This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Agreed. It seems obvious to me that we should give him a new deal in the off-season, By all means, they should continue to draft QBs, but I don't see any reason why Taylor can't be our long-term starter.BobbyLayne said:
I'm on record in some of these threads about how much I like Bowles. I agree completely that the Jets have the better HC. I will say that I do still think Rex is a better HC than Doug Marrone, though.flysack said:
Opposite side of the ball, but the Steelers threw for the game winning FD last night on third down - and that was the series after Ben threw an interception on second down. Went into the victory formation off a play that at least 25-28 NFL coaches don't have the balls to call.
I was watching that with my dad and we agreed before the play that they should go for the jugular....they did, and it paid off. Doesn't always work that way, but it's nice to see some coaches with balls in today's NFL.
I disagree. Sure, he's been a pleasant surprise, but IMO it's way too early to give him a long-term contract for big money, which is what he's going to want. Play out next year as is, see how he does, then make the decision.
The defense you're describing is what I thought we were getting this year. Instead we get three-man rushes on passing downs.
He's gone if we let him play out his contract. There are too many QB-starved teams out there to let anybody decent hit free agency.
For the purposes of this discussion, yeah. It doesn't make any sense to try to save money by making him play out his contract with your contingency plan being to use the franchise tag. That would be far more expensive than just re-signing him now.
It's not about trying to save money, it's about making sure he's the guy you want long term before paying him like it. The franchise tag is just leverage/a last resort, it would only be used if he dominates next year AND if they can't agree to an extension- not likely at all, QBs rarely ever play under the tag.
I know it seems like it's better to lose and feels meaningless. It's better for the Bills to win. Better for their team confidence heading into next season. Better to not be one of the worst teams Record wise in the league. These picks are all lottery picks. Winning > better first round pick. Haven't the years of losing taught all of us that??? Oh and beating the Cowboys is never meaningless.
I know some feel that way, but I completely disagree. Does anyone have a good feeling about this team based on how they played against a shell of a Cowboys team? If you're going to win, at least play well doing so. They played like crap and still fell ~5 spots in the draft- kind of the worst case scenario.
Agree- When we were doing it from 5 to 6 wins yes it was huge.
This.
Agreed.
I kind of feel like he should be the head coach and only the head coach. That is, no input into how the defense or offense are run on game day, not in charge of challenges or timeouts - just be the figurehead.
I agree totally. The winning-at-the-end-of the-year-for-momentum thing is complete nonsense, IMO. There will be a different team suiting up next September. The players know talent, and if they see talent on this team they are going to feel very confident heading into the year. It won't have anything to do with whether or not they won a couple games at the end of the previous season.
Disagree. His teams lack discipline and that's all on the HC. He should be a defensive architect, with the right players.
Exactly. That's why he should stay out of the X's and O's and just hire a DC that knows how to scheme and play-call with the talent that is available. It's his meddling on the defensive side of the ball that ruined this season.
We are going to not see eye to eye on this one. Most of the team will be back next year. And winning is important to the guys who will be returning. To say otherwise is kind of head scratching. These guys are human beings not video game characters. They have emotions and memories and winning gives people a sense of confidence that losing doesn't. Furthermore, draft picks are lottery tickets. Picking 10 vs 20 always seems like a big deal on draft day but rarely is in reality. There might be one year in a decade I could agree with you... A year like 'suck for Luck' but then you have to be one of the worst teams in the league. Hard to argue with enduring a season like that for maybe getting Luck. And there is no clear cut talent in the draft that would warrant that. So for nearly every year, I prefer teams I am a fan of to win not lose for draft picks. I'd be interested to see if there was any actual data on this topic show that losing helped your club in the long run.
There can be no clearer evidence against this theory than the Buffalo Bills. Go back and look- every single year, they win a game or two towards the end of the year, and it obviously never builds into anything positive for them. Again, who feels good about the way they played last week? Even if you somehow did, do you really think that would carry forward into next year when it hasn't done so for the last decade plus?
Agreed, but for the sake of discussion...
Agree on the first. Disagree on the second. It's important for those who are actually on the field, and for a day or two after that, just due to their competitive nature, but I'd guess most will be over it very quickly - much like a pre-season game. These games mean nothing and the players know it. I can't imagine any of them in camp next year saying "We should be good this year. Remember how well a few of us, and a bunch of guys whose name I can't remember did against that QB from Dallas whose name I can't remember?" Like you said, these guys are human. They aren't going to care how they did in what is essentially a couple pre-season games at the end of the year. They'll look back to the highs and lows in the early and middle parts of the year when games mattered if they do any reflecting.
You can't pick one team. Too small of an N.
When we're discussing one team, you can't get a better data set than the results of that team. Where are the positive results from winning late season games year after year?
Without getting too much into the stats of it all, correlation does not equal causation. You can blame it on the draft but wins and losses way more complicated than where a team is picking.
Why not? There's nothing else to talk about. As usual...Gandalf said:
I think Mario was sold on Buffalo by Wannstedt telling him he would be DE in a traditional 4-3 defense. Schwartz kept that promise and even made it better, as Mario had a career year with him.
The Bills are a lot more banged-up than they were 6 weeks ago, and just struggled to beat Dallas (albeit the weather was awful that day). I don't think it'll be a blowout but I think it'll be relatively comfortable for the Jets. Up a TD for most of the game and end up winning by 10-14. Just a hunch.
On the other hand, the wind doesn't affect scrambling.Fitz has played many more winter games at the Ralph than Tyrod has.
