Annoying. He's by far the best candidate. While I am not really upset that Chip may not be incredibly interested, the Bills should have been throwing the kitchen sink at that guy.
Annoying. He's by far the best candidate. While I am not really upset that Chip may not be incredibly interested, the Bills should have been throwing the kitchen sink at that guy.
He's everything the last few Bills hires have not been. He's very aggressive in play calling and decision making, runs a unique, potent, and exciting offense. He's also never failed in the NFL before and embraces analytics in times of actual in-game decisions. He would bring a fresh new perspective to an otherwise aging and conservative organization.
Chip is essentially the anti-Jauron. The Bills need to try something new and different, following the NFL script hasn't been working for them.
There's a reason Chip Kelly is highly sought after, he's a really good coach. He took a school that wasn't a recruiting power, found players other teams didn't want (or didn't see), and coached them into a BCS Powerhouse that now gets it's pick of the litter. The Bills need that guy.
Knowing the Bills I can almost guarantee Ken Whisenhunt will be named coach. He's a "Pittsburgh" guy and friends with Doug Whaley. it's pathetic we are enamored with a bum coach who got fired from the ARIZONA CARDINALS
Last time I checked, Tom Donahoe, Mike Mularkey and Chan Gailey were all Pittsburgh guys too
A bum who took the ARIZONA CARDINALS to the Super Bowl.
He's a "retread" but he's been successful. Gailey and Jauron were both retreads who had minimal levels of success. Whiz (and Lovie) aren't Juaron or Gailey.
Mularkey was an unproven OC (McCoy)
Based on what's out there, no one's going to be happy with who gets hired.
A bum who took the ARIZONA CARDINALS to the Super Bowl.
He's a "retread" but he's been successful. Gailey and Jauron were both retreads who had minimal levels of success. Whiz (and Lovie) aren't Juaron or Gailey.
Mularkey was an unproven OC (McCoy)
Based on what's out there, no one's going to be happy with who gets hired.
Kurt Warner took the Cardinals to the Super Bowl. Whisenhunt has a losing record. Even Gailey had a winning record when we hired him.
Oh btw, Whisenhunt punted more then any coach inside the opponents 40. You might want him as a coach, but I sure dont. Whisenhunt has minimal level of success, he had 2 good seasons with an all pro QB. He's a bum.
A bum who took the ARIZONA CARDINALS to the Super Bowl.
He's a "retread" but he's been successful. Gailey and Jauron were both retreads who had minimal levels of success. Whiz (and Lovie) aren't Juaron or Gailey.
Mularkey was an unproven OC (McCoy)
Based on what's out there, no one's going to be happy with who gets hired.
With Kurt Warner. Without Kurt Warner, his teams have been no better than the Bills. Statistics and logic would indicate Kurt Warner took the Cardinals to the super bowl.
As per the second part, I imagine most people would be happy with Lovie Smith, Chip Kelly, Bill Cowher, John Gruden (maybe), or one of the hot young coordinators.
Yes. It's obviously impossible to prove either way, but I have zero doubts the Bills would have had a better record with Kelly the past 3 seasons.
I very much doubt it. Fitz would still throw picks at the worst times. Our D would still be young and lacking depth in critical areas. Our O-line would still be banged up every season. We'd still have 0 depth behind Stieve Johnson. Maybe a game or two swing here and there, but I can't see how there be any major difference given all that.
I very much doubt it. Fitz would still throw picks at the worst times. Our D would still be young and lacking depth in critical areas. Our O-line would still be banged up every season. We'd still have 0 depth behind Stieve Johnson. Maybe a game or two swing here and there, but I can't see how there be any major difference given all that.
You assume the team would have the same direction and makeup with Kelly here. If he would've been here when Chan was hired, the team itself would look and function completely different.
You assume the team would have the same direction and makeup with Kelly here. If he would've been here when Chan was hired, the team itself would look and function completely different.
The GM is still Nix. Chip Kelly or not we have a 70 year old GM who does things his old school way. I'd wager the team would look very similar.
No point in arguing it further as we'll never know, but I think you guys are putting way too much stock in the coaching position when we don't have a QB worth a damn and several other major roster holes to fill.
I wonder if anything has changed in the past two years....
Well, other than MM turning 50yo. LOL
Interesting blurb quoted.
My only caveats are:
Mild danger of the reserachers "equating" correlation with causation.
Gonna be real difficult to find people with 50+ wins in past 5 seasons, let alone prying them away to Buffalo. But worth trying!!! Everybody loves a winner.
The GM is still Nix. Chip Kelly or not we have a 70 year old GM who does things his old school way. I'd wager the team would look very similar.
No point in arguing it further as we'll never know, but I think you guys are putting way too much stock in the coaching position when we don't have a QB worth a damn and several other major roster holes to fill.
Somehow I doubt Nix is going to argue too much if Kelly were to go to him about a certain position or player. That's why they got a guy like Gailey in the first place, he's spineless and is somehow who would just go with whatever he's given.
Kelly: "Fitzpatrick is awful, unless we get someone else we're not going to win many games."
Nix: "Wellllllllllllllllllllllllllllll, we'll see what we kin do. We believe we got our guy. Fitz is our guy. Quarterback is an important position, and he's our guy for it."
He's everything the last few Bills hires have not been. He's very aggressive in play calling and decision making, runs a unique, potent, and exciting offense. He's also never failed in the NFL before and embraces analytics in times of actual in-game decisions. He would bring a fresh new perspective to an otherwise aging and conservative organization.
Chip is essentially the anti-Jauron. The Bills need to try something new and different, following the NFL script hasn't been working for them.
There's a reason Chip Kelly is highly sought after, he's a really good coach. He took a school that wasn't a recruiting power, found players other teams didn't want (or didn't see), and coached them into a BCS Powerhouse that now gets it's pick of the litter. The Bills need that guy.
I think Chip Kelly will be a flop in the NFL.
Too many of the things that he relies on in college won't work in the NFL.
The narrower hash marks to defenses that get to study a ton more tape than college kids do to the MLB getting calls radioed in from the sideline like the QB are all things that will go against Chip's up tempo style.
Plus, he's never coached in the NFL before.
There are not too many guys that make the jump from college to the pros with 0 NFL experience that make it work.
My only caveats are:
Mild danger of the reserachers "equating" correlation with causation.
Gonna be real difficult to find people with 50+ wins in past 5 seasons, let alone prying them away to Buffalo. But worth trying!!! Everybody loves a winner.
They are saying OCs or DCs that have been with winning programs.
The tougher part is finding a guy with that kind of resume who's had a head coaching gig before.
Too many of the things that he relies on in college won't work in the NFL.
The narrower hash marks to defenses that get to study a ton more tape than college kids do to the MLB getting calls radioed in from the sideline like the QB are all things that will go against Chip's up tempo style.
Plus, he's never coached in the NFL before.
There are not too many guys that make the jump from college to the pros with 0 NFL experience that make it work.
It's obvious (and he's stated as such) that the Run Option spread offense would have to be tweaked or changed to work in the NFL. Still, Seattle absolutely crushed us (and San Fran) with a version of it. You just need to have more of a passing threat out of the formation than most college schools do.
The no-huddle style of offense is still very commonplace and successful in the NFL. Kelly just runs it almost the entire game. It still tires out a defense and prevents substitution. It also forces defenses into more simplistic and repetitive schemes, since they won't have time to evaluate an offensive formation, make a complicated and situational play call, radio it in the defense, and have that player relay the call to their defense.
Also, while I am not stating this pro- or con- Whisenhunt, for those of you bashing him for punting most times inside opponents 40, that can be easily fixed.
BRandon / Whaley can mandate their new analytics criteria for in-game management and require the new Bills coach - be that Whisenhunt, Belichek, or my mom - never punt inside the opponents 40, and if they ever do it, they'll be dismissed the next day, win or lose. "Solving" that one is easy.
Hell, Bills should hire someone only for game-day management for 4th down and clock/timeouts. Either that or let fans text their choices ==> they're the ones paying for the entertainment, after all.
"With Kurt Warner, Whisenhunt was good. Without Warner, he wasn't."
Pre-Tom Brady, Belichick was 41-55. Guess he was no good, either. When Brady showed up, he became a good coach?
Bill Belichick, 2008 = 11-5 without Brady. Is that the only example you have of a coach with a losing record turning out? I can name you a lot more that say coaches with a losing record stay losers then you can of coaches with losing records become winners.
And since it's never a coaches fault if he loses with anything less then an elite QB why didn't we just keep Gailey? Since it's obviously just Fitzs fault we were so bad these last 3 years
"With Kurt Warner, Whisenhunt was good. Without Warner, he wasn't."
Pre-Tom Brady, Belichick was 41-55. Guess he was no good, either. When Brady showed up, he became a good coach?
This is exactly my problem with the Whisenhunt hate. Neither him nor Belichick could make teams with a bad QB good. And both have proven they can win with a good QB. So by that logic Whisenhunt is actually the better hire at that point in their careers.
This is exactly my problem with the Whisenhunt hate. Neither him nor Belichick could make teams with a bad QB good. And both have proven they can win with a good QB. So by that logic Whisenhunt is actually the better hire at that point in their careers.
"With Kurt Warner, Whisenhunt was good. Without Warner, he wasn't."
Pre-Tom Brady, Belichick was 41-55. Guess he was no good, either. When Brady showed up, he became a good coach?
No, the difference was that with the Patriots, Belichick had the final say in personnel decisions. During his stint with the Browns he did not have this, and the browns during his tenure were one of the least talented teams in modern NFL history.
Wisenhunt had similar power during his stint with the Cardinals and they're still just a very bad team.
Hiring a coach with a long time losing record and hoping he magically turns that around is generally a bad idea. For every Bill Belichick there are multiple Dick Jaurons.
Wisenhunt has also been regarded as very conservative, especially in regards to make personnel changes. His offenses without Kurt Warner have been dreadful. Look at the names on the offense. Every single one of them outside of Fitzgerald (who was there before him) is a nobody.
it's pathetic we are enamored with a bum coach who got fired from the ARIZONA CARDINALS 
