This is not a rebuild, folks...

[JohnC]

 

It's easier to find that elite QB if it's your primary objective and you run your organization like it.

 

If you are the Chicago Bears......you can survive and thrive the way the Bills have.

 

Big market......10M built-in fans and no competition.

 

Bills have long been trying to regionalize to get a fan/corporate base that's maybe half that of a big market and as irrelevant as they've made themselves they just can't pull it off without a superstar QB leading a fairly long term competitive team.

 

And I strongly disagree with your take about it taking a few years to build this team up into a contender.........that's just not reality.

 

If you don't have an elite QB.......your window is much too small to think you can build up to something sustainable.

 

The Bills window now is a little smaller than it was last year or the year before......depth is the primary difference in those rosters........but they can go either way from here it's not a rebuild of any sort.

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.

Right.

 

I think there are occasional rebuilds, where the team has a fire sale on players. Trades a few, cuts a lot, trying to build cap room. Also acquiring a lot of picks. That's where you consciously empty to roster to start with a clean slate.

 

And you're right about QBs. When you have the right one, the concept of building is easier, because you're looking for players who fit your QB. The right oline, the right receivers, etc. When you don't have a QB, you're trying to get good players, whatever they look like. There's no anchor, as you say.

 

I'm hoping Taylor emerges as really good, because I'm ready to build around someone. If it isn't Taylor, we're waiting at least another season before we have that anchor, maybe more.

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.

[Shaw66]

 

To your earlier point, I am yet to find a team, within the past 10 years, who's had a fire sale by your definition. Salary cap implications are a blocker to gutting the roster and starting over. So you have to keep some guys, and you have to get a bunch of new guys over a couple of years. You have to agree with those points.

 

The Bills are rebuilding -- I'm sure of it -- but it doesn't start with the roster, but rather from the FO first, and that will have a cascading effect on the roster. In spite of your insistence that the Bills aren't rebuilding. They are. And that's not a bad thing.

You may be right that no one rebuilds in that way any more. One thing that makes it hard to do it is the restriction on trading players for draft choices. It's much harder to stockpile draft choices now.

 

You may be right about the cascading effect, but that effect will only take the franchise in a different direction than Whaley would have taken the Bills. Either GM would have been replacing players at a substantial rate - that's what teams do, especially teams that aren't winning.

 

So I still don't think it makes sense to talk about rebuilding - every team is rebuilding almost every year.

[PlayoffsPlease]

You may be right that no one rebuilds in that way any more. One thing that makes it hard to do it is the restriction on trading players for draft choices. It's much harder to stockpile draft choices now.

 

You may be right about the cascading effect, but that effect will only take the franchise in a different direction than Whaley would have taken the Bills. Either GM would have been replacing players at a substantial rate - that's what teams do, especially teams that aren't winning.

 

So I still don't think it makes sense to talk about rebuilding - every team is rebuilding almost every year.

Teams that have a championship core, like the Patriots, Seahawks and Steelers, don't rebuild every year, they reload. There is a difference.

 

The Bills don't have anything resembling a championship corp. They don't have an identity. They are in search of both.

 

These are the things that separate the teams that are "built" from those that are building.

[BADOLBILZ]

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.

 

 

The Bills need a franchise identity that isn't about losing if they hope to join that Pittsburgh/Green Bay or even KC group.

 

All of those small market teams have won a SB and had at least periodic success in recent decades so none have that complete association with losing that the Bills have cultivated.

 

And those organizations won those SB's and built much of their popularity on the play of iconic HOF quality QB's that didn't sh*t themselves in every SB.......and that was before the position had been elevated to the singularly lofty status it has now.

 

In order to justify building a new stadium that will bring in the higher paying customer and fill corporate boxes they need to AT LEAST keep other owners happy in the future they need something sustained headed by some marketable players.

 

A one-off Tampa Bay-like SB win wouldn't even do it at this point........the brand is tarnished.

 

The Bills are a joke franchise.

 

Doesn't matter to us lifers who enjoy the cheap tickets and the free range tailgating atmosphere that still exists because of the losing........ but if the organization wants to run with the big dogs they gotta' get off Hammer's porch.

 

Not my problem, it's all entertainment to me, win or lose.......just pointing out the fairly obvious nature of the situation.

[reddogblitz]

I think that's the interesting thing, GB: Rex was not a good head coach. And yet he went 7-8 last year. So the roster couldn't have been horrible if a bad coach can tickle .500.

 

Our biggest roster losses (Gilmore, Woods) were replaced by high draft picks. This year's roster is comparable to 2016's roster. If McD has truly assembled a better coaching staff and is a better leader & coach than Rex, shouldn't we win 8 or more games this year?

 

Absolutely.

 

As far as McD being here long term to build a consistent winner blah blah is exactly what they said when they hired Rex.

[Success]

Rex's incompetence has really played a mind game with our perception of the talent on this team. Probably over half of the coaches in the league would have had this team in the playoffs the past 2 years.

 

Great players on both sides. I remember when Moorman was our best player. The Bills are going to surprise a lot of pundits if they can stay relatively healthy.

[Agent 91]

The major issue I have is that it SHOULD be a rebuilding year. While trading down in the first was a good idea, keeping Kyle and Shady was stupid. This team will always be in rebuild mode until they find a qb. There is no reason Kyle, Shady OR Tyrod should be here this year with no chance to make the playoffs.....and save me the speech about this possibly being a playoff team. This was the year to unload and go after the QB next year while having a ton of cap space if done properly.

 

Maybe it's not too late with a new GM in place but I foresee the typical 6-8 wins for yet another year.

I would have unloaded Dareus and taken that massive cap hit. Wipe him off the books for next year

[Thurman#1]

 

Yes, I know. But you are one of the few people who seem to grasp this. Pegulas didn't decide to fire Whaley and the scouts. Sean was hired and demanded total power.

 

But with great power comes great responsibility. Rex and Rob Ryan were considered laughing jokes for finishing .500. So Sean and his Beane Buddy MUST hit 9 wins.

 

 

 

This year? No. They've got some time. How much isn't clear, but a lot more than a year unless in some way they end up not just losing it a lot but also looking stupid and undisciplined ala the Ryan Brothers. I just can't see that happening.

[Thurman#1]

 

To your earlier point, I am yet to find a team, within the past 10 years, who's had a fire sale by your definition. Salary cap implications are a blocker to gutting the roster and starting over. So you have to keep some guys, and you have to get a bunch of new guys over a couple of years. You have to agree with those points.

 

The Bills are rebuilding -- I'm sure of it -- but it doesn't start with the roster, but rather from the FO first, and that will have a cascading effect on the roster. In spite of your insistence that the Bills aren't rebuilding. They are. And that's not a bad thing.

 

 

Our team in 2010 fit that definition pretty well. We cut our old guys, even the ones with talent.

 

And as for the minimum spending rule on the cap keeping this from happening, it doesn't. It's doable. Hell, Cleveland is doing it. Know how much unspent money they rolled over from last year? $50 million. It's very doable.

 

There's major misunderstanding about the minimum cap floor rules. You don't have to spend 89% of your cap each year. That is a requirement not for one year but over a four year period. That's why Cleveland could leave so much unspent, and why any team wanting to rebuild could do the same.

 

And a smart cap wizard can arrange to bump up the money in the correct years. You give your expensive guys not bonuses but high guaranteed salaries in the first year so that next year you don't have amortized bonuses and your cap drops a lot and you've got room.

 

And if you do underspend over four years, the penalty is really pretty minimal ... you have to give the amount you underspent by to your own players by some distribution that the Players Association will decide.

 

 

 

 

The Bills aren't rebuilding. If they were, they'd have jettisoned Kyle Williams (age 33), LeSean McCoy (29 in July, with a ton of mileage on him), traded Incognito (33), wouldn't have signed Lorenzo Alexander (33) and cut him if you can't, and traded Tyrod.

 

Teams doing a real rebuild get rid of players who won't be around to help them three or four years down the road when they get good. Especially if they're expensive. And if there's dead cap that's no problem, just let it all hit the cap in 2017 and don't carry it over. You free up a ton of space in future years when you will need it.

 

We aren't rebuilding.

 

 

I thought they should have, but the decisions they made, particularly keeping Tyrod, made it very clear they aren't.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Thurman#1

[PlayoffsPlease]

 

 

Our team in 2010 fit that definition pretty well. We cut our old guys, even the ones with talent.

 

And as for the minimum spending rule on the cap keeping this from happening, it doesn't. It's doable. Hell, Cleveland is doing it. Know how much unspent money they rolled over from last year? $50 million. It's very doable.

 

There's major misunderstanding about the minimum cap floor rules. You don't have to spend 89% of your cap each year. That is a requirement not for one year but over a four year period. That's why Cleveland could leave so much unspent, and why any team wanting to rebuild could do the same.

 

And a smart cap wizard can arrange to bump up the money in the correct years. You give your expensive guys not bonuses but high guaranteed salaries in the first year so that next year you don't have amortized bonuses and your cap drops a lot and you've got room.

 

And if you do underspend over four years, the penalty is really pretty minimal ... you have to give the amount you underspent by to your own players by some distribution that the Players Association will decide.

 

 

 

 

The Bills aren't rebuilding. If they were, they'd have jettisoned Kyle Williams (age 33), LeSean McCoy (29 in July, with a ton of mileage on him), traded Incognito (33), wouldn't have signed Lorenzo Alexander (33) and cut him if you can't, and traded Tyrod.

 

Teams doing a real rebuild get rid of players who won't be around to help them three or four years down the road when they get good. Especially if they're expensive. And if there's dead cap that's no problem, just let it all hit the cap in 2017 and don't carry it over. You free up a ton of space in future years when you will need it.

 

We aren't rebuilding.

 

 

I thought they should have, but the decisions they made, particularly keeping Tyrod, made it very clear they aren't.

Seems to me the opposite of rebuild is "same old Bills". Kind of disappointing if that is the plan.

[Guest NeckBeard]

 

 

Our team in 2010 fit that definition pretty well. We cut our old guys, even the ones with talent.

 

And as for the minimum spending rule on the cap keeping this from happening, it doesn't. It's doable. Hell, Cleveland is doing it. Know how much unspent money they rolled over from last year? $50 million. It's very doable.

 

There's major misunderstanding about the minimum cap floor rules. You don't have to spend 89% of your cap each year. That is a requirement not for one year but over a four year period. That's why Cleveland could leave so much unspent, and why any team wanting to rebuild could do the same.

 

And a smart cap wizard can arrange to bump up the money in the correct years. You give your expensive guys not bonuses but high guaranteed salaries in the first year so that next year you don't have amortized bonuses and your cap drops a lot and you've got room.

 

And if you do underspend over four years, the penalty is really pretty minimal ... you have to give the amount you underspent by to your own players by some distribution that the Players Association will decide.

 

 

 

 

The Bills aren't rebuilding. If they were, they'd have jettisoned Kyle Williams (age 33), LeSean McCoy (29 in July, with a ton of mileage on him), traded Incognito (33), wouldn't have signed Lorenzo Alexander (33) and cut him if you can't, and traded Tyrod.

 

Teams doing a real rebuild get rid of players who won't be around to help them three or four years down the road when they get good. Especially if they're expensive. And if there's dead cap that's no problem, just let it all hit the cap in 2017 and don't carry it over. You free up a ton of space in future years when you will need it.

 

We aren't rebuilding.

 

 

I thought they should have, but the decisions they made, particularly keeping Tyrod, made it very clear they aren't.

 

Hi Thurm,

 

Nice to see you here. Anyways, I remember that 2010 was another lost season, and as a result there was roster churn, but I don't remember the roster changes the same way that you do.

 

Certainly, there were some in-season moves (Trent, Skittles), but the vast majority of players they'd waived (source: http://www.espn.com/nfl/team/transactions/_/name/buf/year/2010)were busts (Hardy) or never-was/to the practice squad types (Levi Brown).

 

As always I am interested in stuff like this, so let me know if or how I'd missed the boat about cutting old guys.

[boater]

 

what are you called if you see 19-0 baby ! ??

A time traveler in 2019, watching the Bills missed the playoffs for 19 consecutive years.

 

 

Kidding... I'm more optimistic than that.

[Maury Ballstein]

It's not a rebuild but it is a 4-8 win team

 

Hooray for patience

[JohnC]

 

 

The Bills need a franchise identity that isn't about losing if they hope to join that Pittsburgh/Green Bay or even KC group.

 

All of those small market teams have won a SB and had at least periodic success in recent decades so none have that complete association with losing that the Bills have cultivated.

 

And those organizations won those SB's and built much of their popularity on the play of iconic HOF quality QB's that didn't sh*t themselves in every SB.......and that was before the position had been elevated to the singularly lofty status it has now.

 

In order to justify building a new stadium that will bring in the higher paying customer and fill corporate boxes they need to AT LEAST keep other owners happy in the future they need something sustained headed by some marketable players.

 

A one-off Tampa Bay-like SB win wouldn't even do it at this point........the brand is tarnished.

 

The Bills are a joke franchise.

 

Doesn't matter to us lifers who enjoy the cheap tickets and the free range tailgating atmosphere that still exists because of the losing........ but if the organization wants to run with the big dogs they gotta' get off Hammer's porch.

 

Not my problem, it's all entertainment to me, win or lose.......just pointing out the fairly obvious nature of the situation.

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.

[Shaw66]

 

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.

I didn't say TT is the long-term answer, although I think he might be. Have to wait and see. And I think Bills' management agrees with that view or they would have dumped TT and moved aggressively on the QB search. They didn't do that. Instead, they traded down from 10, which they could have used to get a serious candidate for the long-term position. Trading down hedged their bets, giving them a chance to see Taylor under the new system and putting them in position to move on a QB next year if necessary.

 

That's smart management (give the credit to Whaley and/or McDermott). That's what teams do all the time. If you have a good player who's not all you need at the position, you invest in him to see whether he can take a step or two to a higher level. If you cut guys because they aren't performing this year, you see a lot of those guys performing well someplace else in a year or two. Taylor is clearly in that category.

[JohnC]

I didn't say TT is the long-term answer, although I think he might be. Have to wait and see. And I think Bills' management agrees with that view or they would have dumped TT and moved aggressively on the QB search. They didn't do that. Instead, they traded down from 10, which they could have used to get a serious candidate for the long-term position. Trading down hedged their bets, giving them a chance to see Taylor under the new system and putting them in position to move on a QB next year if necessary.

 

That's smart management (give the credit to Whaley and/or McDermott). That's what teams do all the time. If you have a good player who's not all you need at the position, you invest in him to see whether he can take a step or two to a higher level. If you cut guys because they aren't performing this year, you see a lot of those guys performing well someplace else in a year or two. Taylor is clearly in that category.

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.

[Shaw66]

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.

I don't completely agree with what you say, but I do agree that it's a reasonable way to look at it. I doubt that's how the Bills are looking at him.

 

It's only another opinion, but Peter King said on the John Murphy show that he expects the Bills are using this season to decide whether Taylor is the long-term answer. That's what I think is happening.

[mannc]

I don't completely agree with what you say, but I do agree that it's a reasonable way to look at it. I doubt that's how the Bills are looking at him.

 

It's only another opinion, but Peter King said on the John Murphy show that he expects the Bills are using this season to decide whether Taylor is the long-term answer. That's what I think is happening.

Agreed. As I have said before, Taylor's is not a "bridge QB" contract, but rather, a "prove it" deal. Given his performance the past two years, this is an entirely reasonable approach. Taylor has performed far better, for example, than Blake Bortles, who apparently is being given a fourth year to prove himself in Jacksonville.

 

Also, contrary to what JohnC and some others have said, the Bills have not been ignoring the QB position. As I recall, they have drafted a QB in each of the last two drafts. History shows that using a first round pick (or two) is far from the only way to find a long-term answer at QB.

[JohnC]

Agreed. As I have said before, Taylor's is not a "bridge QB" contract, but rather, a "prove it" deal. Given his performance the past two years, this is an entirely reasonable approach. Taylor has performed far better, for example, than Blake Bortles, who apparently is being given a fourth year to prove himself in Jacksonville.

 

Also, contrary to what JohnC and some others have said, the Bills have not been ignoring the QB position. As I recall, they have drafted a QB in each of the last two drafts. History shows that using a first round pick (or two) is far from the only way to find a long-term answer at QB.

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.

[BADOLBILZ]

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.

 

 

We don't know if it's a good start. They hired a bunch of unknowns with meh track records. Let's not give them too much credit by calling it a good start.

 

I think where we differ is that I am looking at the "sports money" aspect and the idea that the Pegula's need to make the Bills something other than a tax shelter because money gets old and small over time.........ask Ralph, he went from giving loans to his fellow owners to relative penny pinching in a couple decades.

 

They need to make this a Steelers or Packers like organization in terms of attractiveness to fans/sponsors etc..

 

Not sure the Pegula's have it in them from what I've seen.