The Nattering Nabobs of Negativity

[The Big Cat]

If this team has a 7-9 or worse season, you think Whaley/Rex are coming back for another year?

 

I don't see it.

 

I don't think it's even remotely that simple.

 

If they finish 7-9 and lost all 9 games by a combined 12 points, all while TT is injured and EJ is turning the ball over at an alarming clip, then yeah, they're both back.

 

Also, Whaley just signed an extension, I think it'll take quite an epic meltdown for him to lose his job.

 

Rex, on the other hand is on--at best--a flat trajectory right now. His situation is a bit more dubious. But I don't think he's on any kind of "hot seat."

 

 

@4JoshReed

Here's the exact Q & A with #Bills GM Whaley about Lawson's shoulder the night of the draft.

 

 

Great find. Medical staff, meet the under side of the bus!

[K-9]

Did the Bills use a first round pick on a player with a medical question mark? They certainly did. So what? The issue that plagued him was an issue that was correctable by surgery. I'm sure Whaley felt that Lawson could get through the season and then the shoulder issue could be addressed. It didn't work out that way. He had the surgery and he will miss a good portion of the season.

 

When you make a high draft selection, or any selection for that matter, the priority issue shouldn't be how good is he going to be in his rookie year. The more important issue is what is the player's potential and how good is he going to be for you in the long run. Most draft analysts had Lawson pegged in the top ten range. If he turns out to be a good player a little later rather than sooner then it was not only a good selection but it was also smart selection in that we selected a player ranked higher than where he was selected.

You nailed it.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[thebandit27]

If this team has a 7-9 or worse season, you think Whaley/Rex are coming back for another year?

 

I don't see it.

I'd hope that Rex is in greater danger than Whaley, but no, I don't think either guy survives a meltdown season

[BillsVet]

 

Gotta love how the new narrative/spin has been to explain Lawson as a long term investment...on a team that needed immediate help in the defensive front 7. On a team where the HC is known for his defensive scheme.

 

He is a long term investment. And he will provide help to the front 7 in his rookie season. What's your point?

 

Or how it wasn't a "win-now" type season despite the millions invested in guaranteed spending since the 2015 off-season began. Or how the HC once pronounced that they were "going" to the post-season.

 

Who said they weren't in win-now mode? But more importantly, exactly where do you think the organization's win-now attitude lies (as you project it) when they don't have an answer at QB?

 

But there's one item not being addressed by the cheerleader contingent: How does ownership feel about their top pick being on the shelf for around 5 months?

 

You assume they're pissed. Why? All evidence from both the Sabres and Bills points to Pegula(s) favoring long term over short term. So why do you assume he's upset that a great player won't be ready in September?

 

Because if we're to believe Whaley, the Pegula's are involved in decision making and add to the discussion. If the GM and HC told them it's a good move despite the reported injury and it won't be an immediate issue and this happens how should they feel? I'll guarantee they're not happy and have a severe lack of trust in their top football people.

 

You guarantee it, huh? Well okay, then it MUST be so.

 

Gotta love it.

 

 

You know he'll contribute this season when he just had surgery 2 days ago? Based on the reported timeline for recovery? Because as we all know, even if he returns on time he'll be playing in a scheme that is exceptionally complex and he'll have gone probably 8-9 months without hitting other players. I'm sure he'll take time to get into football shape and then, maybe, he'll start. Which probably puts him into action around week 7-8 at the earliest for a team that needed immediate help. In his place, we're talking about playing 11 year vet Manny Lawson or picking up an older veteran or using a street FA type.

 

No answer at QB? I think they've been pretty consistent on who their starter is this year. And that they expect him to improve.

 

Of course the Pegula's favor long term over short term. And they fired the HC and GM in one day late in 2013 after owning the team for 2.5 years. They're closing in on owning it 2 years this October, so they've already invested a ton on a team with this GM, and of late, the HC.

 

So, should the Pegula's be happy their GM and HC elected to select a player who needed surgery 2+ weeks after draft night? I'll bet they're not doing backflips right now, especially because they've got to sign the guy featuring guaranteed money.

[bigdogtim]

We are fans and like to think that what we feel matters. It does, but only to the extent that it keeps us buying tickets. Feel misled all you want about Shaq Lawson's health. It still really makes no difference to the Bills management, nor should it.

 

I think it was Marv who said when you start listening to the fans you will find yourself sitting with them.

[The Big Cat]

 

You know he'll contribute this season when he just had surgery 2 days ago? Based on the reported timeline for recovery? Because as we all know, even if he returns on time he'll be playing in a scheme that is exceptionally complex and he'll have gone probably 8-9 months without hitting other players. I'm sure he'll take time to get into football shape and then, maybe, he'll start. Which probably puts him into action around week 7-8 at the earliest for a team that needed immediate help. In his place, we're talking about playing 11 year vet Manny Lawson or picking up an older veteran or using a street FA type.

 

He'll contribute in 2016. Care to wager he won't? Go ahead and set the terms.

 

No answer at QB? I think they've been pretty consistent on who their starter is this year. And that they expect him to improve.

 

I'm glad to hear you're teeming with optimism for our QB. This is an important first step for you. I don't share your assurance, but I'm really hoping you're right!

 

Of course the Pegula's favor long term over short term. And they fired the HC and GM in one day late in 2013 after owning the team for 2.5 years. They're closing in on owning it 2 years this October, so they've already invested a ton on a team with this GM, and of late, the HC.

 

So, should the Pegula's be happy their GM and HC elected to select a player who needed surgery 2+ weeks after draft night? I'll bet they're not doing backflips right now, especially because they've got to sign the guy featuring guaranteed money.

 

The question was never whether or not they should be happy. The issue was your strong inference than they're slamming fists and demanding answers. I'm sure they--like everyone else who roots for the Bills--are a bit bummed that Shaq re-injured his shoulder in OTA's.

 

Since they've shown themselves to be reasonable people, I don't think they're pissed that Shaq was drafted. Are we clear on the distinction?

[Deranged Rhino]

So, should the Pegula's be happy their GM and HC elected to select a player who needed surgery 2+ weeks after draft night? I'll bet they're not doing backflips right now, especially because they've got to sign the guy featuring guaranteed money.

 

Money isn't Pegula's concern. He made that clear when he overpaid for the team.

[Canadian Bills Fan]

The next few days will be why I sometimes hate being a Bills fan-

 

The negative BS about to start spewing on this site and on WGR will be monumentally ugly-

 

Let the negativity begin!!!!

 

 

WGR talks about the Bills?

 

 

 

CBF

[John from Riverside]

 

You know he'll contribute this season when he just had surgery 2 days ago? Based on the reported timeline for recovery? Because as we all know, even if he returns on time he'll be playing in a scheme that is exceptionally complex and he'll have gone probably 8-9 months without hitting other players. I'm sure he'll take time to get into football shape and then, maybe, he'll start. Which probably puts him into action around week 7-8 at the earliest for a team that needed immediate help. In his place, we're talking about playing 11 year vet Manny Lawson or picking up an older veteran or using a street FA type.

 

We dont even know what corrective surgery was done on Shaq and everyone is making predictions this way or that......the probability is that Shaq will be back at some point this season....i would like to see Freeney brought in as a stop gap until that happens......but the bills have not ruled Shaq out for the year so neither should we.

 

No answer at QB? I think they've been pretty consistent on who their starter is this year. And that they expect him to improve.

 

Cat and I dont agree on this...but hey....cant agree about everything.

 

Of course the Pegula's favor long term over short term. And they fired the HC and GM in one day late in 2013 after owning the team for 2.5 years. They're closing in on owning it 2 years this October, so they've already invested a ton on a team with this GM, and of late, the HC.

 

You make it sound like this is a long time.....the Pegulas went through an evaluation period on the team.....then they have had ONE full season of implementing their changes....things are not gonna get done overnight. Pegula is agressive....spends money.....and RR was won of the big fish coaches of that offseason they are not just gonna can him till they know he cannot work with the toys he has been given. All this "fire this coach" "fire that coach" this team will NEVER get back on track until we give someone a chance to actually work with the damn team.....BE PATIENT

 

So, should the Pegula's be happy their GM and HC elected to select a player who needed surgery 2+ weeks after draft night? I'll bet they're not doing backflips right now, especially because they've got to sign the guy featuring guaranteed money.

 

You dont know the situation...why are you pretending that you do?

[The Big Cat]

It's not that simple, it depends on how it happens obviously. But if the key pieces remain healthy(mainly TT) stays healthy and the team struggles to get to 7 wins I don't see how Rex is back.(Maybe Whaley survives)

 

Yeah, it's entirely dependent on how it all goes down. I'm just as hesitant to say Rex is definitely back as am I to say Rex will definitely be gone if...

 

I'm 80% sure Whaley is safe, though.

[BillsVet]

 

 

You know he'll contribute this season when he just had surgery 2 days ago? Based on the reported timeline for recovery? Because as we all know, even if he returns on time he'll be playing in a scheme that is exceptionally complex and he'll have gone probably 8-9 months without hitting other players. I'm sure he'll take time to get into football shape and then, maybe, he'll start. Which probably puts him into action around week 7-8 at the earliest for a team that needed immediate help. In his place, we're talking about playing 11 year vet Manny Lawson or picking up an older veteran or using a street FA type.

 

He'll contribute in 2016. Care to wager he won't? Go ahead and set the terms.

 

No answer at QB? I think they've been pretty consistent on who their starter is this year. And that they expect him to improve.

 

I'm glad to hear you're teeming with optimism for our QB. This is an important first step for you. I don't share your assurance, but I'm really hoping you're right!

 

Of course the Pegula's favor long term over short term. And they fired the HC and GM in one day late in 2013 after owning the team for 2.5 years. They're closing in on owning it 2 years this October, so they've already invested a ton on a team with this GM, and of late, the HC.

 

So, should the Pegula's be happy their GM and HC elected to select a player who needed surgery 2+ weeks after draft night? I'll bet they're not doing backflips right now, especially because they've got to sign the guy featuring guaranteed money.

 

The question was never whether or not they should be happy. The issue was your strong inference than they're slamming fists and demanding answers. I'm sure they--like everyone else who roots for the Bills--are a bit bummed that Shaq re-injured his shoulder in OTA's.

 

Since they've shown themselves to be reasonable people, I don't think they're pissed that Shaq was drafted. Are we clear on the distinction?

 

 

Define contribute. Is that starting games? And if so, how many? As for TT, well, I'm not optimistic he'll become a more refined passer, but he's about all they've got right now. He may go the route Kaepernick did in another Roman offense, but it's too early to tell.

 

I never inferred ownership rage. I did say they're most likely not thrilled the first round draft pick had to undergo surgery this soon. Because if they're involved as Doug Whaley says, then their top football people told them it wasn't a major issue. Do you think ownership likes being misled or fed information not accurate after spending dearly on scouts, personnel executives, and doctors to review prospective draft picks?

 

I'm sure the Pegula's are reasonable, but it doesn't excuse that this is a business and a player for their business did not survive a non-contact drill.

 

Money isn't Pegula's concern. He made that clear when he overpaid for the team.

We all know this. But you think anyone's fine with paying out money to damaged goods. He doesn't mind spending, but he's not reckless with his dollars either.

[Deranged Rhino]

We all know this. But you think anyone's fine with paying out money to damaged goods. He doesn't mind spending, but he's not reckless with his dollars either.

 

Overpaying what he did to buy what essentially is a toy would probably be defined as reckless by most people.

 

That said, the guaranteed dollars on Shaq's deal aren't just for the first 4 games of his rookie year. They're for what he'll (hopefully) bring over the life of his contract. The Pegulas are not sweating the dollar commitment to their first round pick, bum shoulder or no.

[John from Riverside]

 

Define contribute. Is that starting games? And if so, how many? As for TT, well, I'm not optimistic he'll become a more refined passer, but he's about all they've got right now. He may go the route Kaepernick did in another Roman offense, but it's too early to tell.

 

I never inferred ownership rage. I did say they're most likely not thrilled the first round draft pick had to undergo surgery this soon. Because if they're involved as Doug Whaley says, then their top football people told them it wasn't a major issue. Do you think ownership likes being misled or fed information not accurate after spending dearly on scouts, personnel executives, and doctors to review prospective draft picks?

 

I'm sure the Pegula's are reasonable, but it doesn't excuse that this is a business and a player for their business did not survive a non-contact drill.

 

We all know this. But you think anyone's fine with paying out money to damaged goods. He doesn't mind spending, but he's not reckless with his dollars either.

Could you please define "damaged good"

 

Every player....NEARLY EVERY PLAYER in the NFL is gonna get hurt or dinged up in some way at some point in their careers.......and they will have some sort of correctable surgery at some point in the NFL careers...its just a matter of when.

 

Is Shaq Lawson "damaged goods" if he repairs something and never has another instance with it for the rest of his NFL career?

 

Thank god we didnt take this attitude with Thurman Thomas

[JohnC]

I've seen this line of thought and I've seen it lauded, but it's got a big problem. Injury and significant risk of a prospect missing time affect that prospect's value. That's the reason Jack and Smith, both more highly rated prospects than Lawson, fell to the second round. I used the words "delighted" and "ecstatic" when the Bills got Lawson at 19, but I would have wanted them to pass on him at that spot had I known about his injury. Lawson will miss all of training camp (except meetings and film), all of preseason and some of the regular season with this injury. What, exactly, should be expected of him when he gets back to practice sometime in October or November? He's going to need time to work himself into playing shape and learn. At this point I expect very little from him this season and, quite frankly, I'd be happy to see the Bills err on the side of caution and bring him along too slowly rather than too quickly.

 

In time he may very well be the player I expected him to be for the Bills - and I really, really hope that happens. But that doesn't mean the Bills should have used pick 19 on him. This season will not be productive for him due to this injury. One season is 25% of his relatively low wage rookie contract. For the Bills to take that risk is unacceptable. That's not on Lawson, it's on whomever made the decision to draft him at 19. And, believe it or not, I can root for Lawson to be a great player for the Bills and be happy if he becomes that, yet be critical of the team drafting an injured player 19th overall.

Every team in the league knew he had a shoulder issue. And every team knew that that health issue had to be addressed at some later point. Some teams decided to pass and not take him with a high pick, so he fell down to us. Even with the shoulder problems at Clemson he played at a high level in a top tier program. So we know his high rankings were not a fluke.

 

I'm not dismissing the issue that this year he will not get on the field until the second half of the season, and I am also aware that he might not even get on the field this year. But as I have repeatedly stated if you are going to take a risk on a player take it on a highly rated player who has the potential to make an impact some where down the line.

 

The bottom line for me is that if the 19th pick in the draft turns out to be a good player in the not too distant future then it is a good selection no matter if he is idled for a good portion of the season. The mistake that many of the harsh critics of the pick are making is that they are portraying his absence as a devastating loss that will sink an already sunk defense. The reality of the situation is that regardless who was selected at that spot (on the defensive side of the ball) the impact was not going to be as great as they are making it out to be. It's more about the unit than about the raw rookie who still needs time to develop.

[The Big Cat]

 

Define contribute. Is that starting games? And if so, how many? As for TT, well, I'm not optimistic he'll become a more refined passer, but he's about all they've got right now. He may go the route Kaepernick did in another Roman offense, but it's too early to tell.

 

I never inferred ownership rage. I did say they're most likely not thrilled the first round draft pick had to undergo surgery this soon. Because if they're involved as Doug Whaley says, then their top football people told them it wasn't a major issue. Do you think ownership likes being misled or fed information not accurate after spending dearly on scouts, personnel executives, and doctors to review prospective draft picks?

 

I'm sure the Pegula's are reasonable, but it doesn't excuse that this is a business and a player for their business did not survive a non-contact drill.

 

We all know this. But you think anyone's fine with paying out money to damaged goods. He doesn't mind spending, but he's not reckless with his dollars either.

 

If Whaley's quotes are to be believed--not saying they are--then the misleading came from the Med Staff. And I'd expect the Pegulas to make whatever changes they'd feel appropriate if in fact they felt "misled." So we'll see. If no changes are made, then there was no amount of deception.

 

If you believe there is uncertainty at the QB position, and if you believe (as I do) that the organization feels the same way, then I don't believe the organization, and the owners in particular, are so aggressively in on "win now" that missing their first round edge-setter for a portion of the season is--to them--a crushing blow.

 

I believe that Shaq will play. He'll start anywhere from 4-10 games this season and when he does the defense will perform better.

[JohnC]

Not the analyses (or mocks) I read. Lawson was generally pegged in the 12-24 range, with some even projecting him outside the first round. So I don't believe it's accurate to say Lawson was picked lower than where he was "ranked". The Bills picked him about where he was projected to go, but those pre-draft "projections" to my knowledge did not factor in his injury, which was not widely known or reported prior to the draft (hence the reaction to Shefter's infamous tweet). The real question is, would you have taken him at 19 knowing he would likely miss the first half of his rookie season? I would answer "no", but others obviously disagree. At a minimum, it should have led to a discounting of his value and it does not appear that the Bills took that into consideration.

Each team has their own ranking system. Their rankings are going to be different because their systems on offense and defense are going to stress different talents. The Bills ranked him very high because he was a good scheme fit and because he was versatile.

 

With respect to your highlighted question I respectfully but strenuously disagree with your stance. My position is if you believe that he is going to be a stellar player for you in the long run you make the pick even if you know there is a possible short term delay with him getting on the field. It is better to draft the best talent and develop it. The short term fix at the expense of long term success is a recipe for failure.

[CardinalScotts]

 

Money isn't Pegula's concern. He made that clear when he overpaid for the team.

overpaying is only for the guy who paid the price to decide

[hondo in seattle]

A team's medical staff can never say with absolute certainty if a college player will be physically ready for the upcoming season. Similarly, college scouts can never say with absolute certainty that a college player will develop the work-ethic and skills necessary to succeed at the next level.

 

It's all about probabilities. A team's scouts and medical personnel will sometimes suggest probable success in a player who ultimately fails. That's just the nature of the draft. No team bats 1.000. No team comes close.

 

So I seriously doubt that the Pegulas lost faith in their medical and scouting departments over Shaq. And while the surgery is a disappointment, it's far too early to judge whether Shaq was worth a first round pick.

[John from Riverside]

Each team has their own ranking system. Their rankings are going to be different because their systems on offense and defense are going to stress different talents. The Bills ranked him very high because he was a good scheme fit and because he was versatile.

 

With respect to your highlighted question I respectfully but strenuously disagree with your stance. My position is if you believe that he is going to be a stellar player for you in the long run you make the pick even if you know there is a possible short term delay with him getting on the field. It is better to draft the best talent and develop it. The short term fix at the expense of long term success is a recipe for failure.

Which leads the whole thing back to "who would you have drafted at 19" if we did this all over again? I see answers like wide receivers in a very poor wide receiver draft class.....nobody is bringing up that nobody was bailing us out with a good trade down option.....there were some players I liked later in the end of the first round like Butler.

[dave mcbride]

Um ... I hope people realize that if the Bills have a losing season, both Whaley and Ryan will be gone. Regardless of whether Lawson turns out to be a good player, the fact that he'll be a complete nonentity this year (which he will be, given that he'll miss camp and a significant chunk of the season) is very important for the coach and the GM. They don't have the security to worry about and plan for 2017 and 2018. They have to win now. Losing their #1 pick for this season is therefore a really bad thing for them. My gut tells me that Ryan had a LOT to do with this pick, by the way. As we know, this is a guy fueled by emotion--the anti-Belichick.

 

Anyway, people talking about the long-term outlook for Lawson are missing a really basic point. If he's good 2-3 years down the road, it'll be meaningless for the coach and GM if the Bills don't win this season. And to that end, it's not looking good. They have a far more difficult schedule coming up, and personnel wise they're worse than they were last season (and the roster is very average relative to the rest of the league anyway). Their coach isn't very good either, although they have a very capable OC. I see 8-8 as a ceiling, with 5-7 wins far more likely. That said, I'm hoping for 11-5 / 12-4. But that's with my fan hat on. If my pessimism is borne out, some other coach and GM will enjoy the fruits of Lawson's career.

Edited May 19, 2016 by dave mcbride