The Buffalo Bills (1 Viewer)

[OC Zed]

At least no one had any type of expectations when the best coach they could get was Chan Gailey. The guy has had zero success everywhere he has gone. How was he qualified to get the job over Perry Fuel <SP?> There were no better candidates out there than this retread?

I guess Ralph Wilson wanted a guy his own age to play with...so he hired Gailey.

X

While Gailey has not won any SuperBowls, he did take the Cowboys to the playoffs every year in his 3-year tenure (a feat that Bills and Cowboys fans would certainly not take for granted today). And he also had modest success at Georgia Tech (6 winning seasons in his 6-year tenure, but no BCS bowls). He was hired for three primary reasons: (1) he had previous head coaching experience (the downfall of Greg Williams and Mike Mularky); (2) he's had a good track record in terms of offensive success (the Bills downfall since 1996); and (3) he's show a good ability at maximizing results from minimal talent across different schemes (e.g., Kordell Stewart, Thigpen, etc.).

The first two factors made him a strong edge over Fewell (Fewell showed very little grasp of the offense last season). And the third factor really distinguished himself from all other candidates.

I'm not saying Gailey will pan out. I am saying that there were logical reasons why he received the job.

Gailey's Cowboys won the NFC East in 1998, and made the playoffs under his two years at the reins, although they failed to win a playoff game. Pretty dubious for a decade-old distinction.Gailey inherited a Chiefs offense that ranked at the bottom of the league in almost every category the previous season.[14] He was demoted after three pre-season games in 2009 and relieved of play-calling duties by head coach Todd Haley.[15] Gailey was out of football in 2009.

In between those awesome performances he managed to saddle Ga. Tech with the worst QB I have ever seen remain a four-year starter. Dude couldn't win in the ACC with Calvin Johnson.

Terrible coach and a terrible hire.

The original comment was that Gailey had zero success. Making the playoffs in consecutive years is an achievement itself that most franchises would be very pleased with. And did he improve the Chiefs' offense while he was there? Ya, absolutely... and with minimal talent. His firing had more to do with a personality/philosophy clash with Haley. That happens all of the time around the league.

His huge offensive success at KC was that he moved them from 31st in the league in 2007 to 24th in 2008.

...With arguably worse talent than the year before.

 

[OC Zed]

At least no one had any type of expectations when the best coach they could get was Chan Gailey. The guy has had zero success everywhere he has gone. How was he qualified to get the job over Perry Fuel <SP?> There were no better candidates out there than this retread?

I guess Ralph Wilson wanted a guy his own age to play with...so he hired Gailey.

X

While Gailey has not won any SuperBowls, he did take the Cowboys to the playoffs every year in his 3-year tenure (a feat that Bills and Cowboys fans would certainly not take for granted today). And he also had modest success at Georgia Tech (6 winning seasons in his 6-year tenure, but no BCS bowls). He was hired for three primary reasons: (1) he had previous head coaching experience (the downfall of Greg Williams and Mike Mularky); (2) he's had a good track record in terms of offensive success (the Bills downfall since 1996); and (3) he's show a good ability at maximizing results from minimal talent across different schemes (e.g., Kordell Stewart, Thigpen, etc.).

The first two factors made him a strong edge over Fewell (Fewell showed very little grasp of the offense last season). And the third factor really distinguished himself from all other candidates.

I'm not saying Gailey will pan out. I am saying that there were logical reasons why he received the job.

You forgot the fourth primary reason (which is really the first): He came cheap.

This isn't a fair criticism. Wilson was willing to pay big $$$$ to one of the big name unemployed coaches (Shanahan, Cowher particularly), but none of them would bite.

Disagree. There was never any mention that Wilson was prepared to pay big $$$ to one of the big name coaches, only that the Bills were interested and/or met with some candidates. Money trumps everything in the NFL. If Wilson wanted Shanahan he could have made a big enough offer to get him. A big enough offer might have gotten Cowher, but with his gig in the tv studios he is described as being patient in waiting for a coaching job in a place he wants. Buffalo likely isn't on his list. It's common knowledge that Wilson has a track record of being cheap. While Gailey has a decent enough resume, familiarity with Nix and a willingness to accept a lower salary landed him the Bills job, let's not kid ourselves.

There were plenty of reports immediately after Jauron was fired which indicated Wilson was willing to spend big money for a premiere head coach. And there were serious meetings with both Cowher and Shanahan trying to persuade either of them to come.

Vic Carucci re large contract offer to Shanahan

Adam Schefter re Brandon's meeting with Shanahan

Pro Football Talk re Cowher being OK with salary offer

 

[CompetitiveEdgeFootball]

1. The Bills problems start with Ralph Wilson. As mentioned above, I count the days until he checks out. That is the ONLY way the team gets turned around at all. (Not trying to be mean, just from my football perspective)

2. Gailey sucks. Anyone that says otherwise, especially based on his track record, has no clue about football.

3. I am a lifelong fan (since 1990) and will continue to be one. But man, it is hard as hell to continue rooting for this team in its current state (no pun intended - I dont want them moving).

Would it be unfair then, to hypothesize that if you were a real Raiders, or in this case Bills fan, the best thing for the team is to "take the fall for the franchise" and make something happen that would ensure Ralph Wilson or Al Davis were permanently "terminated" of their duties?

Maybe a bit too incendiary?

 

[dharmapunk]

I know I could probably just Google this but I'm lazy at the moment. What happened to the Bills? Growing up, they were ALWAYS in the Super Bowl, even if they lost all the time. My whole family was always rooting for Jim Kelly/Thurman Thomas/Bruce Smith/etc. even tho we had no connection to that team at all. Was it an ownership change? Not being able to adapt to free agency changes? Just plain stupidity? I have no clue.

The thing that most people forget is this was a MODEL franchise at one point. Not just for putting together the Kelly/Thomas/Smith teams, but for doing what many other teams couldn't: completely rebuilding from the inside out while still fielding a competitive team. They went from the Kelly/Thurman/Bruce Smith/Andre Reed team to Flutie/Antwan Smith/Marcellus Wiley/Eric Moulds teams that made the playoffs. Hell, IMO if it weren't for the Music City Miracle they would have been in the Superbowl in 99 instead of the Titans (and would have matched up better against the Rams too). They had a devastating defense that year (#1 in the NFL) and a good offense with Flutie and Moulds. So what happened, you ask?

1. The Bills GM Bill Polian left for the Colts.

(1a. Compare the Colts to the Bills over the past 10 years)

2. Butler and AJ Smith, his successors, left for the Chargers.

(2a. Compare the Chargers to the Bills over the past 10 years)

3. Wade Phillips. He was handed a playoff caliber team ready for a couple Superbowl runs, and ground them into a bunch of underachieving disappointments.

(3a. See the current Dallas Cowboys)

1 + 2 + 3 = Bills ground into nothing. When Phillips finally left, the team was in tatters. Go look at the Bills 2000 draft. It's been hailed as one of the worst drafts in NFL history. It was also the nail in the Bills coffin.

That's what happened.

Wow. That's an interesting read.

Totally inaccurate, though.It was John Butler, not AJ Smith.

Not totally inaccurate. I forgot about Butler. But Butler and AJ were a team and left for the same sunny place.

 

[dharmapunk]

I don't think Wade is as bad as Bills fans seem to think, though. He just wasn't as good as Marv Levy....any Bills fan who says they'd rather have Gregg Williams/Mike Mularkey/**** Jauron/Chan Gailey than Wade is just silly.

That's the thing about Phillips. He's never "as bad as bad can be." He's the Steve Deberg of coaches: just good enough for you to lose. He develops great defenses, can evaluate talent well, but his teams are always talented bands of undisciplined underachievers. As soon as he took over the Bills he had them losing in the playoffs just like the Cowboys today. The guy is a great D-coordinator but lacks the motivational and game management skills to be a head coach.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm pretty sure a Shark Pool regular could manage this franchise better than the management team and coaching staff that's in place.I think anyone that can beat a Madden game could probably do a better job than these monkeys.This franchise has become a joke. They can't draft, they can't manage talent, they can't play, and they're not committed to doing anything that would allow them to post a winning record.

Agreed. And nothing's going to change until we get new ownership.

 

[dharmapunk]

Maybe this should be another thread, but -

When Ralph dies, it's likely the new owners will move the team. If the Bills move, will you -

1. Keep being a fan

2. Change teams? If so, to who?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Maybe this should be another thread, but -When Ralph dies, it's likely the new owners will move the team. If the Bills move, will you -1. Keep being a fan2. Change teams? If so, to who?

I don't live in Buffalo or have any ties to the WNY area, so for me personally, it would just depend on who the new ownership is and where they relocate to. If they moved to Toronto I would almost certainly abandon them. I'm not sure what team I would "switch" to. Probably I'd take a few years off fan-dom and just see what happens. I have a really hard time imagining that I could just say "Okay, from now on I'm going to be a Colts fan" just like that. I grew up in Indiana so it wouldn't be irrational, but I don't think you can force that sort of thing either.

 

[SugarNuts]

1. The Bills problems start with Ralph Wilson. As mentioned above, I count the days until he checks out. That is the ONLY way the team gets turned around at all. (Not trying to be mean, just from my football perspective)

2. Gailey sucks. Anyone that says otherwise, especially based on his track record, has no clue about football.

3. I am a lifelong fan (since 1990) and will continue to be one. But man, it is hard as hell to continue rooting for this team in its current state (no pun intended - I dont want them moving).

So Gailey's actual statistical record which is very long and positive is outweighed by the assessment of some guy named "SugarNuts" on a fantasy football website?

I guess its better to listen to someone named OC Zed with a kick ### self portrait for his avatar? Yeah ok.

 

[humpback]

His huge offensive success at KC was that he moved them from 31st in the league in 2007 to 24th in 2008.

And that's a bad thing?You obviously don't like the guy, but you're just wrong about his track record and I disagree about him being a terrible hire (considering the circumstances). Still waiting for that long list of better coaches that they should've hired instead...

 

[SugarNuts]

His huge offensive success at KC was that he moved them from 31st in the league in 2007 to 24th in 2008.

And that's a bad thing?You obviously don't like the guy, but you're just wrong about his track record and I disagree about him being a terrible hire (considering the circumstances). Still waiting for that long list of better coaches that they should've hired instead...

Brian Billick, Marty Schottenheimer are the 1st 2. I think if they would have offered Russ Grimm more than what they probably were offering, he might have been more interested. At the very least though, Billick and Schottenheimer would have been much better than Gailey.

 

[Clifford]

His huge offensive success at KC was that he moved them from 31st in the league in 2007 to 24th in 2008.

And that's a bad thing?You obviously don't like the guy, but you're just wrong about his track record and I disagree about him being a terrible hire (considering the circumstances). Still waiting for that long list of better coaches that they should've hired instead...

I don't like the guy because he sucks as a coach. I don't know who else they could have gotten and it's not my job to know. Just like it's not my job to run an oil rig, but that doesn't prevent me from being able to say the guys on the Deepwater Horizon rig were a bunch of incompetent morons who screwed up royally.Long story short, Gailey's biggest success ever as a coach came over ten years ago and amounted to making the playoffs but doing nothing when he got there, with three of the best players to every play the game. Getting to the playoffs with Aikman, Irvin and Emmit is the least anyone should expect, and that was all Gailey could deliver A DECADE AGO.

You and his other supporters have not been able to point to ANYTHING that ranks as an actual success. So yeah, he sucks, and his record PROVES IT. I don't need to find a better hire for him to be a bad hire. Know what else proves it? How about 0-5?

ETA: Worth noting his actual records when he took the Boys to the playoffs:

99: 8-8

98: 10-6

 

[Bills Fan]

I know I could probably just Google this but I'm lazy at the moment. What happened to the Bills? Growing up, they were ALWAYS in the Super Bowl, even if they lost all the time. My whole family was always rooting for Jim Kelly/Thurman Thomas/Bruce Smith/etc. even tho we had no connection to that team at all. Was it an ownership change? Not being able to adapt to free agency changes? Just plain stupidity? I have no clue.

The thing that most people forget is this was a MODEL franchise at one point. Not just for putting together the Kelly/Thomas/Smith teams, but for doing what many other teams couldn't: completely rebuilding from the inside out while still fielding a competitive team. They went from the Kelly/Thurman/Bruce Smith/Andre Reed team to Flutie/Antwan Smith/Marcellus Wiley/Eric Moulds teams that made the playoffs. Hell, IMO if it weren't for the Music City Miracle they would have been in the Superbowl in 99 instead of the Titans (and would have matched up better against the Rams too). They had a devastating defense that year (#1 in the NFL) and a good offense with Flutie and Moulds. So what happened, you ask?1. The Bills GM Bill Polian left for the Colts. (1a. Compare the Colts to the Bills over the past 10 years)2. AJ Smith, his successor, left for the Chargers.(2a. Compare the Chargers to the Bills over the past 10 years)3. Wade Phillips. He was handed a playoff caliber team ready for a couple Superbowl runs, and ground them into a bunch of underachieving disappointments.(3a. See the current Dallas Cowboys)1 + 2 + 3 = Bills ground into nothing. When Phillips finally left, the team was in tatters. Go look at the Bills 2000 draft. It's been hailed as one of the worst drafts in NFL history. It was also the nail in the Bills coffin. That's what happened.

Excellent comment - I would add one other HUGE factor: Their inability to retain talent, which can be blamed on the GM/owner/coach, or whomever is managing their "talent."I realize this list is incomplete, but how would this talent "infusion" look for the Bills? PLus we wouldn;t have to draft so many damn CB's so early:Clements (for $80 mil, not sure he was worth it anyway)WinfieldPat WilliamsFletcherSam AdamsGreerPetersMcGaheeLynchI am certain I am missing a few...

 

[Mike]

Hell, IMO if it weren't for the Music City Miracle they would have been in the Superbowl in 99 instead of the Titans (and would have matched up better against the Rams too). They had a devastating defense that year (#1 in the NFL) and a good offense with Flutie and Moulds.

This is all speculative, but if it weren't for the Music City Miracle I believe that the Jaguars would have been Super Bowl Bound. They were 14-2, had the #6 offense and the #1 defense in the league that year. Their 2 losses, and eventually their third and final loss, were to the Titans. They were dominant in 1999, except against the Titans.

Jags ranked 1st in pts allowed while the Bills ranked 2nd.Jags ranked 4th in yards allowed while the Bills ranked 1st.The Bills offense wasn't that good, but they should have beaten Tennessee on the road at least. Wade deserves credit for pulling Flutie, who could barely throw 15 yards by the end of the season.

Sorry... credit?!? That decision was a complete joke. Johnson won a completely meaningless game in the final week of the season to "justify" the change. Did you seriously go into that Titans game thinking, "Rob Johnson is our starter now - this is a good idea"? The early sack-fumble-safety should have quickly snapped you back to reality that Johnson is a clown and not only was he horrendous in his own right, the whole team played worse when he was in there. 6 sacks and a 10-22-131 passing line later... has Flutie ever taken 6 sacks?... the Bills would not have even been in position to require a late FG for just a 1 point lead at the end. The game would have been out of reach for the Titans.Wade or whoever pushed for Johnson are as much to blame for that loss as the special teams failure that has gone down in infamy.BTW, is this the *** OFFICIAL *** Bills thread? Wish we didn't have a Pats homer start it.

 

[Mike]

His huge offensive success at KC was that he moved them from 31st in the league in 2007 to 24th in 2008.

And that's a bad thing?You obviously don't like the guy, but you're just wrong about his track record and I disagree about him being a terrible hire (considering the circumstances). Still waiting for that long list of better coaches that they should've hired instead...

Brian Billick, Marty Schottenheimer are the 1st 2. I think if they would have offered Russ Grimm more than what they probably were offering, he might have been more interested. At the very least though, Billick and Schottenheimer would have been much better than Gailey.

Would have loved to see Schottenheimer come in here and be given free reign for a few years. We wouldn't be talking Super Bowl bound, but he would make them a lot more competitive game to game and bring the overall franchise back to respectability in that time.I can certainly understand a lot of guys not wanting to come to Buffalo though. The front office is way too old school.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Hell, IMO if it weren't for the Music City Miracle they would have been in the Superbowl in 99 instead of the Titans (and would have matched up better against the Rams too). They had a devastating defense that year (#1 in the NFL) and a good offense with Flutie and Moulds.

This is all speculative, but if it weren't for the Music City Miracle I believe that the Jaguars would have been Super Bowl Bound. They were 14-2, had the #6 offense and the #1 defense in the league that year. Their 2 losses, and eventually their third and final loss, were to the Titans. They were dominant in 1999, except against the Titans.

Jags ranked 1st in pts allowed while the Bills ranked 2nd.Jags ranked 4th in yards allowed while the Bills ranked 1st.The Bills offense wasn't that good, but they should have beaten Tennessee on the road at least. Wade deserves credit for pulling Flutie, who could barely throw 15 yards by the end of the season.

Sorry... credit?!? That decision was a complete joke. Johnson won a completely meaningless game in the final week of the season to "justify" the change. Did you seriously go into that Titans game thinking, "Rob Johnson is our starter now - this is a good idea"? The early sack-fumble-safety should have quickly snapped you back to reality that Johnson is a clown and not only was he horrendous in his own right, the whole team played worse when he was in there. 6 sacks and a 10-22-131 passing line later... has Flutie ever taken 6 sacks?... the Bills would not have even been in position to require a late FG for just a 1 point lead at the end. The game would have been out of reach for the Titans.Wade or whoever pushed for Johnson are as much to blame for that loss as the special teams failure that has gone down in infamy.BTW, is this the *** OFFICIAL *** Bills thread? Wish we didn't have a Pats homer start it.

benching Flutie was one of the best coaching moves in Bills history. Flutie was awful that year and the defense carried them. Johnson wasn't a long-term answer either, but he should have won a very tough road game in the playoffs against one of the best teams in the league.Flutie was great the year before, but not in 1999.In the wind that day, I don't think Flutie could have thrown the ball much more than 15 yards honestly. His arm looked dead from around the Baltimore game on.

 

[Mike]

10 wins? Must have done something right.

benching Flutie was one of the best coaching moves in Bills history

Seriously, WTF? You could not possibly come up with a valid argument to justify this comment.How do you figure he "should have won" with how badly he played?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

10 wins? Must have done something right.

benching Flutie was one of the best coaching moves in Bills history

Seriously, WTF? You could not possibly come up with a valid argument to justify this comment.How do you figure he "should have won" with how badly he played?

absolutely.Flutie stunk that year. Was painful to watch. He'd stink up the joint for 3 quarters while the defense played lights out, and then somehow manufacture a big play or two in the 4th to get the win. And his ego was bigger than the stadium as a result.when you have the best defense in the league, an average QB should go 10-5, no?valid argument? I watched those games. Flutie should have been benched much earlier and the team might have won a few more to get a home playoff game instead of facing the Titans, who were undefeated at home that year.

 

[Mike]

I watched the games too. Completely disagree with your analysis or memory. And Johnson was horrid in the Titans game, which was typical for him. Not even average at all.

 

[humpback]

I don't like the guy because he sucks as a coach. I don't know who else they could have gotten and it's not my job to know. Just like it's not my job to run an oil rig, but that doesn't prevent me from being able to say the guys on the Deepwater Horizon rig were a bunch of incompetent morons who screwed up royally.

Long story short, Gailey's biggest success ever as a coach came over ten years ago and amounted to making the playoffs but doing nothing when he got there, with three of the best players to every play the game. Getting to the playoffs with Aikman, Irvin and Emmit is the least anyone should expect, and that was all Gailey could deliver A DECADE AGO.

You and his other supporters have not been able to point to ANYTHING that ranks as an actual success. So yeah, he sucks, and his record PROVES IT. I don't need to find a better hire for him to be a bad hire. Know what else proves it? How about 0-5?

ETA: Worth noting his actual records when he took the Boys to the playoffs:

99: 8-8

98: 10-6

More nonsense. You're the one who called him a terrible hire- if you knew what you were talking about, you should be able to come up with several obviously better hires, yet you can't come up with a single one. You completely ignore the facts, so it's pointless to argue with you.By the way- the Cowboys were 6-10 the year before Gailey and 5-11 for EACH of the 3 seasons following him- no playoffs in any of those years. You're trying to call 10-6 and 8-8 and playoff appearances in both years a failure? Comical.

 

[Clifford]

I don't like the guy because he sucks as a coach. I don't know who else they could have gotten and it's not my job to know. Just like it's not my job to run an oil rig, but that doesn't prevent me from being able to say the guys on the Deepwater Horizon rig were a bunch of incompetent morons who screwed up royally.

Long story short, Gailey's biggest success ever as a coach came over ten years ago and amounted to making the playoffs but doing nothing when he got there, with three of the best players to every play the game. Getting to the playoffs with Aikman, Irvin and Emmit is the least anyone should expect, and that was all Gailey could deliver A DECADE AGO.

You and his other supporters have not been able to point to ANYTHING that ranks as an actual success. So yeah, he sucks, and his record PROVES IT. I don't need to find a better hire for him to be a bad hire. Know what else proves it? How about 0-5?

ETA: Worth noting his actual records when he took the Boys to the playoffs:

99: 8-8

98: 10-6

More nonsense. You're the one who called him a terrible hire- if you knew what you were talking about, you should be able to come up with several obviously better hires, yet you can't come up with a single one. You completely ignore the facts, so it's pointless to argue with you.By the way- the Cowboys were 6-10 the year before Gailey and 5-11 for EACH of the 3 seasons following him- no playoffs in any of those years. You're trying to call 10-6 and 8-8 and playoff appearances in both years a failure? Comical.

The only thing comical is your continued insistence that people should be thrilled with mediocrity and that it's logical to reward decade-old dubious achievements with a HC job in the NFL. Why on earth do you keep using the fact that I didn't run their coaching search as justification for his hire. Other posters in this thread who follow the Bills have given them yet you ignore those and keep harping on the fact that I am not going to do the small bit of research they should have done in the first place.And yes, an 8-8 Wild Card bid leading to a first-round loss in the playoffs when you have three of the greatest players in the modern era is not good. Not terrible, but as I have repeatedly said a DUBIOUS distinction at best which happened TEN YEARS AGO.

Why do you keep either ignoring the obvious or pretending that the turd in your lunch box is paté?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I watched the games too. Completely disagree with your analysis or memory. And Johnson was horrid in the Titans game, which was typical for him. Not even average at all.

Titans had a dominant defense that year as well, but he drove them for what should have been a winning FG. Bills were playing without 3 starters on the offensive line and Jevon Kearse was a machine that year. Look at McNair's numbers that game. It was a defensive war.Flutie that year had 6 games with completion percentage of 50% or lower. Also 6 games with fewer than 200 yards passing.

this is a pretty interesting recap of the Titans game: http://www.billsbackers.com/WILDLOSS.htm

 

[SugarNuts]

10 wins? Must have done something right.

benching Flutie was one of the best coaching moves in Bills history

Seriously, WTF? You could not possibly come up with a valid argument to justify this comment.How do you figure he "should have won" with how badly he played?

absolutely.Flutie stunk that year. Was painful to watch. He'd stink up the joint for 3 quarters while the defense played lights out, and then somehow manufacture a big play or two in the 4th to get the win. And his ego was bigger than the stadium as a result.when you have the best defense in the league, an average QB should go 10-5, no?valid argument? I watched those games. Flutie should have been benched much earlier and the team might have won a few more to get a home playoff game instead of facing the Titans, who were undefeated at home that year.

Did you just equate Rob Johnson to an average NFL QB? Or did you mean to say average pop warner QB? Because the RJ I saw was about as bad as any QB I have ever seen.

 

[Obie Wan]

At least no one had any type of expectations when the best coach they could get was Chan Gailey. The guy has had zero success everywhere he has gone. How was he qualified to get the job over Perry Fuel <SP?> There were no better candidates out there than this retread?

I guess Ralph Wilson wanted a guy his own age to play with...so he hired Gailey.

X

While Gailey has not won any SuperBowls, he did take the Cowboys to the playoffs every year in his 3-year tenure (a feat that Bills and Cowboys fans would certainly not take for granted today). And he also had modest success at Georgia Tech (6 winning seasons in his 6-year tenure, but no BCS bowls). He was hired for three primary reasons: (1) he had previous head coaching experience (the downfall of Greg Williams and Mike Mularky); (2) he's had a good track record in terms of offensive success (the Bills downfall since 1996); and (3) he's show a good ability at maximizing results from minimal talent across different schemes (e.g., Kordell Stewart, Thigpen, etc.).

The first two factors made him a strong edge over Fewell (Fewell showed very little grasp of the offense last season). And the third factor really distinguished himself from all other candidates.

I'm not saying Gailey will pan out. I am saying that there were logical reasons why he received the job.

You forgot the fourth primary reason (which is really the first): He came cheap.

This isn't a fair criticism. Wilson was willing to pay big $$$$ to one of the big name unemployed coaches (Shanahan, Cowher particularly), but none of them would bite.

This is pure non-sense- just a lot of spin put out there by the PR masters at OBD.

In Buffalo, just saying you want to hire a big name coach is enough to sell tickets to the gullible Bills fan

- no need to actually spend the money

if Ralph was so adamant about spending big bucks to turn around the program, why did he not even go outsdie the building to interview a GM candidate.

He picked Buddy Nix out of retirement over Modrak and Guy- both of whom should have been fired as talent evaluators years ago.

 

[Obie Wan]

His huge offensive success at KC was that he moved them from 31st in the league in 2007 to 24th in 2008.

And that's a bad thing?You obviously don't like the guy, but you're just wrong about his track record and I disagree about him being a terrible hire (considering the circumstances). Still waiting for that long list of better coaches that they should've hired instead...

Brian Billick, Marty Schottenheimer are the 1st 2. I think if they would have offered Russ Grimm more than what they probably were offering, he might have been more interested. At the very least though, Billick and Schottenheimer would have been much better than Gailey.

Would have loved to see Schottenheimer come in here and be given free reign for a few years. We wouldn't be talking Super Bowl bound, but he would make them a lot more competitive game to game and bring the overall franchise back to respectability in that time.I can certainly understand a lot of guys not wanting to come to Buffalo though. The front office is way too old school.

The rumor was that Marty and Brain were both coming to BuffaloIt was far enough along that Rex Ryan had agreed to not block Brian's move because he would be working with his dad.

Ralph vetoed it - because Marty wanted too much control.

 

[Mike]

His huge offensive success at KC was that he moved them from 31st in the league in 2007 to 24th in 2008.

And that's a bad thing?You obviously don't like the guy, but you're just wrong about his track record and I disagree about him being a terrible hire (considering the circumstances). Still waiting for that long list of better coaches that they should've hired instead...

Brian Billick, Marty Schottenheimer are the 1st 2. I think if they would have offered Russ Grimm more than what they probably were offering, he might have been more interested. At the very least though, Billick and Schottenheimer would have been much better than Gailey.

Would have loved to see Schottenheimer come in here and be given free reign for a few years. We wouldn't be talking Super Bowl bound, but he would make them a lot more competitive game to game and bring the overall franchise back to respectability in that time.I can certainly understand a lot of guys not wanting to come to Buffalo though. The front office is way too old school.

The rumor was that Marty and Brain were both coming to BuffaloIt was far enough along that Rex Ryan had agreed to not block Brian's move because he would be working with his dad.

Ralph vetoed it - because Marty wanted too much control.

Not surprising at all, and there in lies the problem as others have said. Need Ralph to go, but even then there is no guarantee of a turn around if family keeps/runs the team or the team moves. I don't know what I'll do if the team moves.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

10 wins? Must have done something right.

benching Flutie was one of the best coaching moves in Bills history

Seriously, WTF? You could not possibly come up with a valid argument to justify this comment.How do you figure he "should have won" with how badly he played?

absolutely.Flutie stunk that year. Was painful to watch. He'd stink up the joint for 3 quarters while the defense played lights out, and then somehow manufacture a big play or two in the 4th to get the win. And his ego was bigger than the stadium as a result.when you have the best defense in the league, an average QB should go 10-5, no?valid argument? I watched those games. Flutie should have been benched much earlier and the team might have won a few more to get a home playoff game instead of facing the Titans, who were undefeated at home that year.

Did you just equate Rob Johnson to an average NFL QB? Or did you mean to say average pop warner QB? Because the RJ I saw was about as bad as any QB I have ever seen.

yes, he was eventually exposed. But, he gave the Bills a better chance to win that year than Flutie did. Flutie had a dead arm. It was obvious.

 

[Mike]

I watched the games too. Completely disagree with your analysis or memory. And Johnson was horrid in the Titans game, which was typical for him. Not even average at all.

Titans had a dominant defense that year as well, but he drove them for what should have been a winning FG. Bills were playing without 3 starters on the offensive line and Jevon Kearse was a machine that year. Look at McNair's numbers that game. It was a defensive war.Flutie that year had 6 games with completion percentage of 50% or lower. Also 6 games with fewer than 200 yards passing.

this is a pretty interesting recap of the Titans game: http://www.billsbackers.com/WILDLOSS.htm

Thanks for the link. I was looking for a good recap and couldn't find one quickly.Video in the upper-right: http://www.nfl.com/players/robjohnson/profile?id=JOH625847

Quote from Wade Phillips: "In hindsight, Doug probably would have won the game."

Regardless of how poorly you think Flutie played during the 1999 season, when given the decision who to start between the two choices, Flutie was the better choice. He was better than Johnson.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

This is pure non-sense- just a lot of spin put out there by the PR masters at OBD.In Buffalo, just saying you want to hire a big name coach is enough to sell tickets to the gullible Bills fan - no need to actually spend the moneyif Ralph was so adamant about spending big bucks to turn around the program, why did he not even go outsdie the building to interview a GM candidate. He picked Buddy Nix out of retirement over Modrak and Guy- both of whom should have been fired as talent evaluators years ago.

this is how I felt about the changes this offseason as well.One of Wilson's flaws is that he's so unwilling to give control to people he's not familiar with, even if they are highly qualified. He did try it with Donahoe and when that didn't work, he's just been sticking with guys he knows ever since. I don't think he's ever hired a big name or high priced coach either. He's willing to shell out money for players to some extent, but hasn't seemed willing to pay or cede enough control to some of the established NFL coaches who are out there. Also, given the state of the franchise, not sure how many established coaches really want to come to Buffalo these days. Can anyone win in Buffalo right now?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Quote from Wade Phillips: "In hindsight, Doug probably would have won the game."

If he played on the kick coverage units, maybe.Johnson did win the game. Special teams lost it.

 

[Mike]

Quote from Wade Phillips: "In hindsight, Doug probably would have won the game."

If he played on the kick coverage units, maybe.Johnson did win the game. Special teams lost it.

Bulk of the blame for the nine points given up as a result of the safety and ensuing TD are on Johnson's shoulders.

 

[humpback]

More nonsense. You're the one who called him a terrible hire- if you knew what you were talking about, you should be able to come up with several obviously better hires, yet you can't come up with a single one. You completely ignore the facts, so it's pointless to argue with you.By the way- the Cowboys were 6-10 the year before Gailey and 5-11 for EACH of the 3 seasons following him- no playoffs in any of those years. You're trying to call 10-6 and 8-8 and playoff appearances in both years a failure? Comical.

The only thing comical is your continued insistence that people should be thrilled with mediocrity and that it's logical to reward decade-old dubious achievements with a HC job in the NFL. Why on earth do you keep using the fact that I didn't run their coaching search as justification for his hire. Other posters in this thread who follow the Bills have given them yet you ignore those and keep harping on the fact that I am not going to do the small bit of research they should have done in the first place.And yes, an 8-8 Wild Card bid leading to a first-round loss in the playoffs when you have three of the greatest players in the modern era is not good. Not terrible, but as I have repeatedly said a DUBIOUS distinction at best which happened TEN YEARS AGO.Why do you keep either ignoring the obvious or pretending that the turd in your lunch box is paté?

Who is thrilled with mediocrity? I've never said Gailey is a great coach or the perfect hire, far from it. I just pointed out that he has a very good track record, and there weren't a lot of stellar coaches beating down the door to take the Buffalo job.Sorry, but you keep distorting the facts- going 10-6 and winning the division and then 8-8 with a wildcard berth is very good considering the circumstances. The team was terrible the year before and the 3 years following his departure- why do you keep ignoring that? For the record, 1999 is the year Iving got injured, so he didn't have 3 of the greatest players in the modern era both years. The team prior to him did however, and he took virtually the same team from 6-10 to 10-6 and the division championship.Same with KC- just because they weren't ranked in the top 10 doesn't mean he didn't do a good job- he improved them quite a bit. Same as OC of Miami.You can hate him or the hire all you want, but the track record reason doesn't hold water- his track record is good actually.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Quote from Wade Phillips: "In hindsight, Doug probably would have won the game."

If he played on the kick coverage units, maybe.Johnson did win the game. Special teams lost it.

Bulk of the blame for the nine points given up as a result of the safety and ensuing TD are on Johnson's shoulders.

Flutie had thrown 13 interceptions in his previous 10 games and had at least 2 in 5 of those games. He wasn't doing a good job of protecting the football and could have likely given the game away just as easily.

 

[Clifford]

More nonsense. You're the one who called him a terrible hire- if you knew what you were talking about, you should be able to come up with several obviously better hires, yet you can't come up with a single one. You completely ignore the facts, so it's pointless to argue with you.

By the way- the Cowboys were 6-10 the year before Gailey and 5-11 for EACH of the 3 seasons following him- no playoffs in any of those years. You're trying to call 10-6 and 8-8 and playoff appearances in both years a failure? Comical.

The only thing comical is your continued insistence that people should be thrilled with mediocrity and that it's logical to reward decade-old dubious achievements with a HC job in the NFL. Why on earth do you keep using the fact that I didn't run their coaching search as justification for his hire. Other posters in this thread who follow the Bills have given them yet you ignore those and keep harping on the fact that I am not going to do the small bit of research they should have done in the first place.And yes, an 8-8 Wild Card bid leading to a first-round loss in the playoffs when you have three of the greatest players in the modern era is not good. Not terrible, but as I have repeatedly said a DUBIOUS distinction at best which happened TEN YEARS AGO.

Why do you keep either ignoring the obvious or pretending that the turd in your lunch box is paté?

Who is thrilled with mediocrity? I've never said Gailey is a great coach or the perfect hire, far from it. I just pointed out that he has a very good track record, and there weren't a lot of stellar coaches beating down the door to take the Buffalo job.Sorry, but you keep distorting the facts- going 10-6 and winning the division and then 8-8 with a wildcard berth is very good considering the circumstances. The team was terrible the year before and the 3 years following his departure- why do you keep ignoring that? For the record, 1999 is the year Iving got injured, so he didn't have 3 of the greatest players in the modern era both years. The team prior to him did however, and he took virtually the same team from 6-10 to 10-6 and the division championship.

Same with KC- just because they weren't ranked in the top 10 doesn't mean he didn't do a good job- he improved them quite a bit. Same as OC of Miami.

You can hate him or the hire all you want, but the track record reason doesn't hold water- his track record is good actually.

No, it's not, and you just have a very strange and forgiving definition of "very good". To me, here's his track record going backwards:Fired as OC of the Chiefs

Moved Chiefs from 31st to 24th ranked offense as OC

Mediocre stint at Ga Tech head coach, in which he complied a 2-4 bowl record and only had one season with more than 7 wins.

Got Cowboys to playoffs twice, had winning record once, lost in first round of playoffs twice

Nothing about that approaches my most lenient definition of "very good"

 

[SugarNuts]

10 wins? Must have done something right.

benching Flutie was one of the best coaching moves in Bills history

Seriously, WTF? You could not possibly come up with a valid argument to justify this comment.How do you figure he "should have won" with how badly he played?

absolutely.Flutie stunk that year. Was painful to watch. He'd stink up the joint for 3 quarters while the defense played lights out, and then somehow manufacture a big play or two in the 4th to get the win. And his ego was bigger than the stadium as a result.when you have the best defense in the league, an average QB should go 10-5, no?valid argument? I watched those games. Flutie should have been benched much earlier and the team might have won a few more to get a home playoff game instead of facing the Titans, who were undefeated at home that year.

Did you just equate Rob Johnson to an average NFL QB? Or did you mean to say average pop warner QB? Because the RJ I saw was about as bad as any QB I have ever seen.

yes, he was eventually exposed. But, he gave the Bills a better chance to win that year than Flutie did. Flutie had a dead arm. It was obvious.

Agree to disagree on that one. Rob Johnson was NEVER an average QB. He was always below average. Even when he came to Tampa he remained the same putrid excuse for a QB.

 

[Mike]

Quote from Wade Phillips: "In hindsight, Doug probably would have won the game."

If he played on the kick coverage units, maybe.Johnson did win the game. Special teams lost it.

Bulk of the blame for the nine points given up as a result of the safety and ensuing TD are on Johnson's shoulders.

Flutie had thrown 13 interceptions in his previous 10 games and had at least 2 in 5 of those games. He wasn't doing a good job of protecting the football and could have likely given the game away just as easily.

Go to follow SugarNuts' lead (that sounds weird) and agree to disagree Aaron. You're not going to convince me, I'm not going to convince you.At least this argument has reaffirmed my passion for the Bills over all other teams. They don't make it easy though.

 

[alg]

I watched the games too. Completely disagree with your analysis or memory. And Johnson was horrid in the Titans game, which was typical for him. Not even average at all.

Aside from the fact Kearse and others were literally crushing RJ within a half second of taking the snap, he played pretty damn good. Especially that little deal at the end with one shoe. He had more or less carried the infirm offense on his back - and good enough to win the game.The decision to go with him over Flutie created historic levels of bitterness that reverberate to this day, and the timing sucked no doubt, but your opponents in this discussion have been dead on - Flutie was HORRIBLE that year. If Kelly & Company had that defense (or Phillips coaching theirs) they would still be winning all the Super Bowls. It would have been renamed the Buffalo Bowl.When I say he was bad, I mean he really really sucked. I am surprised the Defense didn't give up on him just to get him benched. He was nothing more at that point than an evil leprechaun with horseshoe clovers tucked into his jersey. That he continued to start was likely a result of the PR-gun pointed directly at the head of the franchise.What few knew at the time was that, after getting past the happy story and the Flutie Flakes, he was a backroom cancer consistently undermining RJ. Probably because the little Napoleon knew he deserved to get deep-sixed on performance.But heh, I don't really have a strong opinion on the subject.....

 

[Area51Inhabitant]

Wow are we really resuscitating Flutie v Johnson on the Shark Pool today???

I was never a Johnson fan and I thought that trade with the Jaguars to get Johnson was the closest thing to trade rape I'd ever seen since the Herschel Walker to the Vikings trade. That trade plus Flutie's popularity killed any chance Johnson might have had to be the people's choice in Buffalo but Johnson was given multiple chances to be the man but he could never quite figure it out. He had the physical tools and no doubt Phillips and Butler wanted him to be the man but for whatever reason, he just never could do it. That game unfortunately was vintage Johnson in a nutshell.

Flutie had no arm to speak of but he could lead a team and didn't shrink away from big moments which was good enough for me at the time. I would never mistake him for Kelly or Reich for that matter but it seemed that we could live with his limitations and still be good enough to beat most teams. I'm not gonna say he was going to be the difference maker in that game. Nobody can say for certain either way. But I think most of the fans figured that he had at least earned the chance to play in that game after being the starter for that season.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I watched the games too. Completely disagree with your analysis or memory. And Johnson was horrid in the Titans game, which was typical for him. Not even average at all.

Aside from the fact Kearse and others were literally crushing RJ within a half second of taking the snap, he played pretty damn good. Especially that little deal at the end with one shoe. He had more or less carried the infirm offense on his back - and good enough to win the game.The decision to go with him over Flutie created historic levels of bitterness that reverberate to this day, and the timing sucked no doubt, but your opponents in this discussion have been dead on - Flutie was HORRIBLE that year. If Kelly & Company had that defense (or Phillips coaching theirs) they would still be winning all the Super Bowls. It would have been renamed the Buffalo Bowl.When I say he was bad, I mean he really really sucked. I am surprised the Defense didn't give up on him just to get him benched. He was nothing more at that point than an evil leprechaun with horseshoe clovers tucked into his jersey. That he continued to start was likely a result of the PR-gun pointed directly at the head of the franchise.What few knew at the time was that, after getting past the happy story and the Flutie Flakes, he was a backroom cancer consistently undermining RJ. Probably because the little Napoleon knew he deserved to get deep-sixed on performance.But heh, I don't really have a strong opinion on the subject.....

this guy gets it.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

I watched the games too. Completely disagree with your analysis or memory. And Johnson was horrid in the Titans game, which was typical for him. Not even average at all.

Aside from the fact Kearse and others were literally crushing RJ within a half second of taking the snap, he played pretty damn good. Especially that little deal at the end with one shoe. He had more or less carried the infirm offense on his back - and good enough to win the game.The decision to go with him over Flutie created historic levels of bitterness that reverberate to this day, and the timing sucked no doubt, but your opponents in this discussion have been dead on - Flutie was HORRIBLE that year. If Kelly & Company had that defense (or Phillips coaching theirs) they would still be winning all the Super Bowls. It would have been renamed the Buffalo Bowl.When I say he was bad, I mean he really really sucked. I am surprised the Defense didn't give up on him just to get him benched. He was nothing more at that point than an evil leprechaun with horseshoe clovers tucked into his jersey. That he continued to start was likely a result of the PR-gun pointed directly at the head of the franchise.What few knew at the time was that, after getting past the happy story and the Flutie Flakes, he was a backroom cancer consistently undermining RJ. Probably because the little Napoleon knew he deserved to get deep-sixed on performance.But heh, I don't really have a strong opinion on the subject.....

this guy gets it.

You get it, too.

 

[njherdfan]

Was just browsing and I found this video if there are any particular masochistic Bills fans out there

http://www.hulu.com/watch/124255/game-of-t...-4,vepisode,1,0

 

[Mike]

This argument is laughable. Hey, for those supporting the Johnson decision because Flutie was bad, the point is was Johnson better than Flutie? No, he absolutely was not a better QB which he proved over and over again in his career, both before this game and after.

The head coach admits he made a mistake starting the wrong QB, yet others still want to support that decision

You got your choice of starting QB after that. That sure worked out well.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

This argument is laughable. Hey, for those supporting the Johnson decision because Flutie was bad, the point is was Johnson better than Flutie? No, he absolutely was not a better QB which he proved over and over again in his career, both before this game and after.The head coach admits he made a mistake starting the wrong QB, yet others still want to support that decision You got your choice of starting QB after that. That sure worked out well.

if the home run throwback doesn't happen, Johnson would be viewed a lot differently these days.but that's not the point. he was good enough to win that game and starting him was the right decision.

 

[Area51Inhabitant]

I guess I will grant the notion that Johnson played "well enough" to get the win. I will disagree with the idea that Johnson's perception was primarily defined by that game. Johnson's perception was shaped by his record which by any standard wasn't good and for all of Flutie's faults, both real as well as imagined, Flutie's record was much better. That's what Johnson could never escape. Even when Doug was finally shipped off to San Diego and Johnson had supposedly finally escaped his shadow and could now play without having to worry about the "controversy", he still couldn't get it done. That is the bottom line with Bills fans on Johnson. One game might have given him some breathing room for a while but he would have tossed it away with his performance the following couple of years and nothing about his perception would have changed at all.

 

[PhilLynott]

This argument is laughable. Hey, for those supporting the Johnson decision because Flutie was bad, the point is was Johnson better than Flutie? No, he absolutely was not a better QB which he proved over and over again in his career, both before this game and after.The head coach admits he made a mistake starting the wrong QB, yet others still want to support that decision You got your choice of starting QB after that. That sure worked out well.

if the home run throwback doesn't happen, Johnson would be viewed a lot differently these days.but that's not the point. he was good enough to win that game and starting him was the right decision.

I have to respectfully disagree. Flutie was the guy that year. I remember going to the last game in Buffalo against the Colts. Johnson lit up the scoreboard in a meaningless game and Coach Phillips swore that Flutie was his guy for the play-offs. About midweek Phillips all of a sudden changed his mind to start Johnson. (5 mil a year, big trade, pressure from Ralph, etc.)This is off of the top of my head as I remember so some of the details may be off. But IIRC Coach Phillips was a Flutie guy and would have stuck with him. Would they have won the game? I am not about to get into that.

 

[humpback]

No, it's not, and you just have a very strange and forgiving definition of "very good". To me, here's his track record going backwards: You have an even stranger definition of terrible.

Fired as OC of the Chiefs A new head coach came in and wanted to go in another direction. Lot's of very highly respected coaches have been fired at some point in their career.

Moved Chiefs from 31st to 24th ranked offense as OC This is a positive.

Mediocre stint at Ga Tech head coach, in which he complied a 2-4 bowl record and only had one season with more than 7 wins. Had a winning record and bowl bid every season, tied all-time team record for most ACC wins in a season. Even if you want to call it mediocre, that is better than terrible.

Got Cowboys to playoffs twice, had winning record once, lost in first round of playoffs twice Went 10-6 and won the division with the same team that went 6-10 the previous season. Went 8-8 with a wild card birth his second season. Dallas won 5 games each of the next 3 seasons without him. JJ said his biggest professional regret was firing Gailey and recommended him highly for the Bills job.

Nothing about that approaches my most lenient definition of "very good" You also fail to mention that he's coached in 4 Super Bowls or that he had exactly 1 season below .500 (5-6 back in 1993) in his entire coaching career. Every team that he has coached on has improved under him. It's a LOT closer to "very good" than it is "terrible".

 

[IvanKaramazov]

FWIW, I agree 100% with Rude. Flutie was a fantastic find the year before, but he was awful during the 1999 season, especially down the stretch. I vividly remember the same Baltimore game that Aaron mentioned, when it was painfully obvious that Flutie's arm was shot.

It later turned out that Rob Johnson was a very poor QB. But he won the game for the Bills against an extremely good Tennessee team on the road.

Edit: It seemed like Flutie was getting at least 2-3 passes tipped or batted down at the LOS from Baltimore on. I'm not going to say that Flutie absolutely couldn't have beaten the Titans because that's silly, but that was a team that absolutely would capitalize on a QB's inability to find throwing lanes.

 

[PhilLynott]

FWIW, I agree 100% with Rude. Flutie was a fantastic find the year before, but he was awful during the 1999 season, especially down the stretch. I vividly remember the same Baltimore game that Aaron mentioned, when it was painfully obvious that Flutie's arm was shot. It later turned out that Rob Johnson was a very poor QB. But he won the game for the Bills against an extremely good Tennessee team on the road.Edit: It seemed like Flutie was getting at least 2-3 passes tipped or batted down at the LOS from Baltimore on. I'm not going to say that Flutie absolutely couldn't have beaten the Titans because that's silly, but that was a team that absolutely would capitalize on a QB's inability to find throwing lanes.

Flutie threw for 3171 yards and rushed for 476 yards in 15 games during the 1999 season. He also led the Bills to a 10-5 season. (Johnson earned the other win) How is that "Awful"? Granted, Buffalo's QB situation wasn't great, but to say that Flutie was awful shows a lack of credibility.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

FWIW, I agree 100% with Rude. Flutie was a fantastic find the year before, but he was awful during the 1999 season, especially down the stretch. I vividly remember the same Baltimore game that Aaron mentioned, when it was painfully obvious that Flutie's arm was shot.

It later turned out that Rob Johnson was a very poor QB. But he won the game for the Bills against an extremely good Tennessee team on the road.

Edit: It seemed like Flutie was getting at least 2-3 passes tipped or batted down at the LOS from Baltimore on. I'm not going to say that Flutie absolutely couldn't have beaten the Titans because that's silly, but that was a team that absolutely would capitalize on a QB's inability to find throwing lanes.

Flutie threw for 3171 yards and rushed for 476 yards in 15 games during the 1999 season. He also led the Bills to a 10-5 season. (Johnson earned the other win) How is that "Awful"? Granted, Buffalo's QB situation wasn't great, but to say that Flutie was awful shows a lack of credibility.

Bills had arguably the best defense in the league (1st in yards allowed, 2nd in pts allowed) and a top-10 rushing offense. They should have been better than 11-5.look at his game by game stats that year: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play...utDo00/gamelog/

week 6: 19 of 41 (1TD/3INT) (team lost 14-20)

week 7: 24 of 50 (2TD/2INT) (team lost 16-26)

week 8: 18 of 40 (1TD/3INT) (team won 13-10)

week 9: 16 of 22 (2TD/0INT) (team won 34-17)

week 10: 10 of 20 (1TD/0INT) (team won 23-3)

week 11: 22 of 40 (1TD/2INT) (team lost 7-17)

week 12: 9 of 16 (2TD/0INT) (team won 17-7)

week 13: 15 of 32 (1TD/1INT) (team lost 17-19)

that was an awful stretch of offensive football. in the only easy win against Washington, they had 200+ rushing yards. defense allowed less than 15pts/game during that stretch but the team still only went 4-4 because the "Flutie-led" offense could only generate 17pts/game.

Flutie's stats in those 8 games: 133 of 261 for a completion % of 51%. He threw 11 TDs and 11 INTs. When your defense is that good, completing 51% of your passes and throwing nearly 1.5 INTs/game is absolutely awful.

 

[PhilLynott]

FWIW, I agree 100% with Rude. Flutie was a fantastic find the year before, but he was awful during the 1999 season, especially down the stretch. I vividly remember the same Baltimore game that Aaron mentioned, when it was painfully obvious that Flutie's arm was shot.

It later turned out that Rob Johnson was a very poor QB. But he won the game for the Bills against an extremely good Tennessee team on the road.

Edit: It seemed like Flutie was getting at least 2-3 passes tipped or batted down at the LOS from Baltimore on. I'm not going to say that Flutie absolutely couldn't have beaten the Titans because that's silly, but that was a team that absolutely would capitalize on a QB's inability to find throwing lanes.

Flutie threw for 3171 yards and rushed for 476 yards in 15 games during the 1999 season. He also led the Bills to a 10-5 season. (Johnson earned the other win) How is that "Awful"? Granted, Buffalo's QB situation wasn't great, but to say that Flutie was awful shows a lack of credibility.

Bills had arguably the best defense in the league (1st in yards allowed, 2nd in pts allowed) and a top-10 rushing offense. They should have been better than 11-5.look at his game by game stats that year: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play...utDo00/gamelog/

week 6: 19 of 41 (1TD/3INT) (team lost 14-20)

week 7: 24 of 50 (2TD/2INT) (team lost 16-26)

week 8: 18 of 40 (1TD/3INT) (team won 13-10)

week 9: 16 of 22 (2TD/0INT) (team won 34-17)

week 10: 10 of 20 (1TD/0INT) (team won 23-3)

week 11: 22 of 40 (1TD/2INT) (team lost 7-17)

week 12: 9 of 16 (2TD/0INT) (team won 17-7)

week 13: 15 of 32 (1TD/1INT) (team lost 17-19)

that was an awful stretch of offensive football. in the only easy win against Washington, they had 200+ rushing yards. defense allowed less than 15pts/game during that stretch but the team still only went 4-4 because the "Flutie-led" offense could only generate 17pts/game.

Flutie's stats in those 8 games: 133 of 261 for a completion % of 51%. He threw 11 TDs and 11 INTs. When your defense is that good, completing 51% of your passes and throwing nearly 1.5 INTs/game is absolutely awful.

We can debate whether or not Flutie's stats were pretty. What I do not understand is why people are so critical when all he did was win. He was 38 wins and 28 losses in his career. That includes a 2001 Chargers season in which he was credited with a 5-11 record.The best parallel I could make to today's game would be Oakland's Gradkowski. Is he pretty? No. Is he great? No. Does his team perform better when he is on the field? Yes.