Dick Jauron Getting Love from Bill Parcells

by Brian Galliford on Dec 4, 2007 9:34 PM EST in Buffalo Bills News

Good to see that a respected football mind, such as the one Bill Parcells possesses, is noticing the steady hand of Dick Jauron (media courtesy of ESPN Video):

Very cool stuff indeed. We discussed last week Jauron's being a good fit in Buffalo; it's nice to have that opinion backed up by a guy as intelligent as Parcells. Jauron's going to get this team to the post-season; it's just a matter of when.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Dost my eyes and ears decieve?

Or did we just get positive pub from ESPN?

He has done a tremedous job this year BUT, he has also been the cause for at least one of our loses (Dallas, IMHO).

He seems to be a great motivator and the guys play very hard for him. I wonder what this team would look like if health hadn't eroded and there was a shade more talent.

I sense it, we are close. Very close.

Oh yeah, Trent Edwards was on Jim Rome is Burning today too. Two Bills in one day? Must need to get a quota.

by RabidBuffalo on Dec 4, 2007 11:10 PM EST reply actions

Dick Jauron

I'm no fan of Dick Jauron, but even had Buffalo slumped back to 5-11 or so this season, I would not have called for his job. Fact is, the most glaring reason for Buffalo's current playoff drought this decade is that the Bills have been the least stable team in the NFL. 3 general managers, 4 head coaches, 5 offensive coordinators, and 7 starting QB's makes for constant rebuilding. For better or worse, I want Jauron here for the long haul. I certainly appreciate the mental fortitude of the team under Jauron and it's to his credit. But his track record in Chicago and now Buffalo shows a very clear pattern of his not being able to identify a legitimate offensive coordinator or being able to entrench a starting quarterback. That's on the head coach. After the mess that Tom Donahoe left following 2005, if Buffalo's new regime can garner records of 7-9, and then say 8-8 this season, I'll be sufficiently pacified with the direction of the team heading into the offseason. But as far as Jauron goes, I'm not sold yet. The offense just doesn't score enough points 28 games into Jauron's tenure. I'm also still fuming over the way he bows down to New England with quotes like, "We don't match up very well with the Patriots" (reported by Rich Gannon before Week 3) and "We have to play the perfect game to compete with New England" (before teh Sunday Night game). You know what, Dick? It's your job to make the team match up with New England and inferior teams like Philadelphia and Baltimore more than "competed" with New England immediately after you simply deferred to them three weeks ago in front of the entire country. What did those teams have that we don't have? That's what Jauron needs to figure out when he looks in the mirror.

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Dec 5, 2007 8:01 AM EST reply actions

Re: NE comments

Do you feel that Jauron was lying when he said his team didn't match up well with the Patriots? Jauron's a straight shooter - he was just telling the truth, and the truth is that nobody matches up well with the Patriots. Not one team, not even the Colts and Cowboys. New England is just the most talented team in the league, period.

Philly and Baltimore hung with the Pats because New England hasn't been playing well the last two weeks. They played the perfect game against Buffalo - and if you remember, Buffalo was clawing early in that game, cutting the lead to 14-7 before all hell broke loose. We didn't lie down in that game; New England simply dominated us. They have the ability to do that. They didn't dominate the Eagles or Ravens; I daresay also that Philly and Baltimore have far more playmakers on their rosters, always instrumental in beating a team like New England.

Jauron doesn't deserve crap for telling it like it is - this team isn't close to being good enough to compete with the Pats. That's what we're working towards.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Dec 5, 2007 9:03 AM EST up reply actions

Really?

If Buffalo is good enough to beat Baltimore and Baltimore is good enough to take New England to the mat, then it's illogical to say "this team isn't close to being good enough to compete with the Pats." You're buying into the same self-fulfilling prophecy that Jauron laid on his team headed into those two games. New England is in our division and we have to play them twice a year; you can't just chalk up two games a year as losses and move on from there. These are paid professionals playing a game. You can't let the Patriots dictate whether you compete or not. If you can't compete coming off of four wins, playing in front of a packed home crowd in prime time, when do you plan on doing so? Baltimore did so with Kyle Boller, coming off of four straight losses. Philly did so on the road with a backup QB. It's ridiculous to say these losing teams were only able to stay in the game because New England didn't play well. Much of the credit needs to go to their coaches for taking their best shot at winning rather than playing/praying to stay close. In the first game against the Patriots, New England kicked off, up 17-7, with 1:30 left in the half and what does Jauron do with timeouts at his disposal? He runs out the clock. There's a reason that Reid and Billick have coached multiple teams into the playoffs and have appeared in Super Bowls. Jauron has his attributes, but 94-17 to a division rival isn't good enough. His calm demeanor and refusal to make injuries an excuse are great lessons he has instilled upon this young team. However, the lack of courage he showed against the big, bad wolf in our division is a lesson I hope this team forgets real soon. Reid and Billick deserve credit for trying and I can't say the same for Jauron.

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Dec 5, 2007 9:46 AM EST reply actions

Re:

I'll cede you the conservative argument. I love Jauron, but yeah, sometimes he's too conservative for his own good.

That's faulty logic. You're telling me that the Patriots played as well in Baltimore as they did in Buffalo? You're telling me that New England hasn't looked like a completely different team the past two weeks? Yes, Buffalo had an opportunity to compete, but they didn't - New England, again, played the perfect game. Had they not, Buffalo likely would have kept it close for much longer - and as I said, they were starting to do that after Parrish's long TD reception cut the lead in half.

You can't compare game-to-game in this league because so many variables change. It is what it is. I recall Jauron nearly beating the Pats in his first go-round with them as the Bills' coach; I suspect that when the team is more talented next year, we'll see a return to such competitiveness.

Create a free account to join in the discussion, Bills fans!

by Brian Galliford on Dec 5, 2007 9:52 AM EST up reply actions

Re:

You don't think the reason New England has looked like a completely different team the last two weeks has anything to do with the opposing teams? They're that good that everyone else on the field and the opposing sideline is reduced to mannequin status? No; their coaches took it upon themselves to gameplan to win and it nearly paid off. The Colts had New England on the ropes the game prior to our debacle as well. That's three Super Bowl caliber coaches that tried to win their games vs. New England and their teams responded. Indy's another story, but the talent gap between us and Philly/Baltimore is negligible. We stick out like a sore thumb just as Jauron does when grouped with Dungy, Reid, and Billick. Look, I hope Jauron's learning from his mistakes because I want the same coach here for the long haul after a decade of constantly starting over. But let's be as conservative as Jauron is with his gameplans in our praise for the team's head coach. Like the talent on our roster, Jauron has a long way to go as well.

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Dec 5, 2007 10:11 AM EST reply actions

Jauron at Chicago

On more than one occasion on this blog, Jauron's tenure as Chicago's Head Coach has been brought up as evidence of his questionable head coaching abilities. We know about the amazing 13-3 2001 season, but I don't follow the Bears so I have know idea what was going on in the organization this year and the infamous 2002 and 2003 seasons which ended 4-12 and 7-9 for the Bears and resulted in Jauron's firing.

It seems like there is more to this story than just "bad coaching" which lead to the ax, so I did some quick searches. For anyone interested I found these links from the Chicago Bears History website which provides a larger context to Jauron's tenure with the Bears.

2001 Chicago Bears-Season of Good Fortune

Despite the success of the Bears this year, this was still not a stable organization by any means:

Key Quote:

The new GM promptly traded troubled QB Cade McNown to the Miami Dolphins for a song, and cut higher-priced and popular veterans Mike Wells, Bobby Engram and Barry Minter. Even CB Thomas Smith, signed in 2000 for $22 million, was shown the door in a smart move after Smith's inconsistent (at best) play the season before. While these moves proved to be necessary to shed salary from underproductive players as well as develop young talent, many saw them as Angelo's way to ensure a poor season from Coach Dick Jauron. Most believed Angelo wanted to see Jauron fail so he could hire his own coach in 2002.

The 2002 Chicago Bears

...what many thought could be a super bowl season, or at least another run to the playoffs, was not to be. Whether the cause was the commute to Champaign, the most injuries suffered in the NFL for 2002, or questionable coaching, the season was a major disappointment for the players, coaches, and loyal fans of the NFL's charter franchise. Yet again, this Bears team will enter yet another season with questions dogging every part of the organization (my emphasis).

The 2003 Chicago Bears

After the 0-3 start, many began questioning Jauron's ability to last through the season, let alone into the final year of his contract in 2004...Despite the playoffs now seeming like a remote dream, the Bears turned in strong performances in games 11 and 12, shocking Denver on the road and thrashing Arizona at home. At this point, Jauron supporters and detractors drew into their separate quarters and squared off. Some felt that his coaching abilities were the only reason the team was 5-7 and clinging to playoff hopes, while others believed he had not won enough in his five years at the helm.

And finally:

The head coach left a legacy of more losing than winning in Chicago, but many friends. What he also left is the age-old question in Chicago, has all this losing stemmed from talent, poor coaching and strategy, or an overall unhealthy organization.

So yes, it remains an open question whether Jauron has the right stuff to make the Bills perennial playoff contenders. But it seems unfair in my estimation to hang the albatross of the Bears 2002/2003 losing seasons solely around Jauron's neck.

by Zumone on Dec 5, 2007 10:27 AM EST reply actions

I agree...

...and that doesn't even recognize the Soldier Field renovation project that left Jauron's teams playing home games in Champaign, IL. I do, however, think it's fair to look at Gary Crowton, John Shoop, and Steve Fairchild- Jauron's offensive coordinators during his two tenures. Not very inspiring.

Nick (Bensalem, PA)

by Nick BensalemPA on Dec 5, 2007 10:57 AM EST up reply actions

Bills' Brain Trust

Great stuff, Gentlemen. Like most head coaches, Dick Jauron has his pluses and minuses. To have success in this league, the whole conservative thing needs to change. The Bills will never win a championship by playing conservative, safe, passive, and scared. They need to play aggressive, go for the throat, and play to win in all phases of the game. Just look at the history.

With that being said, it is ultimately talent, not coaching, that is most responsible for winning football games. Great players make great plays, not the other way around. I love the fact that the Bills play hard and with tremendous effort. However, they will be much improved if they combine their effort with more talented players. Obviously, this is where John Guy, Tom Modrak, Marv Levy, and Ralph Wilson come into play.

One quick note. After free agency, the draft, and minicamp, Jauron actually said something to the effect of "we are bigger, faster, stronger, and better" relative to their 2006 roster. At the time and to this day, I am still not completely sold on that.

I would also like to add that if the Bills ever want to win a championship, they will need significant improvement at quarterback. I could care less about the playoffs this season or next season. I want the Lombardi Trophy. No team has ever won a championship with a caretaker at quarterback. I do not buy the Trent Dilfer/Brad Johnson argument either because those quarterbacks were not caretakers; they made big plays at critical moments. The Bills will need a good quarterback; I do not see any way around it. An elite quarterback would be even better. In this regard, because Losman has better physical talent than Edwards (and many other NFL quarterbacks), I believe the ideal scenario for the team would be to correct Losman's weaknesses and make Losman the permenant starting quarterback. Are Losman's weaknesses correctable? I do not know. If not, can the team win a championship with Edwards at quarterback? The Bills need to find some answers. Stay tuned.

by Fort Worth on Dec 5, 2007 11:25 AM EST reply actions

roethlisberger and brady

were initially caretakers at quarterback.

we are faster at linebacker

and we are bigger and stronger in the offensive line.

trent edwards is a sick rookie qb.

by sri on Dec 5, 2007 1:10 PM EST reply actions

Reply to "roethlisberger and brady"

sri,

Thanks for the response. When Roethlisberger and Brady won their first Super Bowl, they were not caretakers. Essentially, they were not handed the reigns and told "do not lose the game for us". They made big plays at critical moments in the playoffs and in the big game. The bottom line is, I do not believe that a team can win a championship with a caretaker at quarterback. Once you get into the playoffs, let alone the Super Bowl, you can not hide your deficiencies at quarterback. At some point along the way, the quarterback must make plays, and if he can not, playoff opponents will expose it.

Regarding the "bigger, faster, stronger, and better" comment, the 2006 Bills team was playing significantly better at this point in the season than the 2007 Bills team is playing right now. It is not even close.

As far as Edwards being "a sick rookie qb", I think that it is more important what Edwards can do five years in the future than what he can do now. In scouts' terms, it is all about the player's ceiling, not the player's floor. We'll just have to wait and see.

by Fort Worth on Dec 5, 2007 1:58 PM EST reply actions

making big plays

in critical moments and being a caretaker are not mutually exclusive characteristics.

trent edwards does the first, and terms like "caretaker" and "gunslinger" are generalizations. however, brady and roethlisberger were not asked to go and win games. pittsburgh ran the ball far more frequently than they threw it, and when they threw it, it was a high percentage pass play. the 2001 patriots were a dink and dunk team. eventually, as the two quarterbacks became familiar with the pro game, and their system, they expanded their games.

edwards is an upgrade at qb. he is an upgrade with his level of play now, and in all likelihood, he will be an upgrade in the future, should his performance improve.

the bills were 5-7 through 12 last year, they're 6-6 now. the two teams' level of performance is close. this one plays better. the offensive line plays better and the linebackers are as, if not more, effective. there has been no significant dropoff in the secondary, and the defensive line's play has experienced a dropoff only in terms of the number of sacks they are producing. but sacks and level of play do not mean the same thing.

we are a better team than last year.

by sri on Dec 6, 2007 8:53 AM EST reply actions