Adam Shatz/FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS Almanac on the Bills (not good)

[Pilsner]

Very true. I would take a Bills playoff spot first. We are due.

 

Who are you? Calvin Coolidge? Grover Cleveland? just trying to make out ur avatar. It's Gilded age time frame.

[DonInBuffalo]

A football market that is no longer big enough to support a team? You mean the one that sells out every game?

 

I should have stopped reading there. What an ill-informed moron.

They sell out every game in large part because they have some of the lowest ticket prices in the NFL. Their club seat prices are among the lowest too. That lack of revenue makes it difficult for them to compete financially for top notch free agents and coaches.

 

 

1) Right off the bat, the piece starts with "Buffalo can not afford an NFL team" - this should have been an immediate red flag to anyone half in touch with the NFL. The Bills are by no means the most profitable team, but they also have no debt.

As long as Ralph is alive, it's true that they have no debt. When Ralph dies, whatever person/group that buys the team will have to take on a substantial amount of debt. At that point, it will no longer be economically viable to keep the team in Buffalo, because with that debt they will almost certainly be losing quite a bit of money every season.

[Doc]

They sell out every game in large part because they have some of the lowest ticket prices in the NFL. Their club seat prices are among the lowest too. That lack of revenue makes it difficult for them to compete financially for top notch free agents and coaches.

Raising ticket prices won't appreciably raise revenue for Ralph, just drive fans away. Where the money isn't being made is luxury boxes, advertising and endorsements.

As long as Ralph is alive, it's true that they have no debt. When Ralph dies, whatever person/group that buys the team will have to take on a substantial amount of debt. At that point, it will no longer be economically viable to keep the team in Buffalo, because with that debt they will almost certainly be losing quite a bit of money every season.

The problem is that the relocation fee keeps increasing every year, to where it's $400M (and anywhere from $600-900M to move to Toronto). And no new location will be willing to build a new stadium (outside of LA, which will probably be where the Jags end up).

[jahnyc]

The reality is that NFL commentators, bloggers, experts, etc. have been negative about the Bills for years. Unfortunately, for the most part, they have been correct. The only way that this perception will change is when the Bills start having some success again.

 

It has been 10 years since we were in the playoffs. That is way too long in a league where some teams bottom out and make the playoffs within a couple of years. Clearly, something has been wrong with the team and the franchise for some time. I hope this changes soon, but I don't think it will be this year.

[Geno Smith's Arm]

What part is true? That Hardy is the #2 receiver?

 

PTR

 

If that is the the most inaccurate point in the article, then he didn't do so bad. The Bills organization isn't in the best shape right now. I think the article had many valid points, and wasn't just a regurgitation of common media misperceptions about the Bills and Buffalo.

[JESSEFEFFER]

I read the entire thing and I generally like the "metrics" angle to analysis. At least some opinions are based on something real. That said I have two comments:

 

1) The past is a good predictor of the future up until it isn't. For instance I think it is entirely likely that the Bills get comparable QB play to the 'phins and the Jets. Assumptions about their situations are projections based on little evidence. Heck, JP had a better 8 game stretch than any of those three.

 

2) There is no "i" in Schatz but there should be. At least that's his tone toward every move this franchise has made. He really has no "metric" to evaluate those.

[wardigital]

I could highlight that for you but since the article was removed, I'll give you a few from memory.

 

The Buddy Nix promotion was a joke and another example of Ralph being cheap.

Chan Gailey was dumped as the Chiefs OC and not on the radar of any other NFL club as a HC candidate. Another hire on the cheap by Ralph.

George Edwards is a downgrade from Perry Fewell and almost all of our guys will be out of position in the 3-4.

Our WR corps does suck. LE is really a #2 but our #1 and there is RICHARD behind him.

How can you argue with any of that?

 

Well, I can think of a few things there to argue with.

 

I do agree that our WR corps is underwhelming, but there should at least be some effort to know who is the actual #2 (or #3, or #4 etc.) and the answer is not James Hardy. Others have pointed out the other mistakes, so I'll spare you on those.

 

As for Buddy Nix being a joke, I don't think you can make that assessment now. Look: I wasn't happy with the name either, but I think that the Bills take unnecessary criticism on this sort of thing based on skewed perspective. Because of the last decade, I think there is a tendency to believe that the Bills needed to go for high-end experience because their previous gambles haven't worked.

 

But every GM in this league, the good ones and the bad ones, were at one point first-time GMs, and so there is nothing that necessarily says that being new to the position is an automatic marker of failure.

 

I think the more pertinent argument with Nix has been that he's been touted as a "college scouting guy" but there is some question as to the quality of his drafts both here and in San Diego, particularly in the higher rounds. But in terms of him being a General Manager, the jury is out, and he's so far acted with patience and deliberation, which isn't the way to win fans in Buffalo, but it is probably the right thing to do. The culture of this team will not change over night.

 

As far as Edwards being inferior to Fewell goes, I think that's still up in the air too. Let's let him coach some games before we make that statement. Fewell gets lots of praise because of the pass defense last year, but there are a few things to consider there, as well.

 

Not only was the rush defense one of the worst in history at times, but the secondary situation may have not been Fewell's either. While Schatz talks about Drayton Florence, he fails to discuss that under Fewell and Jauron, Jairus Byrd was hardly even on the field for the start of last season, and basically got into the lineup because of luck and injury which doesn't exactly speak to Fewell's coaching greatness.

 

Finally, I'm not satisfied or sold with Gailey as head coach yet, either, but I am willing to give him a shot. I think that using his firing as OC in Kansas City, is, however, poor analysis, particularly for a dude coming from Harvard. To not even mention Todd Haley's alleged issues is an insult to the readership. This doesn't make Gailey a great coach, but I think to use his time in KC as any basis for any conclusions is almost purposely disingenuous.

 

Now, I think the overall tone of his article is correct. I am a bit sad that the Bills didn't really improve the offensive line, quarterbacks or WR this year. I think that Buffalo is probably running into a buzzsaw where teams will, sooner than later, just blitz the snot out of the team, which will kill our running game and our fragile QB corps.

 

In other words, I'm not saying the general conclusion is wrong, but I do think how he came to his conclusions paints an inaccurate picture of what is going on in Buffalo.

[wardigital]

They sell out every game in large part because they have some of the lowest ticket prices in the NFL. Their club seat prices are among the lowest too. That lack of revenue makes it difficult for them to compete financially for top notch free agents and coaches.

 

I don't think that there's any metric that has actually ever been efficiently measured that scientifically concludes what the Bills ticket price threshold is.

 

So there is at least as much evidence that the Bills are selling themselves low as there is that they are at their high watermark.

[bowery4]

God that article was not good and long the OP got it right in the title.

[billsfan89]

3 words to summarize that article:

 

Sad but true.

 

Anyone willing to read it without their rose-colored homer glasses pinned to their ears knows it.

 

On the offensive side of things the Football Outsiders are right the team just doesn't have too much talent (we have 1 receiver, 3 running backs, and 2 blue chip O-lineman and that's about it) . On the defensive side of things however I actually think they missed the ball. Andre Davis, Torbor, and Dwane Edwards are all really solid 3-4 vets who make this team a lot deeper and harder to run on, Poz and Mitchell are quality LB's who can find a home in the 3-4 as well. Stroud maybe a guy whose career is winding down but he can eat up space at the DE position as well so he has a role in the 3-4.

 

This D is going to be surprising Kyle Williams isn't a prototypical Nose but he was our best DT last year and might be able to hold down the fort for just one year so that Troupe can step in. Troupe and Carrington add a lot of young talent to the D-line and if both can shape the D-line in the future (And Spiller becomes a playmaker) wow this years draft looks pretty good.

 

Add in a top flight secondary and I think we have the makings of a D that can keep us in a lot of games. Yes we don't have much of a pass rush (Although Maybin's career might have been saved by the switch) even if Maybin develops a little but we have a front 7 better equipped to stop the run and not wear down at the end of the season and a very good secondary. Honestly I see our team in a lot of games this upcoming season even if our offense can't do much.

[billsfan89]

The article also overpraised Fewell we were 3-4 under him but put that win against the Colts under suspicion because they were playing their B-team that was mentally checked out. OK so we have a 50/50 (Assuming we would have played a team that needed or cared to win the game or at least played their starters) chance of going 2-5 under Fewell which doesn't make Fewell sound that good.

 

Fewell basically let the team play with some passion and conviction and they responded a little to it but they did pad his resume by beating the Colts B-team. They praised the secondaries play under Fewell but how much was that Fewell's handy work and how much of that was DJ's. Say what you will about DJ but the guy's specialty throughout his coaching career has been the secondary.

 

So while I am not a big fan of Gailey I am not going to act like we had a diamond in the rough in Fewell either. Fewell will do OK with the Giants but he isn't going to be a hot name to take over a head coaching position anytime soon. At the end of last year we were slightly better under Fewell then under DJ but the improvement was more likely due to the team turning on DJ and welcoming anyone other then DJ then anything Fewell did.

[todd]

So they have low revenue, but they also have no debt load? Usually those things cancel out each other.

 

BTW - they also have low non-football expenses and their revenue from Toronto is guaranteed no matter how many seats are sold.

 

Sorry, man, your argument isn't really holding water.

 

They sell out every game in large part because they have some of the lowest ticket prices in the NFL. Their club seat prices are among the lowest too. That lack of revenue makes it difficult for them to compete financially for top notch free agents and coaches.

 

 

As long as Ralph is alive, it's true that they have no debt. When Ralph dies, whatever person/group that buys the team will have to take on a substantial amount of debt. At that point, it will no longer be economically viable to keep the team in Buffalo, because with that debt they will almost certainly be losing quite a bit of money every season.

[tennesseeboy]

3 words to summarize that article:

 

Sad but true.

 

Anyone willing to read it without their rose-colored homer glasses pinned to their ears knows it.

What he said. Lots and lots of bad moves. Only one way to prove him wrong. Win nine games.

[Thurman#1]

Let's face it. If this preview had said terrific things about the Bills chances, most of you would have loved it, and said that Shatz was a genius. Look at how Gosselin was treated a few days ago when he put us at 20th. Everyone loved him, even though we've hated him in the past when he said bad things.

 

Suddenly you hate Shatz, you think he looks like a child molester (yup, it's in the thread), yadda yadda. All because he said negative things. Things that a huge majority of pundits agree with.

 

Of course he could be wrong. Anyone predicting the future could be wrong. But this article was right on, it was thought-provoking and it used the stats well. Footballoutsiders is a highly respected site that uses innovative stats in a thoughtful and useful way.

 

There's a reason the footballoutsiders guys were invited to blog on the New York Times site.

 

Does that mean his prediction will come true? Of course not. But it's clear from reading the posts on this thread that you're not looking at this article in a neutral manner. You're picking out the parts that say negative things about the Bills and complaining.

 

 

 

 

I never read preseason team reports. No one can predict how a team will do until they hit the field.

 

 

See, that's fair, and a good point besides. But the huge majority of folks on here treat any positive preseason preview as if it was straight from the mount, while any negative preview gets not just disagreement but abuse towards the writer.

 

 

What part is true? That Hardy is the #2 receiver?

 

PTR

 

 

Yup. He got that wrong. Think that might have to do with the fact that he had to write this for a publication date that was well before training camp, when Hardy did seem like he might be the #2? It's easy to say that he's wrong now, but if you'd had to write the same sort of thing at the same time he did, you might have thought Hardy was our best bet to be the #2 also.

 

 

Even if that's true, that doesn't say much for his non-statistical analysis, such as the financial state of the franchise, the reason for hiring Chan Gailey over Marty (TG swore up and down Marty called begging to come here). It also says nothing about the odds of Steve Johnson panning out based on his play. Yes, the Bills' metrics might not have been very good - probably in line with their 6-10 record. So what does this article add?

 

 

Again, he wrote this before training camp, and before then, Steve Johnson didn't really have enough stats to use them to predict anything. And I'd say he's predicting a lower than 6 - 10, which does add something, even if you disagree.

 

 

 

The reason our secondary is so good is scheme. Now that we are no longer in the Tampa 2. our secondary will suck. I think that is what I read. I happen to disagree. I think our secondary is the best and deepest in the league. So may the Schatz be with you. And a hardy up-yours!

 

 

 

You may be right, but it's hard to argue with this, "No one specific player stands out either, except perhaps for Rookie of the Year (Clean Drug Test Division) Jairus Byrd. That means that the best explanation for Buffalo’s success was scheme ... And while strong pass defense is a reason for optimism, the pass defense is also likely to regress a bit, considering that the Bills ranked just 22nd in pass defense DVOA in 2008 — you know, when their defense was populated by all those guys whose return from injury is supposed to make fans optimistic about 2010..."

 

There's some truth to that. Who are the standouts? McGee? Above average, but terrific? Whitner? Byrd is the only one, IMHO. So it is really pretty reasonable to attribute quite a bit of their success to scheme. I'm not nearly as negative about our DBs as all that, but he has an interesting point, which is what you like to have in an article like this.

 

 

Jack Kerouac arguably wrote some of the best American fiction of the 20th century.

 

 

Ugh. I'm with Truman Capote on his opinion of Kerouac.

 

 

 

1) Right off the bat, the piece starts with "Buffalo can not afford an NFL team" - this should have been an immediate red flag to anyone half in touch with the NFL. The Bills are by no means the most profitable team, but they also have no debt.

2) Brandon is not gone

3) Hardy is not #2

4) An "insider" says "this is a slap in the face"? that is way vague, even for an unnamed source.

 

 

 

 

1) They have no debt for only one reason, their original owner still owns them. When he dies, the new owner is going to have debt, in huge amounts. That will be the moment of truth.

 

2) Well, you're about half-right. Brandon was jettisoned from the GM position, and Shatz didn't say what he'd been jettisoned from.

 

3) Again, he wrote this a while ago, when claiming Hardy would be #2 was pretty reasonable.

 

4) Too vague?? I don't agree with Shatz here, but I don't think it's too vague or at all out there, particularly if he has a source.

 

 

 

I read the entire thing and I generally like the "metrics" angle to analysis. At least some opinions are based on something real. That said I have two comments:

 

The past is a good predictor of the future up until it isn't. For instance I think it is entirely likely that the Bills get comparable QB play to the 'phins and the Jets. Assumptions about their situations are projections based on little evidence. Heck, JP had a better 8 game stretch than any of those three.

 

 

Yup, that's a good point. It's hard to predict the future.

 

 

------------

 

It's a good solid article. Unfortunately. Because he's got some very convincing arguments as to why we will likely be bad this year.

 

But he doesn't address 2011 or 2012, and if Gailey, and particularly Nix, are as good as we all hope they are, things could look up quite a bit in the future.

[Thurman#1]

What he said. Lots and lots of bad moves. Only one way to prove him wrong. Win nine games.

 

 

 

Excellent post.

[wardigital]

Let's face it. If this preview had said terrific things about the Bills chances, most of you would have loved it, and said that Shatz was a genius. Look at how Gosselin was treated a few days ago when he put us at 20th. Everyone loved him, even though we've hated him in the past when he said bad things.

 

Suddenly you hate Shatz, you think he looks like a child molester (yup, it's in the thread), yadda yadda. All because he said negative things. Things that a huge majority of pundits agree with.

 

Of course he could be wrong. Anyone predicting the future could be wrong. But this article was right on, it was thought-provoking and it used the stats well. Footballoutsiders is a highly respected site that uses innovative stats in a thoughtful and useful way.

 

There's a reason the footballoutsiders guys were invited to blog on the New York Times site.

 

Does that mean his prediction will come true? Of course not. But it's clear from reading the posts on this thread that you're not looking at this article in a neutral manner. You're picking out the parts that say negative things about the Bills and complaining.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See, that's fair, and a good point besides. But the huge majority of folks on here treat any positive preseason preview as if it was straight from the mount, while any negative preview gets not just disagreement but abuse towards the writer.

 

 

 

 

 

Yup. He got that wrong. Think that might have to do with the fact that he had to write this for a publication date that was well before training camp, when Hardy did seem like he might be the #2? It's easy to say that he's wrong now, but if you'd had to write the same sort of thing at the same time he did, you might have thought Hardy was our best bet to be the #2 also.

 

 

 

 

 

Again, he wrote this before training camp, and before then, Steve Johnson didn't really have enough stats to use them to predict anything. And I'd say he's predicting a lower than 6 - 10, which does add something, even if you disagree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You may be right, but it's hard to argue with this, "No one specific player stands out either, except perhaps for Rookie of the Year (Clean Drug Test Division) Jairus Byrd. That means that the best explanation for Buffalo’s success was scheme ... And while strong pass defense is a reason for optimism, the pass defense is also likely to regress a bit, considering that the Bills ranked just 22nd in pass defense DVOA in 2008 — you know, when their defense was populated by all those guys whose return from injury is supposed to make fans optimistic about 2010..."

 

There's some truth to that. Who are the standouts? McGee? Above average, but terrific? Whitner? Byrd is the only one, IMHO. So it is really pretty reasonable to attribute quite a bit of their success to scheme. I'm not nearly as negative about our DBs as all that, but he has an interesting point, which is what you like to have in an article like this.

 

 

 

 

 

Ugh. I'm with Truman Capote on his opinion of Kerouac.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) They have no debt for only one reason, their original owner still owns them. When he dies, the new owner is going to have debt, in huge amounts. That will be the moment of truth.

 

2) Well, you're about half-right. Brandon was jettisoned from the GM position, and Shatz didn't say what he'd been jettisoned from.

 

3) Again, he wrote this a while ago, when claiming Hardy would be #2 was pretty reasonable.

 

4) Too vague?? I don't agree with Shatz here, but I don't think it's too vague or at all out there, particularly if he has a source.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yup, that's a good point. It's hard to predict the future.

 

 

------------

 

It's a good solid article. Unfortunately. Because he's got some very convincing arguments as to why we will likely be bad this year.

 

But he doesn't address 2011 or 2012, and if Gailey, and particularly Nix, are as good as we all hope they are, things could look up quite a bit in the future.

 

An overwhelming majority of your points here (the author not having enough information to posit Stevie Johnson as the #2, his lack of clarification on what Brandon was "jettisoned' from, etc, etc, etc) are exactly the reason this is a poor article. You're arguing against your own point.

 

If the article was littered with inaccurate praise about the Bills instead of inaccurate criticism, I'd be up in arms too because a) I don't think the Bills are very good b) The issue isn't that he's down on the team, it's that he explains his feelings using false information, which is below the standard of the publication he is writing the thing for.

[HARCO186]

I'm glad people write this stuff, really we all should. Will the Bills make the playoffs? Who knows but time will. I like to read and hear all these guys say how the Bills suck and giggle when people mention their name. Chan has a resume of a no BS get to business mind set. He instilled it with the team. If you read it, no S*** we are going to be a run first team. The last time I checked it wasn't 70 and sunny come mid Nov-Jan. Buffalo had a decent run team that needed some tweeks. THE BASICS were lost and he's seen it. A team that lost 17-19 players and still goes 6-10 with a fired OC at the start and a fired HC in the midle shows the talent is there. For all those who said get a OT and a QB is a joke. The proof is in the pudding. We had a very strong secondary and no upfront push, from the D line is why we lost alot. Our secondary will be stronger with a better push upfront which translates into a less time on the field for our D.

 

All that being said, I really for see the Bills looking very much like a team that was just kickass back in the day with a guy named slash. OH yeah the Steelers..... The OC??? Chan the man.

 

All the bashers I really like to have a beer with you after the season so you can eat the peanuts out of my..................

 

Bills will be much better hands down. 8-8 min.

[MaineMoxie]

Even if that's true, that doesn't say much for his non-statistical analysis, such as the financial state of the franchise, the reason for hiring Chan Gailey over Marty (TG swore up and down Marty called begging to come here). It also says nothing about the odds of Steve Johnson panning out based on his play. Yes, the Bills' metrics might not have been very good - probably in line with their 6-10 record. So what does this article add?

 

Honestly, as good as Marty was, he never won a Super Bowl and he had a maddening habit of tanking in the playoffs. The jury's still out on Nix, but, so far, I'm liking what I'm seeing out of Gailey.

 

As for Shatz' comments, he lost me when he started talking about how out-of-position everyone on D was going to be playing in the 3-4. I think they were all out-of-position in the 4-3, to be honest. It almost seemed like the Bills kept picking up people better suited to the 3-4 and sticking them into the 4-3. JMO.

[BillsVet]

The reality is that NFL commentators, bloggers, experts, etc. have been negative about the Bills for years. Unfortunately, for the most part, they have been correct. The only way that this perception will change is when the Bills start having some success again.

 

It has been 10 years since we were in the playoffs. That is way too long in a league where some teams bottom out and make the playoffs within a couple of years. Clearly, something has been wrong with the team and the franchise for some time. I hope this changes soon, but I don't think it will be this year.

 

Reality is lost on homer fans. When you and I look around the league, we see teams that are rising, falling, and typically rising again. Homer fans have blinders on and lose objectivity when analyzing this team. The Bills have been stuck in a 5-7 win category for the past 5 seasons, but everyone "hopes" they'll get better because they have new people nominally in charge.

 

There isn't one team in the NFL who can say they've haven't bottomed out or went to the playoffs. And by bottoming out I mean 0-4 wins in a season.

[The Senator]

19 and 0 baby!!!