Is 3 years enough time for any coach to turn a franchise around?

[imbondz]

It'd be interesting to see the average years it took for a coach to turn a franchise around into a SB contender.

Obviously Levy turned us around immediately in 1987/88. Dick Vermeil took over the Rams in 1997, won the Superbowl in 2000. Harbaugh and the 49ers immediately. Any other coaches turn a franchise around that quick? Someone like Mike Tomlin doesn't count because he inherited a great team.

Gary Kubiak of the Texans - He started there in 2006, so it's taken him 5-6 years to turn them into a contender (not sure they were a real contender last year but this year obviously). Belicheck started coaching NE in 2000 but NE was in the SB in 96, made the playoffs in 97 and 98. So they were already on the right path when he got there. His first year they were 5-11, 2nd year, SB.

[Night Train]

The refusal to take the QB position more seriously beyond Fitz and the lack of adjustments on D when the Pats game was getting out of hand drove the nail in the coffin for me.

I give every staff a chance but bail on those who deny the hole in the ship while 20 feet under the surface. Being stubborn while losing proves nothing beyond future unemployment.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Well, the thing is that if you don't turn a team around, they fire you in 3-4 years. It's rare that you see a guy take 8 years to turn a team around, because he just wouldn't get that kind of time, he'd already have been fired. You can probably name 15 times the amount of coaches that haven't turned a team around in 3 years or less to those that have turned a team around in 3 years or less.

[imbondz]

Kubiak's Records at Houston:

2006 - 6-10
2007 - 8-8
2008 - 8-8
2009 - 9-7
2010 - 6-10
2011 - 10-6***
2012 - 4-0

Would we have kept him around after 2010? Would a better coach have made the Texans a contender in 2009 instead of 3 years later? I'm not sure it's coaching as much as it is players. We've been spinning our wheels w/ coaches for 13 years and it's beyond frustrating. Until we find a franchise QB, does it matter who the coach is?

[GingerP]

I don't disagree Houston showed some patience with Kubiak, but they were an expansion franchise. Tom Landry got years to get Dallas established as well when they were an expansion franchise, although that was pre-free agency.

[zone]

I don't disagree Houston showed some patience with Kubiak, but they were an expansion franchise. Tom Landry got years to get Dallas established as well when they were an expansion franchise, although that was pre-free agency.
The Bills may as well be the free agent talent that has been willing to come here is minuscule and when it does they rarely live up to the hype. That's why a team like buffalo needs to be built through the draft and developed properly which takes more time. i.e. Houston, Cincinnati, Detroit.

[eperkins99]

The 49ers were in the play offs 2 years prior to Jim taking over as coach so that is a poor example.

[bluerosekiller]

For me, it's all going to be based on how They perform in the Titans game.
If they even remotely look like a team that's just going through the motions for their paychecks after three straight losses, then it'll be obvious that they're going to tank the entire rest of the year & they'll be lucky to go 4-12.
Hell, I've of the opinion that even matching last year's 6-10 mark won't be good enough to keep Gailey around.
But with THIS organization & it's good ol' boy GM backed by a senile, one foot in the grave owner?
Hell, they'll probably find excuses why 2-14 is going to be good enough.

[EDS]

I rather bring in a new GM first, then allow him to pick a new coach then to give Buddy a second bite at the apple. Need a strong GM first and foremost.

[Bill Cody]

3 years is nowhere near enough time. You need at least 15 years.

Signed,

Ralph Wilson

[BLeonard]

Of course three years is enough time for a coach to turn a franchise around... That is, if the coach is worth a damn.

Thats the Bills' problem... They never hire a coach that's worth a damn. They simply hire who's willing to accept the pay offered and willing to accept the framework that the job entails. "Framework" including, but not limited to: Benching players so that they don't achieve bonuses, trading players in order to dump salary and keeping Chris Kelsay on the roster regardless of if you can find a better replacement for his roster spot.

While I agree that coaching has been a problem in Buffalo for quite some time, that's at least partially attributed to the Front Office, who are only willing to hire people that command a certain pay range and are willing to play within their rules, no matter how it affects the on-field product.

That's why you didn't see guys like Marty Schottenheimer, Bill Cowher, Jon Gruden and Brian Billick in Buffalo. These guys, given their amount of success in the leage, might want some actual say on how they form their roster. That's a deal breaker for the Bills Front Office.

-Bill

[Philagape]

Kubiak's Records at Houston:

2006 - 6-10
2007 - 8-8
2008 - 8-8
2009 - 9-7
2010 - 6-10
2011 - 10-6***
2012 - 4-0



Not quite the same as having a losing record in every single one of those seasons.

[SquishDaFish]

If we are to get rid of Chan I hope its this year and bring in the CHIN! COWHER!!

[Jeff1220]

The last coaching search was downright embarrassing. That showed us a lot: Cowher is not coming to Buffalo - I believe they tried pretty hard the last time around, and he wanted no part of it. And there's a reason why Billick isn't a sought after candidate. Gailey isn't the best candidate, but he's all they have.
In this era of Bills sucktitude, the common denominator in these hires is Russ Brandon. The problem is, he does his job very well - deceiving the public into buying the product. Sales are good and Brandon isn't going anywhere. If he gets rid of Gailey, prepare for another cast-off nobody would want, and that list of candidates would probably include Wanny.

[YardRat]

Coughlin took over a 4-12 Giants team and had them in the playoffs year #2, champions in year #4.

[SquishDaFish]

Cowher didnt take a job because of his wife.

[BillsFever21]

If the team isn't turned around completely then they are at least showing great progress. This isn't the case with Buffalo now or over the past 13 years. We're always around a 5-7 win team and can never take the next step forward. Years when we finished 7-9 or 8-8 and a good front office or coach should've gotten us over the hump that hasn't been the case with the Bills. They either stayed the same and never got any better or they got worse.

Even with many of the coaches you mentioned above that took over good teams that was a long time ago. Many of them players(if not all but a couple on some of them) are long gone yet their teams are still contenders every season.

Players are going to come and go. That's just how the NFL is. It takes a good front office and coaching staff to move on keep the team rolling without them.

[mjt328]

To answer your question... yes three years is definitely enough time.
Does that mean that Chan should be fired after three years? I don't know. I think every coach/team situation should be evaluated individually.
In my opinion, Chan has done a few positive things as head coach. And in the right situation, he still MIGHT be successful for us.


His biggest downfall is the stubborn allegiance to Ryan Fitzpatrick as quarterback. Other than the quarterback position, we could have a well-balanced offensive attack - two great running backs, a very good offensive line and enough talent at receiver to have a dangerous passing attack. Instead, teams can stack the box and press our receivers, then dare us to throw deep. We also have to deal with 5-6 games each season where the defense has to overcome multiple turnovers by the QB.
Chan passed on the opportunity to add a developmental quarterback (Andy Dalton, Russell Wilson). He hasn't even TRIED.

Chan's second biggest problem is the lack of control over the defense. Most of our talent additions have been on the defensive side of the ball - but our assistant staff (Wilson, Wannstedt) has failed miserably at putting that talent in a position to succeed. Looking at the talent on both sides of the ball, the offense is exceeding expectations. The defense is underperforming badly.
They already wasted two seasons in the 3-4 scheme. This year, game planning/adjustments for our opponents has been awful.

[BLeonard]

The last coaching search was downright embarrassing. That showed us a lot: Cowher is not coming to Buffalo - I believe they tried pretty hard the last time around, and he wanted no part of it. And there's a reason why Billick isn't a sought after candidate. Gailey isn't the best candidate, but he's all they have.

I don't believe that they tried as hard as some would like to believe, quite honestly. My guess is, they met with him and when they wouldn't give in on one or more of his requests (salary, control, etc) he passed.


Cowher didnt take a job because of his wife.

I've heard this argument too, and I don't buy it, either. Here's why:

First, his wife's illness wasn't even known until after the Bills had met with Cowher and then hired Gailey.

Even if you want to say "Well, he knew about her illness before it became public knowledge," I would counter with the following: "If he knew his wife was sick and that was his reason for not returning to coaching, why would he have even talked to the Bills in the first place?"

The point is, he had to have some interest in the job, otherwise, he would have never agreed to meet with the Bills to begin with. God knows other candidates had no problem saying "no" before even interviewing... Why would Cowher even bother to talk about the job if he already knew he wasn't gonna take it?

Again, IMO, he was interested in the position. Now, I dunno how interested, but there had to at least be enough interest to agree to have a meeting. That leads me to believe that, when the meeting took place, he didn't like something that was coming from the Bills side of the table.

-Bill

[imbondz]

If the team isn't turned around completely then they are at least showing great progress. This isn't the case with Buffalo now or over the past 13 years. We're always around a 5-7 win team and can never take the next step forward. Years when we finished 7-9 or 8-8 and a good front office or coach should've gotten us over the hump that hasn't been the case with the Bills. They either stayed the same and never got any better or they got worse.

Even with many of the coaches you mentioned above that took over good teams that was a long time ago. Many of them players(if not all but a couple on some of them) are long gone yet their teams are still contenders every season.

Players are going to come and go. That's just how the NFL is. It takes a good front office and coaching staff to move on keep the team rolling without them.

I disagree about teams being good for a while. The Rams have sucked since Warner left. I would bet any team that was good then sucked, had more to do with the players retiring or leaving than the coach. Except the Packers who struck gold 2 quarterbacks in a row. That's not the norm.

[BertSquirtgum]

The last coaching search was downright embarrassing. That showed us a lot: Cowher is not coming to Buffalo - I believe they tried pretty hard the last time around, and he wanted no part of it. .

Wrong, his wife was dying so he recommended Gaylee.

[BLeonard]

Wrong, his wife was dying so he recommended Gaylee.

Just posted on this theory a couple posts back... Cowher met with the Bills and Gailey was hired before his wife was even diagnosed.

So, unless Cowher is a fortune teller, he couldn't have known about her illness before he met with the Bills... Even if, he somehow did know, why would they go to his house so that he could simply say "Hire Gailey"? He could have done that via email or over the phone.

-Bill

[BertSquirtgum]

He never met with the Bills. The Bills met with him at his home in North Carolina.

- - - Updated - - -


Just posted on this theory a couple posts back... Cowher met with the Bills and Gailey was hired before his wife was even diagnosed.

So, unless Cowher is a fortune teller, he couldn't have known about her illness before he met with the Bills... Even if, he somehow did know, why would they go to his house so that he could simply say "Hire Gailey"? He could have done that via email or over the phone.

-Bill

That's exactly what he did.

[Jeff1220]

Some of you guys are stuck on this Cowher dream with an unprecedented level of denial. He didn't want to coach. He didn't want to coach in Buffalo. That is highly unlikely to change. His wife's diagnosis had nothing to do with it.

[EDS]

Some of you guys are stuck on this Cowher dream with an unprecedented level of denial. He didn't want to coach. He didn't want to coach in Buffalo. That is highly unlikely to change. His wife's diagnosis had nothing to do with it.

I agree. Cowher won't come to Buffalo unless the team has the #1 pick in and Andrew Luck type draft and he is paid a boat load of money. Unikely those events will happen in the next five years so Bills would be better off trying to land the next rising star assistant or college head coach. Could easily backfrire ala GW and MM, but they don't have any other options.

[BLeonard]

He never met with the Bills. The Bills met with him at his home in North Carolina.

Correct. So, if Cowher didn't want to coach, why did they fly to his home?



That's exactly what he did.

You just finished saying the Bills met with Cowher at his home...

Again, do you really think the Bills flew to NC and went to Cowher's house, just so he could tell them "Hire Gailey"? That makes zero sense.

The only reason that the Bills would fly to NC to meet with Cowher would be to see if he was interested in the job, not to simply get his opinion on who they should hire.

-Bill

[ServoBillieves]

This thread is really... really sad.

3 years to put a team that was heralded in the preseason, heralded earlier last year when we started off great (pre-injuries)... man I can't even finish this. It's so pointless. Our QB has great stats but sucks, our defense sucks, our RB's suck, and the coaching sucks. There we go, 80% of the board now agrees with me. No use in sticking up for someone who can do his job 1000 times better than any Monday morning QB.

[JoeMama]

The magic "three year" plan is bogus.

Mike Smith.

John Harbaugh.

Jim Harbaugh.

[BillsFever21]

Some of you guys are stuck on this Cowher dream with an unprecedented level of denial. He didn't want to coach. He didn't want to coach in Buffalo. That is highly unlikely to change. His wife's diagnosis had nothing to do with it.

If he wanted to coach he would've accepted a job somewhere by now. It's been about 6 years since he left the NFL. He has bad plenty of opportunities with decent franchises if he wanted to. He would have to be ready to return to coaching and it would have to take one hell of an offer to get him. Neither would happen in Buffalo so the point is moot anyway.

[BertSquirtgum]

This thread is really... really sad.

What's sad is that you think this team is headed in the right direction.

[imbondz]

This thread is really... really sad.

3 years to put a team that was heralded in the preseason, heralded earlier last year when we started off great (pre-injuries)... man I can't even finish this. It's so pointless. Our QB has great stats but sucks, our defense sucks, our RB's suck, and the coaching sucks. There we go, 80% of the board now agrees with me. No use in sticking up for someone who can do his job 1000 times better than any Monday morning QB.

mmmmmm. huh?

are you saying it is enough time or isn't? Or are you saying we have a great team already?

[BillsFever21]

I agree. Cowher won't come to Buffalo unless the team has the #1 pick in and Andrew Luck type draft and he is paid a boat load of money. Unikely those events will happen in the next five years so Bills would be better off trying to land the next rising star assistant or college head coach. Could easily backfrire ala GW and MM, but they don't have any other options.

I'd rather try my luck with a rising assistant then a retread HC unless he was recently a proven winner. Usually them ones don't come around very often.

Every good coach was an OC or DC at some point. It takes a good front office and some luck in finding the right one. That's our only chance of landing a good coach but I would rather try that method.

Even with college coaches most of them fail in the NFL. Jim Harbaugh has been an exception. Most of the other great college coaches were duds in the NFL and ended back up in college shortly after that.

[ServoBillieves]

mmmmmm. huh?

are you saying it is enough time or isn't? Or are you saying we have a great team already?

With so many different factors, injuries, et cetera, you put together the best 53 men you think that you can before a snap is played.

You lose your second best receiver week 1, your starting RB week 1 (and I know that Spiller did great, but OH LOOK he's injured), and you finally get some semblance of a team together, and we can't hire the correct coordinator on the other side of the ball to game plan, learn to adapt, et cetera. If you have the starting pieces together, then this team is incredibly well put together. Fitzy is a smart QB, but he's also not well equipped to throw the deep ball. He can run, he can check down, he can make plays... but when the defense can't shut down the opposition and it's put on his shoulders, especially when the defense is planning around the run game... There's a myriad of problems that envelope this team. Should Chan be fired? No, not at all. He should stay on this team whether he be the offensive coordinator or the head coach. Should we take a very strong look at who's hiring the other coaches? Yes. Yes we should.

This team looked great pre-season. There was a lot of hope, and I still hope this team can pull it together, but you cannot blame what happened in weeks 1 and 4 on the head coach. You can blame the QB, you can blame the defensive coordinator, referees, et cetera... but to simply point the gun at the most prominent figure without thinking about why, that's asinine.

No, 3 years is not enough for a team with this many problems that most have been addressed. Your new projects are a Strength and Conditioning coach, a competent DC, and a new owner or at least a non-senile consiglieri.

[coastal]

How many coaches has Pittsburgh had in their history?

[Extremebillsfan247]

It'd be interesting to see the average years it took for a coach to turn a franchise around into a SB contender.

Obviously Levy turned us around immediately in 1987/88. Dick Vermeil took over the Rams in 1997, won the Superbowl in 2000. Harbaugh and the 49ers immediately. Any other coaches turn a franchise around that quick? Someone like Mike Tomlin doesn't count because he inherited a great team.

Gary Kubiak of the Texans - He started there in 2006, so it's taken him 5-6 years to turn them into a contender (not sure they were a real contender last year but this year obviously). Belicheck started coaching NE in 2000 but NE was in the SB in 96, made the playoffs in 97 and 98. So they were already on the right path when he got there. His first year they were 5-11, 2nd year, SB.
It depends on a few things. Often, it depends on the situation that Coach is hired into, the front office he is working with, and how much time he is given to turn things around. All of these things factor into it. A coach may need more time than he is granted by the team that hired him to do the job he needs to do. Others figure it out quicker, or just simply get lucky. I would be guessing if I said the average length of tenure for a coach with Gailey's record is 3 years. Dick Jauron was granted 4 years, and finished 7-9 every season he was here except for the year he was fired going 3-6. JMO

[BillsFever21]

With so many different factors, injuries, et cetera, you put together the best 53 men you think that you can before a snap is played.

You lose your second best receiver week 1, your starting RB week 1 (and I know that Spiller did great, but OH LOOK he's injured), and you finally get some semblance of a team together, and we can't hire the correct coordinator on the other side of the ball to game plan, learn to adapt, et cetera. If you have the starting pieces together, then this team is incredibly well put together. Fitzy is a smart QB, but he's also not well equipped to throw the deep ball. He can run, he can check down, he can make plays... but when the defense can't shut down the opposition and it's put on his shoulders, especially when the defense is planning around the run game... There's a myriad of problems that envelope this team. Should Chan be fired? No, not at all. He should stay on this team whether he be the offensive coordinator or the head coach. Should we take a very strong look at who's hiring the other coaches? Yes. Yes we should.

This team looked great pre-season. There was a lot of hope, and I still hope this team can pull it together, but you cannot blame what happened in weeks 1 and 4 on the head coach. You can blame the QB, you can blame the defensive coordinator, referees, et cetera... but to simply point the gun at the most prominent figure without thinking about why, that's asinine.

No, 3 years is not enough for a team with this many problems that most have been addressed. Your new projects are a Strength and Conditioning coach, a competent DC, and a new owner or at least a non-senile consiglieri.

When you get blown out and totally outcoached in both of your divisional games so far then how isn't the HC responsible for much of it? It's his gameplan that the team is following and it's up to the coaches to make the adjustments.

As far as the DC and other coaches go that falls squarely on the HC. He is the one that hires them. It would be different if you were talking about a younger coach on the upside or a proven winner as a HC but we're talking about an already failed retread that hasn't had much if any real success in the NFL. There is a reason why he only lasted a couple years in Dallas and that NOBODY else wanted him for the next decade after that until the Bills came knocking on his door. If he hasn't gone the job done by now after all his years of experience in the NFL then he never will. In the right season and with the right team he could maybe get you to the playoffs but do you truly think he could ever turn a team into a contending team with a good chance to win the SB?

[Extremebillsfan247]

When you get blown out and totally outcoached in both of your divisional games so far then how isn't the HC responsible for much of it? It's his gameplan that the team is following and it's up to the coaches to make the adjustments.

As far as the DC and other coaches go that falls squarely on the HC. He is the one that hires them. It would be different if you were talking about a younger coach on the upside or a proven winner as a HC but we're talking about an already failed retread that hasn't had much if any real success in the NFL. There is a reason why he only lasted a couple years in Dallas and that NOBODY else wanted him for the next decade after that until the Bills came knocking on his door. If he hasn't gone the job done by now after all his years of experience in the NFL then he never will. In the right season and with the right team he could maybe get you to the playoffs but do you truly think he could ever turn a team into a contending team with a good chance to win the SB?
I'm beginning to wonder if Gailey is just having trouble wrapping his head around this new CBA with all the new practice rules in place making it tougher on him to prepare this team properly. It can be tough for an old coach to learn new habits. I could be wrong in assuming this but it may just be time to go young at the HC position. JMO

[Jeff1220]

Maybe RW could go scour the CFL for a coach again. Any viable candidates?

[GingerP]

How many coaches has Pittsburgh had in their history?

16.

That includes 1933 - 1940, when the team was called the Pittsburgh Pirates (they changed the name in 1941). and the years when the team was combined with Chicago because so many players were at war.

Of course the Steelers have only had 3 since 1969, when they hired Chuck Noll. They were a bumbling franchise for 4 decades, until Noll in the 1970's.

[bigbub2352]

12-24 is horrible...we have shown no signs of improvement...we have missed alot in the drafts while drafting early...we have made questionable moves in free agency..ala brad smith, dwan edwards, fitz's extention, cutting moorman three games into the season instead of out of training camp and doing it before the biggest game on your schedule...not making adjustments in big games

gailey is over matched and nix is not making great decisions either...injuries or not we are not developing into a contender and our divisional record the last two season and now this season prove that


hate to say it but another round of rebuild is coming

[Syderick]

Oakland has gone through coaches almost every year or 2, and they haven't been in the playoffs in 10 years.

[TigerJ]

I don't know that it's possible to turn it around completely in three years (ie. make a deep playoff run), but I think by the third year there should be obvious and significant progress. I don't think it's too much to expect a winning season from Nix/Gailey and company.

[BillsFever21]

Oakland has gone through coaches almost every year or 2, and they haven't been in the playoffs in 10 years.

As messed up as that team and Al Davis is they have still been better then us over the past 13 years. That's really sad when you can say that.

[BillsFever21]

If you know you have a dud then why keep it around and prolong the process of trying to better yourselves even longer? Whether it's the HC, QB, etc. If they are failing then why wait another year to make the move just for the sake of it?

We knew Jauron was a dud and waited a year or two too long. Gailey's record has even been worse. If he doesn't make the playoffs or show that this team is on the cusp of it then why keep him around and prolong it another year?

[Historian]

When a HC has a plan, a philosophy, and some solid assistants to execute his vision, the turnaround should be almost immediate.

It may not show in the W-L column for a year, or two, but your team should be competitive, and scratch and claw until the final gun in every game, no matter how far they are behind.

Sort of like Marv's, Lou's and Chuck's teams here. Took them time to rebuild into a contender, but they refused to accept anyone who quits.

What I have seen from Gailey and jauron, are teams that are weak mentally. At the first sign of adversity, they use it as an excuse to fold, and it's accepted by the coaching staff.

[zone]

When a HC has a plan, a philosophy, and some solid assistants to execute his vision, the turnaround should be almost immediate.

It may not show in the W-L column for a year, or two, but your team should be competitive, and scratch and claw until the final gun in every game, no matter how far they are behind.

Sort of like Marv's, Lou's and Chuck's teams here. Took them time to rebuild into a contender, but they refused to accept anyone who quits.

What I have seen from Gailey and jauron, are teams that are weak mentally. At the first sign of adversity, they use it as an excuse to fold, and it's accepted by the coaching staff.

Jauron was an awful coach but his players never quit on him. They were all extremely outmatched talent wise but they gave it their all.

[Bill Cody]

Coughlin took over a 4-12 Giants team and had them in the playoffs year #2, champions in year #4.

Right. And that compares to us how? Would Coughlin have done that with Fitz under center?

[PTI]

I think the last place won the NFC South like 4 or 5 years in a row up until like 4 years ago.

[gebobs]

Three years should be enough to see tangible positive progress. That's not happening.

[PTI]

I salary cap era of football you can turn your roster over in two years.

[Mike]

The 49ers were in the play offs 2 years prior to Jim taking over as coach so that is a poor example.


That can be said about most teams in NFL. The Bills are the only exception, the only team not making the playoffs this past decade.

[Mike]

Right. And that compares to us how? Would Coughlin have done that with Fitz under center?

He was smart enough to know he needed a real QB which is why he got rid of a very popular QB who previously took then to SB in favor of Trading up for and drafting Eli.

[eperkins99]

That can be said about most teams in NFL. The Bills are the only exception, the only team not making the playoffs this past decade.

Yes but basically all he did was take an underperforming team that was favored to win the NFC West the year Singletary was fired back to the play offs. There wasn't a huge need to turn over the roster to bring in better talent to be able to compete.

[more cowbell]

yes

[Mike]

I disagree about teams being good for a while. The Rams have sucked since Warner left. I would bet any team that was good then sucked, had more to do with the players retiring or leaving than the coach. Except the Packers who struck gold 2 quarterbacks in a row. That's not the norm.

If you look at NFL history its not that uncommon. The 49ers struck gold twice with Steve Young and Joe Montana, P. Manning & Luck (potentially) Farve & Rogers (They even had Mark Brunel & Matt Haselback on the team at one point),

Other Lesser Examples:
Drew Brees & P. Rivers
Drew Bledsoe & Tom Brady
Bob Griese & Dan Marino (2yrs apart)
Warner & Bulgar & Bradford

* Case in Point: When a Great HOF caliber QB joins a team, he elevates both the players and the coaches. Able, competent coaches also learn from the experience and how to better identify talent at the position and later develop it. In the from the early 1990's until today the Packers have been a QB factory producing two MPVs (Farve & Rogers) & 5 Pro Bowl Qbs ( Farve, Rovers, Majkowski, Brunel, & Haselback). In same time span, in some cases ever, teams like the Bears could not product one! Other teams have produced Zero HOF or Probowl QBs in their entire History! In retrospect what the Packers have done with QBs over the past 20+ years is nothing short of exceptional and its no coincidence, they are simply great at what they do!

[Albany,n.y.]

Right. And that compares to us how? Would Coughlin have done that with Fitz under center?
Coughlin took a 2nd year expansion team to the AFC championship game because one of the 1st things he did was trade for a starting QB (Brunell). In NY he had rookie Eli Manning in his 1st year. If Coughlin was Bills coach the 1st thing he would have done is make sure the Bills had a better QB than Fitzpatrick, by whatever means it took.
Back to the original question, Dom Capers also had a 2nd year team in the conference championship game the same year as Coughlin. If two coaches were able to get their teams into the conference championship game when their teams only existed 2 years, any coach who doesn't turn around an existing team within 3 years is a pathetic loser. Chan Gailey has lost about 2 out of every 3 games he's coached for the Bills. I rest my case.

[BillsFever21]

Yes but basically all he did was take an underperforming team that was favored to win the NFC West the year Singletary was fired back to the play offs. There wasn't a huge need to turn over the roster to bring in better talent to be able to compete.

At the time it wasn't very hard to be picked to win the NFC West. Hell we probably would've been picked to win it the past several years. That division was horrible for years and 8-9 wins was winning you the division most of the time. Sometimes not even that. You remember the Seahawks with their 7-9 record winning the division and getting a home game when they upset the Saints? That division was putrid and it didn't take much to be considered the favorites. The entire division has improved this year and into the future though.

There wasn't much of a talent overhaul but that is a perfect example of what a good coach can do for you. They underachieved for a couple years before he arrived and he came right in and took them to the NFC Championship game and probably would've made the SB if not for a couple fumbles by their punt returner Kyle Williams. They were never thought of having a dominant roster and team until this year after how they performed last season.

With the Bills organization and some fans around here they would've said that Singletary was doing alright with winning 8 games and needed more time for his players to learn the system and to turn the team around. They didn't wait around and when they had a chance for an upgrade they went from a .500 team to what should've been a SB appearance.

Also the 49ers were considered a talented team that had a good shot for the playoffs. We have had the same statements made about us several times over the years after 7 win seasons yet still haven't had a winning record let alone a playoff game. Even last year and this year people were saying we had a shot to make the playoffs.

Look what Harbaugh has done with Alex Smith too. Smith was a complete bust and he has been able to salvage him into a capable QB. He isn't great or the centerpiece but he went from a complete dud to a serviceable QB that they can rely on and win games with. All of the above is what a good coach brings to a team. That isn't what we have here.

[BertSquirtgum]

We have a terrible coach, anyone that can't see that is delusional.

[better days]

Kubiak's Records at Houston:

2006 - 6-10
2007 - 8-8
2008 - 8-8
2009 - 9-7
2010 - 6-10
2011 - 10-6***
2012 - 4-0

Would we have kept him around after 2010? Would a better coach have made the Texans a contender in 2009 instead of 3 years later? I'm not sure it's coaching as much as it is players. We've been spinning our wheels w/ coaches for 13 years and it's beyond frustrating. Until we find a franchise QB, does it matter who the coach is?

At the end of 2010, the Texans hired Wade Phillips as DC. Had they not hired Wade they probably would have been 6-10 to 8-8 in 2011. The defense is the reason for the improvement that team made & Wade Phillips is the reason for the defensive improvement of the Texans. Kubiak would have been fired if they had not hired Wade.

Which brings us to the Bills. If Chan is fired after this year, he can thank Dave Wannstedt for that.

[Bill Cody]

He was smart enough to know he needed a real QB which is why he got rid of a very popular QB who previously took then to SB in favor of Trading up for and drafting Eli.


No he didn't. He's not the GM and never has been. That move was all Ernie Accorsi. You could say it was Coughlin's credit to play Manning but Warner was not playing well at that point and it was a matter of time anyway when you use a pick that high to draft a QB.

[Bill Cody]

Oakland has gone through coaches almost every year or 2, and they haven't been in the playoffs in 10 years.

Does that tell you change is bad or that Al Davis had a hard time good coaches to stay with his meddling or bad coaches to perform. It's not like we've fired Vince Lombardi.

[RedEyE]

In this case 3 years isn't sufficient.

Inconsistency has cost this team top notch FAs as well as materialized instability for young draftees through regression. This is the first time in a looong I feel like this team has the talent to become an AFC East competitor. I think they are a QB away from evolving into an elite offensive power and a defensive scheme away from challenging the best of the best.

Honestly, if you replace Fitzpatrick with a QB that can actually throw the ball longer than 20 yards down field (and accurately) the running game becomes undeniably indestructible because this line can hold up and these receivers can stretch the field. Not to mention Chandler is a legitimate TE threat that we haven't seen since the days of Metz and McKellar.

And if the defense could some how just become less predictable (and significantly less boring) the pass rush would be top 10. I still have some reservations about the secondary, but it all starts and ends with the pass rush.


So, in short, I say, no, 3 years hasn't been quite long enough. I believe we need another decent off-season to get this team to the next level.

Replacing the GM and HC would only force us to lose key personal as the roster and overall team philosophy would change once again.

[Syderick]

As messed up as that team and Al Davis is they have still been better then us over the past 13 years. That's really sad when you can say that.

They've been just as awful as we have, and so has the Cleveland Browns.

[Syderick]

Does that tell you change is bad or that Al Davis had a hard time good coaches to stay with his meddling or bad coaches to perform. It's not like we've fired Vince Lombardi.

I'm just making a point. You can wait out a coach or you can say forget it and move on. Here's something, Mike Shanahan and Pete Carroll are now entering their 3rd seasons.

[JoeMama]

I'd have to do some research, but off the top of anyone's head, have there been any recent era head coaches who performed poorly their first three years, yet went on to have a great deal of success and job security from that point onward?

The assumption being the entire tenure was with the same team.

[JoeMama]

The only guy I can think of is Jeff Fisher where patience actually paid off.

He didn't have a winning season until his 6th year as a head coach.

[JoeMama]

And do we realistically give Chan Gailey 6 years to make the playoffs?

[Syderick]

You can always go the opposite route and fire your coach after 3 good seasons, ex: Wade Phillips

[JoeMama]

You can always go the opposite route and fire your coach after 3 good seasons, ex: Wade Phillips

We got greedy.

Wade had the third best record of all head coaches between 1998-2000.

Perhaps karma is punishing us for our hubris and firing him prematurely.

[mjt328]

In this case 3 years isn't sufficient.

Inconsistency has cost this team top notch FAs as well as materialized instability for young draftees through regression. This is the first time in a looong I feel like this team has the talent to become an AFC East competitor. I think they are a QB away from evolving into an elite offensive power and a defensive scheme away from challenging the best of the best.

Honestly, if you replace Fitzpatrick with a QB that can actually throw the ball longer than 20 yards down field (and accurately) the running game becomes undeniably indestructible because this line can hold up and these receivers can stretch the field. Not to mention Chandler is a legitimate TE threat that we haven't seen since the days of Metz and McKellar.

And if the defense could some how just become less predictable (and significantly less boring) the pass rush would be top 10. I still have some reservations about the secondary, but it all starts and ends with the pass rush.


So, in short, I say, no, 3 years hasn't been quite long enough. I believe we need another decent off-season to get this team to the next level.

Replacing the GM and HC would only force us to lose key personal as the roster and overall team philosophy would change once again.


Our current regime wasted 1-2 years of rebuilding time, because of the failed switch to a 3-4... and then switching back to the 4-3 with a new coordinator.
For the first two years, most of our draft picks (Troup, Carrington, Moats, Sheppard) and free agent pickups (Dwan Edwards, Andre Davis, Barnett) were done to fill holes in our 3-4 scheme. Not to mention letting Poz walk.

The quarterback situation is because Nix/Gailey believe in "Best Player Available" but don't understand the concept of "Supply and Demand."
Sometimes you HAVE to reach for a quarterback. If not, they will be gone by the time your pick is up.

[RedEyE]

And do we realistically give Chan Gailey 6 years to make the playoffs?

I would hope it wouldn't take 6 grueling years.

Funny though as I was looking for an answer to your previous question, I stumbled upon Bill Walsh and thought this funny.

Bill Walsh's first year with the 49ers they were 2-14.
In his 2nd year the 49ers progressed and only went 6-10.
In his 3rd year (before winning his first Super Bowl) the 49ers jumped out of the gates at a lowly 2-2.....and then went on a 6 game winning streak starting with a long road win @ Washington.

Not implying anything here though. Just thought it interesting and remotely similar....very remote.

[imbondz]

I would hope it wouldn't take 6 grueling years.

Funny though as I was looking for an answer to your previous question, I stumbled upon Bill Walsh and thought this funny.

Bill Walsh's first year with the 49ers they were 2-14.
In his 2nd year the 49ers progressed and only went 6-10.
In his 3rd year (before winning his first Super Bowl) the 49ers jumped out of the gates at a lowly 2-2.....and then went on a 6 game winning streak starting with a long road win @ Washington.

Not implying anything here though....

ha. good find. we still have 2 days left to dream.

[Mr. Pink]

This team has more talent than the Dick Jauron era but is worse on the win loss record.

What does that tell you?

[GingerP]

Funny though as I was looking for an answer to your previous question, I stumbled upon Bill Walsh and thought this funny.

Bill Walsh's first year with the 49ers they were 2-14.
In his 2nd year the 49ers progressed and only went 6-10.
In his 3rd year (before winning his first Super Bowl) the 49ers jumped out of the gates at a lowly 2-2.....and then went on a 6 game winning streak starting with a long road win @ Washington.

Not implying anything here though. Just thought it interesting and remotely similar....very remote.

You had me going until I realized the 49ers had Joe Montana and the Bills have Ryan Fitzpatrick. That pretty much ended the comparison.

[stuckincincy]

This team has more talent than the Dick Jauron era but is worse on the win loss record.

What does that tell you?

It tells me about buckets full of rule changes that dictate that the NFL product has to be a wow-wee passing extravganza.

[PTI]

Our current regime wasted 1-2 years of rebuilding time, because of the failed switch to a 3-4... and then switching back to the 4-3 with a new coordinator.
For the first two years, most of our draft picks (Troup, Carrington, Moats, Sheppard) and free agent pickups (Dwan Edwards, Andre Davis, Barnett) were done to fill holes in our 3-4 scheme. Not to mention letting Poz walk.

The quarterback situation is because Nix/Gailey believe in "Best Player Available" but don't understand the concept of "Supply and Demand."
Sometimes you HAVE to reach for a quarterback. If not, they will be gone by the time your pick is up.

They even suck at BPA, their rating s of players blow, and they simply do not rate QBs high enough, these guys are absolutely lost when it comes to evaluating talent. QBs deserve a round or two higher when to step back and take a look at your board.

[PTI]

You had me going until I realized the 49ers had Joe Montana and the Bills have Ryan Fitzpatrick. That pretty much ended the comparison.

They had Steve Deberg too, who started a lot of those games at the time too, if I am not sure Fitz is as good as Deberg. Look at Deberg's stats and how stunningly average he was and he stuck around for so long, 1 great year, signs he can be a real QB, and he lasted 18 years somehow.

[JoeMama]

The sad thing is, as angry as I was when we hired Chan Gailey, I'm hesitant to see him fired.

Ever since we axed Wade Phillips, it's been nothing but one disaster after another.

I'm totally at a loss of how this team can be turned around.

There's a loser mentality in Buffalo that follows this team around like a little black cloud.

[jdaltroy5]

I'd have to do some research, but off the top of anyone's head, have there been any recent era head coaches who performed poorly their first three years, yet went on to have a great deal of success and job security from that point onward?

The assumption being the entire tenure was with the same team.

Kubiak had a .462 winning percentage in his first 5 years with Houston before he made the playoffs.

[JoeMama]

Kubiak had a .462 winning percentage in his first 5 years with Houston before he made the playoffs.

I guess you get a little more wiggle room when you're the second coach in franchise history for an expansion team.

After Mike Mularkey resigned, Gary Kubiak was my first choice as the new head coach.

I love his zone blocking scheme.

I bet I could run for 4 yards a carry in his system (assuming I don't get killed after the first hit I receive).

[jdaltroy5]

I guess you get a little more wiggle room when you're the second coach in franchise history for an expansion team.

After Mike Mularkey resigned, Gary Kubiak was my first choice as the new head coach.

I love his zone blocking scheme.

I bet I could run for 4 yards a carry in his system (assuming I don't get killed after the first hit I receive).

I think what kept him alive there was their .500 seasons and strong drafts.

They were crappy for so long that the promise he showed was enough to keep him employed.

I would use the same strategy for Chan if he reaches .500 but misses the playoffs. If he continues to show improvement and the team looks like it has good young talent, then I would keep him for another season to see if he can keep improving the team.

[PTI]

I think what kept him alive there was their .500 seasons and strong drafts.

They were crappy for so long that the promise he showed was enough to keep him employed.

I would use the same strategy for Chan if he reaches .500 but misses the playoffs. If he continues to show improvement and the team looks like it has good young talent, then I would keep him for another season to see if he can keep improving the team.

If they don't win at least 2 division games how can he really be kept?

[JoeMama]

I think what kept him alive there was their .500 seasons and strong drafts.

They were crappy for so long that the promise he showed was enough to keep him employed.

I would use the same strategy for Chan if he reaches .500 but misses the playoffs. If he continues to show improvement and the team looks like it has good young talent, then I would keep him for another season to see if he can keep improving the team.

Despite my initial dislike of Gailey, I think I'd be in favor of keeping him if we finish 8-8 too.

We need stability.

The constant changing of the guard hasn't helped us.

Yes, there may be a miracle coach out there somewhere, but what are the odds we actually hire him?

[NOT THE DUDE...]

there is no excuse...

worse teams have turned it around in 2 or 3 years... if they dont make the playoffs, ( which they wont), and they go 6-10 7-9 or even 8-8, something is wrong...

- - - Updated - - -


Despite my initial dislike of Gailey, I think I'd be in favor of keeping him if we finish 8-8 too.

We need stability.

The constant changing of the guard hasn't helped us.

Yes, there may be a miracle coach out there somewhere, but what are the odds we actually hire him?


hence the problem... its a losing mentality. parcells took a 1-15 team to 9-7 in one year.

[JoeMama]

there is no excuse...

worse teams have turned it around in 2 or 3 years... if they dont make the playoffs, ( which they wont), and they go 6-10 7-9 or even 8-8, something is wrong...

- - - Updated - - -




hence the problem... its a losing mentality. parcells took a 1-15 team to 9-7 in one year.

If we get an amazing candidate in 2013, I say we take him.

I'm talking Bill Cowher or someone of that pedigree.

Otherwise, if Gailey makes it to .500, I figure we might as well stick with him and hope things get better they way they did under Fisher and Kubiak.

[jdaltroy5]

If they don't win at least 2 division games how can he really be kept?

Well you're right, I think he's really got to improve his divisional record by the end of the season.

If we get swept or win one game in the division, I don't think he can keep his job.

[jdaltroy5]

Despite my initial dislike of Gailey, I think I'd be in favor of keeping him if we finish 8-8 too.

We need stability.

The constant changing of the guard hasn't helped us.

Yes, there may be a miracle coach out there somewhere, but what are the odds we actually hire him?

This is the way I look at it. What are we going to do? Hire some re-tread or promote Wanny and then start the process all over again?

I know Gailey hasn't been great and I think he made a huge mistake by hitching his wagon to Fitz.

However, I know it's not popular, but I'd be willing to give him another year just because I think the other options are worse.

[Mr. Pink]

It tells me about buckets full of rule changes that dictate that the NFL product has to be a wow-wee passing extravganza.

That's no different now than 2008.

[JoeMama]

This is the way I look at it. What are we going to do? Hire some re-tread or promote Wanny and then start the process all over again?

I know Gailey hasn't been great and I think he made a huge mistake by hitching his wagon to Fitz.

However, I know it's not popular, but I'd be willing to give him another year just because I think the other options are worse.

Same boat.

Gailey shows promise (sometimes).

He gets production out of players that most coaches couldn't.

But there's no denying he's a huge disappointment and has the worst record as a HC since, I don't know, Hank Bullough?

I'll let this season play out and make a judgment then.

God knows I don't want Wanny running this team. He's already so inept at making talented defensive players look helpless, I can't imagine what he would do to the other side of the ball.

[GingerP]

They had Steve Deberg too, who started a lot of those games at the time too, if I am not sure Fitz is as good as Deberg. Look at Deberg's stats and how stunningly average he was and he stuck around for so long, 1 great year, signs he can be a real QB, and he lasted 18 years somehow.

Not in '81, when they turned it around. DeBerg left for Denver in '81 and Montana was the starter and played the whole season.

[Skooby]

50+ years of poor ownership cannot be changed until it's changed.