JohnC

With respect to the highlighted segment look up the definition of flotsam. When you pursue garbage you get garbage.

My criticism of the organizational structure has more to do with the immediate empowering of an inexperienced HC. That's not to say that it won't work. Where it has worked with the HC being the center of power is with HCs who are experienced such as Carroll and Belichick. Sometimes, there is too much attention paid to the formal flowchart . If the parties involved in the operation are in sync then the formal positions are less important than the informal and collaborative approach to running the operation. With respect to the draft my criticism was not over the individual selections as it was the bypassing of a couple of good qb prospects. As many of us having been saying for a long time until the qb position is better staffed this franchise will continue to muddle along being at best average. Trump would change the name from the Bills to the Sputniks.

No one is arguing that being a self-made billionaire is automatically going to make you a good owner. In fact, I have argued otherwise in that your success in a prior endeavor doesn't necessarily translate into success in your new endeavor as an owner. It should not be surprising that there is a learning curve. That's why I'm giving the Pegulas some slack. There is no question that the Pegulas have made some major missteps. The Rex hire was outright weird. And there is no question that there has been a major mismatch between the front office and the hired coaching staffs because he made the hires without the required input of the GM. But making mistakes in the past doesn't mean that everything you currently are doing is wrong. I believe the inarticulate owner has learned from his mistakes. I see a greater alignment between the coaching staff and the front office. I also see him putting more attention on buttressing the front office with his recent hires. Dan Snyder has reflexively drawn a lot of criticism. Due to his past involvement in the operation that criticism was very warranted. But now he is not as involved in the details of the football operation as he used to be. And clearly the team has been more successful on the field because of it.

There is a new football regime in place that is headed by the new HC, an organizational structure that bothers me a lot. At this point it is futile to lament how the organization is structured because it is already in place. It seems to me that all the upper echelon front office hires and the HC are in sync. Until more time goes by we will not know whether the theory will match the application. I have said on many postings that there is no quick fix to reworking the roster and being a contending team. Because of the lackluster qb situation it's going to take at least another few years to be anything other than a fringe wild-card contending team. (My opinion.) What I want to see is an organization that functions in a unified manner and makes sound decisions. By the nature of the business not every transaction is going to work out. However, over time doing things the right way will have a cumulative effect and get this train back on track. Where I disagree with your perspective, although understandable, is that you are focusing too much on the dysfunctional past and applying it to the present and future. I'm taking a different approach. I'm looking at what has recently happened and seeing it in a more positive light. With a recognition that there is still a lot more to do I'm comfortable in saying that I am cautiously optimistic.

Your responses are knocking me out of my seat. I can't figure where you are coming from. With respect to the first highlighted segment that relates to your perception of the owners' impetuousness your response makes absolutely no sense to me. Firing Rex was not an impulsive and irrational act, it was an act of necessity. How much more did you want the loquacious coach to set this franchise back? The owner made a ridiculous mistake in hiring this corpulent fool; and he quickly rectified it by firing him and paying him off. The fact that the rich former HC responded in a classless way is a testament to his boorish character and doesn't reflect on the owner at all. Exchanging Rex for McDermott was a dramatic upgrade. The owner should be saluted and not criticized for making that change. Pegula is not Kraft or Rooney. They have been in the business for a very long time while he is still basically a novice. Without a doubt Pegula does not possess a sparkling personality. So what! At the podium he talks as if he has marbles in his mouth. So what! He can only be who he is. He is still in the learning phase of his new endeavor so I'm going to cut him some slack. Let's get real here---he is a self-made billionaire. What I can tell you is that he is certainly not a fool who is going to be hoodwinked by anyone, and if so, at least not for long. Another area of your comments that perplex me very much is that you seem to be holding him accountable for what went on before he bought the team. That is both illogical and unreasonable. If you want to criticize him for what he has done, then that is fair game. Criticizing him for not willing to take responsibility prior to assuming ownership is an odd position for you take. Usually your positions are well reasoned and articulated. But on this issue of accountability before he entered the scene as an owner it is an outright zany positions to take. As I said in the prior posts I see this offseason of organizational change as being for the most part very positive. I'm encouraged with the direction this franchise is moving with the realization that this team is still at least three years away from being a serious team. I'm cautiously optimistic.

Putting aside his personal traits I do believe that he has strong convictions on how to coach and run a team. I get the sense that he is going to be a strong coach who will strictly enforce his rules and standards. He is diametrically the opposite of Rex. As with all bosses who are new it is also a learning process for them. Without a doubt the players will have to adjust to him as he will also have to adjust to the players.

I understand your skepticism and reluctance to give this organization the benefit of the doubt. Although relatively young people were hired to staff the front office that doesn't mean that each of the top three staffers lacked experienced. What they all have in common is that each of them worked their way up the ranks accumulating extensive experience. Does that guarantee success? Of course not. But I would rather ride young ponies who are open to ideas that ride worn out hags who are stuck on their antiquated systems. Am I giving this new team more of the benefit of the doubt than you are? Yes. I'm more optimistic about the front office hires than the cliche spouting wrestling coach who I find very tiresome whenever he speaks at the podium and says little. Although I may not like his sanctimonious persona one area that I do believe he will do well is instill in is discipline and accountability. That is a major step forward that should reverberate throughout the roster. What this franchise desperately needs that is possessed by the Steelers and Packers (you cited) is more stability and less churning of staff and philosophies. There is no doubt that the Pegulas as new owners have made some glaring mistakes. But while you are skeptical of them, I am not. I do believe that they want do the right things and create not only a winning team but also a sustainable successful franchise not only for themselves but also for the community. Let's face it even with their flagrant mistakes they have put their money where their mouth is. Maybe you are too jaded to give them the benefit of the doubt but I'm not. For me the arrow is pointing up.

History has also demonstrated that you have a better chance hitting on a qb with a higher pick than a lower pick. When you make a bet you might prefer lowering your odds while I would prefer raising the odds. To each his own.

I respectfully but strenuously disagree with your views. First, I never said that the Bills should have cut TT. On numerous postings I have said the opposite that he should be retained as a bridge qb. I believed that the Bills were in a good position to use their first pick on either Mahomes or Watkins to select very credible qb prospects. As you know there were a number of teams interested in moving up to select one of them. That tells you that other franchises rated both of them highly. We simply have unbridgeable views on TT. That's okay. It's my view that this new coaching staff retained TT because he simply was the best option at qb for the next year or so. I wholeheartedly agreed with his retention. What is the point of scouring the market for another bridge qb when you have one already on the roster. It was a very judicious decision. But that doesn't mean that he is the long term franchise qb that this franchise covets. Make no mistake on what my views are on TT. As a starter I consider him adequate at best. In many ways we are fortunate to have him compared to what preceded him. However, if one has high aspirations for this team (in the upcoming but not immediate future) then I don't believe that he is the answer.

Pointing out that historically the Bills have been a stupendously inept franchise is like saying that manure stinks: What's obvious is obvious. You are not making an earth shaking revelation here. There is no quick fix or magical move that is going to dramatically alter the situation. A good start is being made by assembling a front office and coaching staff that are aligned. For most franchises that is the norm but not for this troubled franchise. At least the owner now seems to understand this basic fact. Over time just functioning smartly will bring some positive results. Hiring clueless people such as Rex to be your HC and Levy and Buddy to be your GMs are damaging to the point that it sets you back and make your journey to respectability even longer. I'm not saying anything that you don't already don't know. Where I diverge from your take is that I don't believe you have to have a special talent at qb to be competitive because few teams are in that fortunate situation. But I do believe you have to have a good qb to reasonably compete. Right now (in my view) we don't have it. If that's the case then just continue building the rest of the roster until you acquire the right qb.

I respectfully but strenuously disagree with your position that because of our market size that we need a special qb in order to be a more sustainable franchise. That argument doesn't resonate with me. KC has for the most part been a competitive franchise without for a very long time having an elite qb. Without a high end qb that franchise has for a very long time been very sound from both a competitive and financial standpoint. I also disagree with you that you have to have a large market in order to be a viable and sustainable franchise for the primary reason that the NFL business model has more to do with a shared TV money that to an extent levels the field for the smaller markets. There is no doubt that the bigger market still have more resources and have a larger margin of error but a well run and intelligently run franchise will not only survive but also thrive. Green Bay and Pittsburgh come to mind falling into this category. There is another major factor that the size and wealth of the market has little effect on a Buffalo franchise: It's the Pegula bankrolling of the business. One excuse that this organization doesn't have compared to the Wilson era is having a lack of resources. A credible argument can be made that Pegula spends too lavishly and unwisely. My point is basically a lack of resources is not an area of concern with the Pegulas as owners. Where you and I are closely matched is on recognizing the importance of securing a high quality franchise qb. Much of my posting laments the fact that this woebegone franchise has not demonstrated a commitment to do what is necessary to properly staffing the qb position. My frustration is not only that there is a lack of urgency on the part of this organization but that it allowed a number of opportunities to acquire good prospects only to pass on those opportunities. I still believe that this draft afforded this organization to select one of two good quality qb prospects but those in charge elected to go in another direction. So be it. With respect to the highlighted segment I don't believe that TT is the long term answer. If your stunted goal is to be adequate then he is viable. If you have higher aspirations then the generational pursuit for a qb is still on. He is what he is: A suitable bridge qb.

In many respects as you state the word rebuilding is meaningless because it corresponds to the constant player movement. That's why in earlier posts I pointed out that debating that point meant little. The one difference is that teams that have a franchise qb usually keep their qb anchored to the team for a longer period of time. We haven't had an established franchise qb for more than two decades, since the retirement of Kelly.

I have a different take from your post. I agree with you that the hiring of McDermott and then Beane are not individually very inspiring hires. But both hires were very sound hires. Adding the personnel staffer from Houston was, albeit another uninspiring hire, again it was a very good hire. Instead of making decisions to create a marketing splash in the short run it is better to hire acknowledged upcoming talents from successful operations. That certainly is more refreshing than going to the old recycled candidates for positions. As you noted the Pegulas have made their share of mistakes in their short stint as owners. But it seems to me that they have learned some valuable lessons from their early decisions. One lesson that they have learned is that the organization has to be staffed by people who are on the same page and are moving in the same direction. They have made it a priority to focus a lot of attention on getting the structure right and assembled a staff that is working in unison. In the long run substance is much more enduring than style. So in general I am encouraged by what has happened.

Of course a transcendent qb would be wonderful. But the odds of having one are small. That doesn't mean that having a good franchise qb on a well developed team that can seriously compete would not be good enough to spark interest in a franchise that has struggled for more than a generation. Excessive losing is bad enough but what smothers interest even more is being a boring and less than entertaining team. It's going to take at least a few years but building up the roster so this team can be considered a contending team will hopefully rekindle interest from the lost generation who understandably vanished from the market due to the quality of the product.

With respect to the highlighted segment I'm saying the opposite. Clearly the front office and coaching staff are new and the roster over time (the next three years) will mostly be rebuilt.

You are off the mark with your contention that the new coach has a particular benchmark he has to meet or be in jeopardy. His stint is not going to be judged in comparison to the previous clown's stint. McDermott can expediently devise a roster that is capable of winning 8 games that in the longer run will hurt its future prospects. On the other hand he can build a roster with younger players that initially win 6 games but in the longer run will be the basis for a good team. What's obvious to everyone is that the organization is going through a thorough remake. New GM, new assist. GM, new personnel man, new scouts and new coaching staff. This new construction isn't being done to continue on the same mediocre path of scratching by to attain respectability. Don't get hung up on comparing the wrestling coach's immediate record to the previous corpulent coach's record. Rex's history was an embarrassing sideshow that has no bearing to what is now going on other than to learn what not to do. To argue whether this is a rebuild or not is a waste of time. What is apparent to me is that this project is not a quick task. It is going to take at least a few years before the outcome can be judged to be successful or not. The bottom line is don't focus so much on the immediate record because it is less important to how the roster is being reshaped.

A plain spoken boring retort may not be loud but it can be penetratingly smart.

The critical issue for me is whether the trade down for picks was worth not taking one of the two remaining top qb prospects in Watson or Mahomes. The two acquiring teams made the move up while other teams unsuccessfully attempted to do the same. So we know that multiple teams placed a value on the qb prospects that we bypassed. We also know that the departed GM wanted to draft a qb but had no authority to do so. The Bills gave up a third round pick to slightly move up for a receiver. I have no problem with the selection but I do question giving up a third round pick, a pick that certainly could have been used on a position of need. There was a good chance he would still have been on the board but if not there were reasonable options at a variety of positions where a sound pick could have been made. The mistake that is often made in assessing a draft is in assessing individual picks. From that standpoint all our picks were reasonable. But a more strategic way of assessing this draft is what else could you have done differently that in a few years this draft class could have given you a bigger return. My belief remains that we had an opportunity to acquire a franchise qb but continued with the trend of bypassing them.

Do you have to clean the panels if they get covered by particles from pollution or bird droppings or tree sap? Just curious? Especially in northern areas such as Buffalo if you have a major snow storm where your roof is covered by a few feet of snow would that make the system inoperative until the snow was cleared off? The technology is so rapidly changing. Now they are coming up with a roof that is basically a panel. Wouldn't that make the panels that they are installing now obsolete?

The Chip Kelly situation is different from the McDermott or Carroll approach in a major way that really makes it a bad comparison. Kelly brought in his revolutionary approach that he used in the college ranks and tried to apply it without much alteration to the pro ranks. That was the major flaw with his approach. The college and pro games are much different and the approach that is successful in one environment wasn't necessarily going to be the magical solution in another environment. Without a doubt McDermott has his own favored football philosophy with respect to the roster and organizational structure. For the most part they fall within being considered conventional approaches. His challenge is going to be upgrading the talent to fit the schemes he favors. That's the same challenges that all teams and organizations have to face.

Whenever there is a press conference introducing a new HC, GM or player in any sport there is little to be gleaned from it. The standard comments from the new employee are cliche and platitude riddled. It really isn't worth dissecting because there is little substance to evaluate. You are treating this as a press conference for a President or Governor where answering questions might prove useful and shed some light. This is not the situation here. This GM introductory press conference is a situation where saying little of substance is said because there is actually little to say.

The actual GM at the time did make the call: It was McDermott. Pegula has bought into the McDermott vision and blueprint. McDermott is unquestionably running the football operation. As soon as McDermott was hired he was elevated to the top of the football operation while the then GM publicly lost his authority. The owner would not have fired the entire scouting staff unless it was what the empowered coach wanted to happen. I'm not arguing whether it was a wise or unwise approach to take because we simply won't know right away. The front office is now staffed and structured the way McDermott wanted. The Beane hiring certainly was mostly influenced by the HC. Structurally, before the McDermott hire there was a glaring disjointedness between the front office and the coaching staff. Whaley can't be fully blamed for that lack of cohesiveness because too often he didn't have a meaningful say in the hiring of coaches. The incompatibility within the organization was caused by the owner's HCing hires. The advantage to this unified organizational structure is that there is more clarity and less confusion in communication between the front office and coaching staff. The scouts, front office, which includes managing the cap, and the coaching staff are all tied together. Under this system there is more cohesion. There are also risks in such a tightly knitted system. The risk of group think instead of creative tension and challenging opinions is something to be aware of.

This type of topic is coming up more and more. It's stupid and childish. If you can't handle different points of view then that's your problem. It's getting tiresome and contributes nothing of value. My recommendation: Grow up!

First I want to make clear that I'm not advising you one way or another. I'm just pointing out things you should consider. The issues you are having with a particular boss are simply part of the work world no matter where you work. Work associates come and go as do bosses. There is much more staffing movement now than there was years ago. It's an inescapable part of the work environment regardless where you work. Leaving one scene with its individual challenges doesn't mean that you are escaping to a more idyllic scene. As you well know work places are not static, they change and then change again. With respect to the onerous commute that the new change has let me point out that it usually doesn't get better, it typically gets worse. The $15,000 increase in pay might be the amount of money that covers the wear and tear on your car. You seem to be a wonderful and devoted family man. Whatever time you don't spend with your children is time you will never get back. The extra money you get from your new job means little to your daughter as opposed to watching her play soccer and then going for a victory pizza. Again, I don't want you to think that I am recommending a position to you. Because I am not. If you look at this issue as something more than a job issue and look at it as how it impacts your family then you will better be able to make a decision. This job issue is much more than a salary issue. It has a lot to do with values and family. When all is said and done you can simply reduce the issue to what will make you and your family more happy? Good luck!

I don't have a feel whether you like working at your current place of employment? Whenever you are a new employee there is a period of adjustment to the environment, people and predictable staffing changes. At your prospective new place of employment you will also face the same type of issues related to people and their challenging personalities. You noted that the commuting distance has increased. The distance isn't so much of a problem as the traffic and time it takes to commute. How much will it cut into your family and personal time? Will it over time wear you down? Ultimately you are making the decision. Your job and everything associated with it have to be balanced out with what you want to do with your off time and your values. Ask yourself in five years where do I want to be? Here or there? Good luck.