Rico Posted April 22, 2017 Posted April 22, 2017 They don't.They do. The plan is to keep their jobs by any means necessary.
Pbomb Posted April 22, 2017 Posted April 22, 2017 They have tactics. They lack a strategic plan. cool story
NewEra Posted April 22, 2017 Posted April 22, 2017 This is where you and I differ. I do not believe that the Bills' front office has a plan of any kind. After reading your posts on the subject the past few weeks, I know this. You hate Whaley. They have tactics. They lack a strategic plan. But you really have no idea
NoSaint Posted April 22, 2017 Posted April 22, 2017 To be fair, this last few years hasn't demonstrated a sense of them having a well defined and agreed to singular plan that lasts more than a short window at a time. Someone probably has a PowerPoint they showed terry with the official vision but we have had the front office, ownership and coaching on 3 different pages most of the last few years.
BADOLBILZ Posted April 22, 2017 Posted April 22, 2017 (edited) How would you compare the Vikings OL and running scheme to the Bills? I think that plays into the discussion, because my initial thoughts (with absolutely no research) are that the Vikings' backups would have probably had much more success behind Buffalo's OL. Bottom line -- I think this MG offer sheet is getting way more attention than it rightfully deserves. You are still clinging to your predictions of a Shady downfall rather than giving any credence to the suggestion that the Bills simply don't believe MG is worth more than the tender they placed upon him. It seems that to some there are only two answers -- either the Bills have no idea what they're doing (5th round tender on an uber-important RB), or MG is a dime-a-dozen RB and who cares if he leaves. The truth is likely somewhere towards the middle, but I'm guessing the Bills don't believe MG is a key to the season. 1) Not having depth at the position that is the identity of your team is always a bad idea. 2) The first sign that you might be unreceptive to the consequences of a decision is thinking that a topic about it in an isolated thread featuring 30-40 posters out of thousands of visitors is "getting way more attention than it rightfully deserves." The Bills have 6 draft picks and a recent history of not getting much out of it........is that topic getting way more attention than it deserves? IT'S A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION. If you don't think it deserves attention then why are you here arguing minutia about a Vikings OL? 3) The Bills have an idea what they are doing. Right or wrong.......whether it's a plan or just a series of adjustments on the fly. See the WR situation last offseason.......tried to fill with scrubs......pass game dropped off. So far this offseason......their depth at the position is now WORSE. A couple boo-boos and Philly Brown....a #5WR on some teams(wouldn't make some others)........ is WR1 for 6 games. There is A LOT of pressure on the run game to make big plays......perhaps even MORE than last year. Tyrod isn't going to be able to prop Shady and co. up as much this year without the run-pass-run option out of shotgun. It's a good run system but to approach the incredible pace of last year playmakers are going to have to make plays. And the Bills got lucky last year that MG stayed healthy and McCoy was only banged up for 3-4 games. It's more than peculiar that they would risk losing Gillislee over less than $1M. I don't want to pay him $3.2M for 2 years either......or give him a long term deal as the Bills reportedly wanted to......I just wanted to take it 1 year at a time at a palatable salary and sub $3M was all of that for a guy who lead the NFL in ypa. Edited April 22, 2017 by #BADOL
eball Posted April 22, 2017 Posted April 22, 2017 2) The first sign that you might be unreceptive to the consequences of a decision is thinking that a topic about it in an isolated thread featuring 30-40 posters out of thousands of visitors is "getting way more attention than it rightfully deserves." The Bills have 6 draft picks and a recent history of not getting much out of it........is that topic getting way more attention than it deserves? IT'S A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION. If you don't think it deserves attention then why are you here arguing minutia about a Vikings OL? Because YOU brought it up as evidence of what could happen to the Bills if Shady goes down and they don't keep MG. You really think it's irrelevant that perhaps the Bills' OL is much better than the Vikings' OL, and therefore your doomsday scenario isn't really in play?
Coach Tuesday Posted April 22, 2017 Posted April 22, 2017 Because YOU brought it up as evidence of what could happen to the Bills if Shady goes down and they don't keep MG. You really think it's irrelevant that perhaps the Bills' OL is much better than the Vikings' OL, and therefore your doomsday scenario isn't really in play? You are overrating the Bills' o-line.
BADOLBILZ Posted April 22, 2017 Posted April 22, 2017 (edited) You are overrating the Bills' o-line. By far the biggest "product of" the Roman system was this OL. Tyrod, the WR and TE should be better suited in Dennison's system but the OL is going to be challenged more. It seems paradoxical to say that being put on the move benefitted a less than athletic OL but the blocking angles created doing so negated a lot of their matchup disadvantages. See Eric Wood pre-Roman. Bad enough that even he thought he might get cut. Mills/Miller/Wood/Incognito/Glenn is no better than an average collection of talent that is tipped either way by how they are used. Edited April 22, 2017 by #BADOL
BADOLBILZ Posted April 22, 2017 Posted April 22, 2017 Because YOU brought it up as evidence of what could happen to the Bills if Shady goes down and they don't keep MG. You really think it's irrelevant that perhaps the Bills' OL is much better than the Vikings' OL, and therefore your doomsday scenario isn't really in play? FWIW......the Bills lead the NFL in rushing in year 1 under Marrone with a bad OL. Having a bad one doesn't entirely excuse 3.4 ypa. That's just AWFUL. But wrt the Bills OL play......there is a difference between finishing first in rushing in a pass first league under Marrone and what the Bills have done the past two years..........they've obliterated what that Marrone team did and that difference is night and day on the scoreboard. Much of that was because of Tyrod but again......MG lead the NFL in ypa among qualifiers.......that's impressive......but he also had 8 TD's AND he lead the NFL in 3rd and short conversion percentage! SH*T YEAH, he was a season difference-maker for them and you'd have to think so this year too.
CommonCents Posted April 22, 2017 Posted April 22, 2017 They have no plan and this is just the most recent example of it. That's why this thread has so much back and forth. Follow. Mike Tolbert's contract is the difference between Gilly's 5th and 2nd round tender. Tolbert is by all accounts..."toast" he is this years Reggie Bush. Let's take a look at that numbers and then I will finish. 3.3, 4.1, 2.1, 3.6, 3.4. Those are Tolbert's YPC for the past 5 seasons. He has only found the end zone once in the past 3 seasons and six times in those same 5 seasons listed above. That should remove any doubt about Tolbert being the change of pace guy behind Shady and being the much needed redzone guy. MG excelled in his role doing just that. PLAN : don't offer a washed up Tolbert the million bucks, slightly over value your own asset MG and use the 2nd round tender to ward off any potential suitors. The money is a wash. Pick up a UDFA, don't waste another pick...and spend minimal money on a back. FWIW I don't even think Tolbert makes the team if they retain MG.
leonbus23 Posted April 22, 2017 Posted April 22, 2017 If he's so utterly replaceable then losing him to the pats at that cost is a great win... I don't think he's a great player but I do think I'd rather have the relatively sure thing than the shot in the dark in the 5th round. I agree with you about keeping the relatively sure thing. But "utterly replaceable" is a bit of a hyperbolic term. I used the term "probably" replaceable with someone "comparable," which carries a much more hesitant and reserved connotation.
Doc Posted April 22, 2017 Posted April 22, 2017 They have no plan and this is just the most recent example of it. That's why this thread has so much back and forth. Follow. Mike Tolbert's contract is the difference between Gilly's 5th and 2nd round tender. Tolbert is by all accounts..."toast" he is this years Reggie Bush. Let's take a look at that numbers and then I will finish. 3.3, 4.1, 2.1, 3.6, 3.4. Those are Tolbert's YPC for the past 5 seasons. He has only found the end zone once in the past 3 seasons and six times in those same 5 seasons listed above. That should remove any doubt about Tolbert being the change of pace guy behind Shady and being the much needed redzone guy. MG excelled in his role doing just that. PLAN : don't offer a washed up Tolbert the million bucks, slightly over value your own asset MG and use the 2nd round tender to ward off any potential suitors. The money is a wash. Pick up a UDFA, don't waste another pick...and spend minimal money on a back. FWIW I don't even think Tolbert makes the team if they retain MG. Their plan is to run the ball. To that end they added a slew of RB's. Tolbert got just an $80K signing bonus so he's got to fight for a spot, and his cap hit if he makes it is just $695K. And the Bills can easily afford MG's contract, so if they left him walk, it's because that's their plan.
BADOLBILZ Posted April 22, 2017 Posted April 22, 2017 I agree with you about keeping the relatively sure thing. But "utterly replaceable" is a bit of a hyperbolic term. I used the term "probably" replaceable with someone "comparable," which carries a much more hesitant and reserved connotation. I'm trying to think of the last time the Bills lost a player who was the most efficient at what he did in the league and the attitude of many was like "meh, no big deal.......he was a 5th round pick so just replace him with a 5th round pick". Things like that have blown up on the Bills numerous times. We already have the "meh, Seymour can replace Gilmore in this scheme" gamble and "meh, we can scheme around losing the AFC leading tackler in Zach Brown cuz, ya' know, McDermott has never lost a game as a HC". Why even risk another such leap of faith....to the only real area of strength on the team, the run game....... to the equation in the same offseason?
NewEra Posted April 22, 2017 Posted April 22, 2017 I'm trying to think of the last time the Bills lost a player who was the most efficient at what he did in the league and the attitude of many was like "meh, no big deal.......he was a 5th round pick so just replace him with a 5th round pick". Things like that have blown up on the Bills numerous times. We already have the "meh, Seymour can replace Gilmore in this scheme" gamble and "meh, we can scheme around losing the AFC leading tackler in Zach Brown cuz, ya' know, McDermott has never lost a game as a HC". Why even risk another such leap of faith....to the only real area of strength on the team, the run game....... to the equation in the same offseason? The draft is yet to come. I'd bet we replace brown in the draft. We all saw browns play go from pro bowl level to meh after mid season. His effort vs the steelers was embarrassing. I'd bet we add a CB to compete with Seymour for Gilmores spot. Gilmore isn't worth 13 mill to this team imo. I just think it's crazy to think the FO doesn't have a plan. You hate Whaley and have no faith in him, we get it, but to incicunuate that McDermott wouldn't implement a plan is taking it to another level. McDermott, by everyone's account, is a nose to the grindstone type of guy. He has a plan. He and Whaley have put the plan together and it's in effect. Maybe you don't agree with what they've done so far, but there is a plan
YoloinOhio Posted April 22, 2017 Posted April 22, 2017 @mikereiss Unlike with Chris Hogan last year, Patriots forced to wait on Bills' decision with restricted FA Mike Gillislee. http://www.espn.com/blog/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4802730/unlike-with-chris-hogan-patriots-forced-to-wait-on-mike-gillislee-call?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
GG Posted April 22, 2017 Posted April 22, 2017 I'm trying to think of the last time the Bills lost a player who was the most efficient at what he did in the league and the attitude of many was like "meh, no big deal.......he was a 5th round pick so just replace him with a 5th round pick". Things like that have blown up on the Bills numerous times. We already have the "meh, Seymour can replace Gilmore in this scheme" gamble and "meh, we can scheme around losing the AFC leading tackler in Zach Brown cuz, ya' know, McDermott has never lost a game as a HC". Why even risk another such leap of faith....to the only real area of strength on the team, the run game....... to the equation in the same offseason? The leap of hope is that McCoach is finally the long term answer and Pegula is giving him the reigns to construct the team. If he's a failure of a head coach, then losing Gilmore, Zach, MG etc is immaterial because we'll be in the rinse repeat cycle again in two years. If he's a good head coach then losing Gilmore, Zach, MG etc is immaterial because McCoach will be on the way to shaping the roster to his desires. You of all people know that an 88 page discussion about the backup RB is irrelevant in the context of finally landing a franchise QB.
Bill_with_it Posted April 22, 2017 Posted April 22, 2017 @mikereiss Unlike with Chris Hogan last year, Patriots forced to wait on Bills' decision with restricted FA Mike Gillislee. http://www.espn.com/blog/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4802730/unlike-with-chris-hogan-patriots-forced-to-wait-on-mike-gillislee-call?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter One can only hope Whaley maybe forced into learning abit.
NewEra Posted April 22, 2017 Posted April 22, 2017 The leap of hope is that McCoach is finally the long term answer and Pegula is giving him the reigns to construct the team. If he's a failure of a head coach, then losing Gilmore, Zach, MG etc is immaterial because we'll be in the rinse repeat cycle again in two years. If he's a good head coach then losing Gilmore, Zach, MG etc is immaterial because McCoach will be on the way to shaping the roster to his desires. You of all people know that an 88 page discussion about the backup RB is irrelevant in the context of finally landing a franchise QB. Pretty much
YoloinOhio Posted April 22, 2017 Posted April 22, 2017 (edited) One can only hope Whaley maybe forced into learning abit.forced by who? McD? I can't imagine him matching. He seems too level headed. Only reason would be if the Pats are so in your head you cant make sound decisions (he's too new here to have all the Pats-related scar tissue). OR he doesn't think he can build the team into a winner without MG. I don't think either thought will prevail. Edited April 22, 2017 by YoloinOhio
Bill_with_it Posted April 22, 2017 Posted April 22, 2017 forced by who? McD? I can't imagine him matching. He seems too level headed. Only reason would be if the Pats are so in your head you cant make sound decisions (he's too new here to have all the Pats-related scar tissue). OR he doesn't think he can build the team into a winner without MG. I don't think either thought will prevail.By the process. No pun intended. I think it would be pretty difficult to make mistakes of the same type repeatedly without learning something even if you actually weren't trying to learn something. Im not saying Whaley is, will, or will be forced to match the offer but at least someone at OBD is actually thinking anout the pros and cons before doing it. Something that clearly was missing from the Hogan and wr depth on this team last year.
Recommended Posts