points allowed, yards allowed, games allowing 50 or more points. This is not improvement. Yet they added big name, impact free agents to the defense

The team arguably would have the same record with the team that started 2011...is that progress?

Not to mention the in game gaffes, the under utilization of spiller.

Continuity of a bad thing equals more of a bad thing. It's basic logic.

[ericwoodsfan]

In spite of all the logic that was accumulated in the above posts. The simple logic that prevails is that Chan does not belong in the position of a head coach let alone for the Bills or a division I school. Pure and simple

[lonce]

N

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.

There is not a reason or quantifying statement that can be made as to why a team is bad.
I say it's coaching, you say the team is bad. We could go around in circles to Infiniti on an argument neither can win.

There are many examples that say change in coaches, changes the win-loss record, from cellar to division lead in a season. Was it because one can really say the talent was now there or was because of a coach that knows how to motivate and play talent properly?

There are no qualifying claims as to coaching continuity in today's NFL, where teams are a couple plays away from having a better record.
There is some parity in the league.

I would prefer to point to Gaileys game situations, his undying infatuation with Fitz,or his lack of use regarding Spiller as a point of reference to say I would rather take a chance elsewhere.

[Joe Fan]

Nine times out of ten NFL teams dismiss coaches with records like Coach Gailey has compiled after three years (three losing seasons). The few times such coaches are brought back (and Dick Jauron was, perhaps predictably, the last such coach brought back for a 4th year) they overwhelmingly fail, that is, their teams never make the playoffs. 91% of such coaches have failed over the last 25 years and 78% have failed since the 1970 merger.

Why would anyone think the Bills would beat the odds by bringing this coach back?

2012 was a wasted season. It was clear that Gailey had no idea what he was doing well before 2011 season was over. His flaws in game management, play calling and clock management will not be resolved with another season. His complete disregard for the defense is ridiculous. 2013 will be the obvious second wasted season. Just like any other position, the Bills should be looking to upgrade coaching.

[WilliamsWreckingCrew]

The only thing keeping Gailey does is insure a mid season coaching change in 2013. Just like when they kept Jauron in 2009, they're throwing away 2013 if Gailey is retained.

This.

And the fans, media, analysts, etc know it.

OBD can't possibly believe this team is only a few players/changes away from making a huge step in 2013. Sure we can dump Fitz and draft a QB/sign another veteran, but in the end Gailey's poor coaching isn't going to change.

And if we lose the final two games as expected, how do you bring back a coach who only has 3 wins in the division in 3 years?

[Thurman#1]

Yeah, I'd like to know, too.

Thurmie, you make some good arguments, but I think Chandler is right on this one. Yes, it's possible that a coach with three straight years of bad outcomes can start to get good outcomes the following year, and yes there are all kinds of reasons why a team might be bad three years in a row.

However, when you get three bad years in a row with a coach, you have to look at those years and ask yourself what were the reasons for such poor performance. And when you ask THAT question about the 20010-2012 Bills, an awful lot of the answers seem to point to the head coach.

I absolutely agree that you have to ask what caused the three bad seasons. I just disagree with your answers.

And by the way, I think that believing Chan is the problem is a legitimate opinion. Just not the only legitimate opinion.

I can't answer point by point without creating an Everest of a post, but I'll try to answer some of what you say here.

For example:

The head coach said the 3-4 defense was the way to go in the NFL when he was hired. That, among other things contributed to Poz leaving. After two years, he changed the defense.

The defensive coordinator was fired. Who hired him?

The Bills have gone three years saying they can win with Fitz at QB. Who's decision was that?

Was that Chan who changed the defense? Or Buddy? I don't think that's nearly as clear as you apparently do. I think it's very possible that Buddy hired Chan after telling him that he wanted to run a 3-4 and asking if Chan was on board with that, and if he had done so, I guess Chan would have said, OK, sure, I'm on board. And again, I don't think it's clear among Buddy and Chan who made the decision to go back to the 4-3.

Worth noting, for instance, that under Chan Dallas ran the 4-3 for two years. Defense certainly wasn't the problem there, as the defense finished 3rd and 5th in the league those two years.

Whoever made those decisions, a minimum of one of them was wrong. No question. I'd argue the original switch to the 3-4 was misguided. But at least one and maybe even both of those decisions were flawed.

The DC was fired, and who fired him? Dunno.

And yeah, they've gone three years saying Fitz could win. But they've also said for all of that time that they were looking to upgrade every position, including QB. I don't fault them even slightly for backing Fitz 100% if they were also actively trying to replace him. These days you simply can't say you don't trust your QB. If you do, the team loses faith in him and things get even worse.

My feeling about this whole mess is that Buddy has been trying to draft somebody for three years, but was looking to do so only at the correct value. I think/hope from his recent statements he has finally figured out that QBs no longer last to their correct value or even close. It seems to me they were looking at Ponder, maybe Kaepernick and Cousins, and maybe Wilson, at least, but all of them were gone.

I admit that's only guesswork on my part, so if you disagree, that's fair enough. But it's a reasonable guess, IMHO.

The Bills have a guy who, at least in terms of apparent talent, is a top 10, maybe top 5 running back, and he consistently gets too few touches per game.

The Bills are consistently outplayed to open the second half.

The Bills are consistently outplayed in the fourth quarter.

The Bills lose 8 games in a row.

The Bills lose 9 games in a row.

The offense is regularly ineffective. Who's the offensive coordinator? Who hired him?

Yup. The offense has sucked. IMHO, any offense run by Fitz is headed in that direction.

Each year the offense starts strong and does decently for a few games and then tails off. I can only think of one likely reason for that trend repeating, and that's that each year Chan makes some great scheme changes to try to hide the limitations of his personnel, and it works for a few games till opponents have three or four games of film on us. At that point, someone figures out how to counter the advantages of the new scheme and for the rest of the year we have to play straight up, our personnel on theirs, and having Fitz as the QB ensures that most defenses can kick our butts straight up.

We lost those eight and nine games in a row in the first two years of a complete rebuild. Teams are going to suck those first two years. I'm sure you've read me saying this probably thirty times. I say it because I believe it and because history shows it's true. Those slumps came after the first three or four games, after teams had figured out how to counter Chan's schemes. IMHO, they weren't surprising.

The Bills are regularly outplayed in the second half? In the second half of the year, the defense has actually been improving in most second halfs. Look at the Seattle game and the Pats* game, the worst game of the second half for the defense, for instance. The defense got better in both second halves. The offense was awful in most second halves, I agree. Again, I think the most obvious reason is simply that a team led by Fitz can be shut down.

Those are all characteristics of head coaching problems, and when you have a lot of identifiable coaching problems, then there isn't a lot of reason to believe that a fourth year is going to be different from the first three. Could be, but I'd have to say the odds aren't good.

Consistency is important, I agree, but if you have Bozo the Clown as the head coach, 20 years on the job isn't going to change the outcome. I don't think Chan is Bozo the Clown, but there have been enough signs that, for all his talent, Chan doesn't have what it takes to win games.

So I think Gailey should go. I DON'T think Nix should go, especially if he's willing to fire Gailey. I DO think Nix should be on a short leash for two reasons: He hired the wrong heac coach, and he's mismanaged the QB position. I think he gets this off-season to fix those mistakes; if he takes no significant action, then I'm ready for him to be unemployed, too.

I agree with your comments on Nix. As for Gailey, I won't be upset if he goes, but I wonder who most folks think we're going to get to replace him right now. The people who everyone wants, the higher-tier candidates, aren't going to want to come here with the team's future so up in the air and the QB situation in such horrible disarray.

If the team quits on Gailey or he loses the locker room, needless to say he has to go. I haven't seen that. Could happen in the next two games, though. If it does, he should be gone. I suspect the team, particularly the defense, will play pretty well the next two weeks.

Neither Nix nor Gailey has proven he's the right guy, though Nix pretty clearly has done his job better. With such a bad QB situation, I'd argue, it would have been almost impossible for any coach to do much better.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Thurman#1]

N

There is not a reason or quantifying statement that can be made as to why a team is bad.
I say it's coaching, you say the team is bad. We could go around in circles to Infiniti on an argument neither can win.

There are many examples that say change in coaches, changes the win-loss record, from cellar to division lead in a season. Was it because one can really say the talent was now there or was because of a coach that knows how to motivate and play talent properly?

There are no qualifying claims as to coaching continuity in today's NFL, where teams are a couple plays away from having a better record.
There is some parity in the league.

I would prefer to point to Gaileys game situations, his undying infatuation with Fitz,or his lack of use regarding Spiller as a point of reference to say I would rather take a chance elsewhere.

Good points, though my feeling about Gailey's "undying infatuation" with Fitz is only a result of not having anything better.

[Thurman#1]

I think part of Buddy's hesitation is the fear of not being able to find a better coach willing to take the job. If Chip Kelly was blowing up Buddy's cell phone, I bet Buddy would be singing a different tune.

Totally agree.