This is not a rebuild, folks...

[Shaw66]

This post really twists and turns to make a false conclusion. One of the more talented rosters? Look at what the oddsmakers think of this team, 6 wins or less. They have revamped their entire secondary outside of a one year wonder in Darby. The LB group is among the slowest in the NFL. Hughes looks to have been a product of his teammates success. I don't see 14' Mario out there opposite him.

 

I want this team to be good but this is not an honest evaluation of their current talent.

A couple of things about this. First, I didn't say anything about how many games the Bills are going to win. All I said was that this isn't a rebuild situation.

 

When Kelsay and Stevie were the best players on the team, that's a rebuild situation. But when you have legitimately good players like McCoy, Watkins, Incognito, Wood, Glenn, Dareus, Williams, Alexander and essentially three first round picks (Lawson, Ragland, White) and a guy who's likely to become your #2 receiver in the second, it's not a rebuild situation. It's a situation where you find the best players to fill the other spots and go to work.

 

If the coaching is good, there's more than enough talent on the team to go 8-8 or better.

Rams are 5.5, Bears are 5.5, Bills are 6

 

We are a half game better than the Rams and Bears per Vegas.

 

The drought continues.

People don't understand what odds makers do. The fact that the Bills are 6 does NOT mean that Vegas thinks the Bills will win 6. It means that 6 is the number that Vegas thinks will get half the betters to pick the over and the other half to pick the under. Buffalo's over under is ALWAYS low, because fans around the country think the Bills are worse than they are. If Vegas set the line at 8, most bettors would flock to the under, and that leaves Vegas exposed.

For example, in 2014, the line was 6.5 because no one believed the Bills were going anywhere with Marrone.

 

In 2015 and 16 the line was 8 because the fans across the country believed Rex would build a defense.

 

In each case the line was set to reflect what fans thought, not what Las Vegas thought.

[Augie]

The FRONT OFFICE is being rebuilt. The team has some significant changes, but is largely the same. Schemes will change, but losing Rex....is NOT a loss. I'm hopeful. Not expecting GREAT things next year, but a more solid team. I'm hopeful for 2-4 years down the road.

[CommonCents]

A couple of things about this. First, I didn't say anything about how many games the Bills are going to win. All I said was that this isn't a rebuild situation.

 

When Kelsay and Stevie were the best players on the team, that's a rebuild situation. But when you have legitimately good players like McCoy, Watkins, Incognito, Wood, Glenn, Dareus, Williams, Alexander and essentially three first round picks (Lawson, Ragland, White) and a guy who's likely to become your #2 receiver in the second, it's not a rebuild situation. It's a situation where you find the best players to fill the other spots and go to work.

 

If the coaching is good, there's more than enough talent on the team to go 8-8 or better.

 

People don't understand what odds makers do. The fact that the Bills are 6 does NOT mean that Vegas thinks the Bills will win 6. It means that 6 is the number that Vegas thinks will get half the betters to pick the over and the other half to pick the under. Buffalo's over under is ALWAYS low, because fans around the country think the Bills are worse than they are. If Vegas set the line at 8, most bettors would flock to the under, and that leaves Vegas exposed.

 

For example, in 2014, the line was 6.5 because no one believed the Bills were going anywhere with Marrone.

 

In 2015 and 16 the line was 8 because the fans across the country believed Rex would build a defense.

 

In each case the line was set to reflect what fans thought, not what Las Vegas thought.

Now you're going to tell me how Vegas works? How about slowing down and seeing how close Vegas is or isn't on win totals. 6 is the middle number meaning they will get equal action on the under 5< and the over 7>

 

If it's one of the best rosters why is the total so low? Referring to Ragland as a 1st round pick is just another example of over reaching in attempt to prove a point. Rags dropped like a rock and was one of Whaley's many "fantasy" picks. We will see soon enough, I try to convince myself that they can compete but when I see someone go to such lengths it sure puts things in perspective.

[Iron Maiden]

Tom Brady is going to be 40.

 

Calling it now: we win the AFC East in 2017.

 

You are in mid season form my friend..... Honestly, I think NE goes 15-1 or 14-2.....that team is LOADED.......and Brady is still playing at a MVP level....

 

I am seeing Bills playoffs in 2018...this year will be McDs baptism by fire.....but I'm convince he was the right choice for us....

[papazoid]

not a rebuild ??

 

in 2019 there will be about 5 players on the roster from 2016

 

that's a rebuild !!

Edited May 15, 2017 by papazoid

[Rocky Landing]

not a rebuild ??

 

in 2019 there will be about 5 players on the roster from 2016

 

that's a rebuild !!

Be that as it may...

Offensively, there is very little competition for starting rolls, barring some unforeseen, rubber matt style circumstance. We know who is starting at every position save RT, and #2WR, plus whomever is going to be the eleventh position on the field (FB?).

 

Defensively, sure seems like a rebuild.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

...and I find it amusing that posters are saying things like "give them three years and we'll see" and whatnot.

 

Yes, it's McD's first HC job, and yes, it's Beane's first GM job (although he did serve as interim GM for 10 games in 2012), but these guys are hardly "green" and the Bills' roster cupboard is far from bare.

 

I will be shocked if the Bills aren't at least a 6-7 win team, and I certainly think it's possible they could win 9 or 10. This is not a rebuild, it's a refocus.

No it's a total demolition with an entirely new building in its place.

[ndirish1978]

Rams are 5.5, Bears are 5.5, Bills are 6

 

We are a half game better than the Rams and Bears per Vegas.

 

The drought continues.

 

Would we have been more than half a game better had we traded up to take Tru?

[JM2009]

 

You are in mid season form my friend..... Honestly, I think NE goes 15-1 or 14-2.....that team is LOADED.......and Brady is still playing at a MVP level....

 

I am seeing Bills playoffs in 2018...this year will be McDs baptism by fire.....but I'm convince he was the right choice for us....

About the way I feel.

[reddogblitz]

How long do y'all think Tommy can keep it up? 40 in football years is old I don't care who you are or if you only eat nuts and twigs and the occasional wild boar you kill with your bare hands. Time catches up to EVERYONE.

 

I'm hoping it's this year and it very well could.

 

Go BILLS !!

[Shaw66]

not a rebuild ??

 

in 2019 there will be about 5 players on the roster from 2016

 

that's a rebuild !!

No. That's just reality in the NFL. Average NFL career is 3.5 years or so. That means on average, the entire roster turns over every 3.5 years. So in 2019, having 5 guys left over from 2016 is more or less average.

 

Now, averages are misleading, because there are a lot of 1s and 2s that bring the average down. But it seems like almost every year when talking about successful teams, the commentators talk about how much the rosters have turned over.

 

Ordinary roster turnover is not rebuilding.

Be that as it may...

Offensively, there is very little competition for starting rolls, barring some unforeseen, rubber matt style circumstance. We know who is starting at every position save RT, and #2WR, plus whomever is going to be the eleventh position on the field (FB?).

 

Defensively, sure seems like a rebuild.

Defensively there will be four new faces starting - a corner, two safeties and a linebacker. That's not a rebuild; that's ordinary turnover on modern NFL teams.

[Shaw66]

Now you're going to tell me how Vegas works? How about slowing down and seeing how close Vegas is or isn't on win totals. 6 is the middle number meaning they will get equal action on the under 5< and the over 7>

 

 

Which means you think the vote of the general wagering public is evidence of the actual quality of teams. You think because half the bettors are over six and half under six, that six must be an accurate representation of how good the Bills are. You didn't pay attention to what I said. The 6 isn't determined by a vote. The 6 is determined by Las Vegas to get to the point where half bet over and half bet under. In a sense, it bears NO relationship to how good or how bad the team is.

 

Suppose I'm a Las Vegas oddsmaker and I know what no one else knows; that Tom Brady has a serious illness and will not play any of the 2017 season. Do I lower the over under by two or three games because I know the Pats won't win as many as they would have with Brady playing? No, I don't. Why? Because if I lower the over under by two or three games, EVERYONE will take the over, and that's bad for Las Vegas. That means Las Vegas has to cover all those over bets, and Las Vegas doesn't want that risk. . So there's an example that demonstrates why the over under is NOT a measure of how good a team is - it's a measure of what bettors without good information think.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Shaw66

[CommonCents]

Which means you think the vote of the general wagering public is evidence of the actual quality of teams. You think because half the bettors are over six and half under six, that six must be an accurate representation of how good the Bills are. You didn't pay attention to what I said. The 6 isn't determined by a vote. The 6 is determined by Las Vegas to get to the point where half bet over and half bet under. In a sense, it bears NO relationship to how good or how bad the team is.

 

Suppose I'm a Las Vegas oddsmaker and I know what no one else knows; that Tom Brady has a serious illness and will not play any of the 2017 season. Do I lower the over under by two or three games because I know the Pats won't win as many as they would have with Brady playing? No, I don't. Why? Because if I lower the over under by two or three games, EVERYONE will take the over, and that's bad for Las Vegas. That means Las Vegas has to cover all those over bets, and Las Vegas doesn't want that risk. . So there's an example that demonstrates why the over under is NOT a measure of how good a team is - it's a measure of what bettors without good information think.

Sigh' 6 isn't an indicator of how good or bad the team is? You can make all the statements you want and offer an elementary explanation of how Vegas works but I still strongly suggest you go look at W/L totals for any given year and then maybe you will have a better understanding of just how accurate they are.

[Shaw66]

I'm really surprised by the negativity about the Bills. Here's why:

 

The Bills had, in my opinion, some of the worst coaching in the NFL for the past two seasons. I mean, really. The penalties two years ago, the horrible defense giving up 200 yard rushing games last season, the ugly game plans, or lack of game plays. I mean, it was horrible. Still, the Bills were essentially a .500 teams. NOBODY is saying that the Bills had a horrible roster and the only thing that saved the season was the brilliant coaching job.

 

I know that changing coaches and changing to new systems and all of that takes some getting used to, often a full season. But if McDermott can be a quality head coach, even his first season can be better than the job Rex was doing.

 

The question is whether McDermott can do it. I have no idea whether he can. However, I do know that even an average coaching job from McDermott will me much better than what we saw from Rex, so the chances of McD going .500 during his first season are better than many of you seem to think.

Sigh' 6 isn't an indicator of how good or bad the team is? You can make all the statements you want and offer an elementary explanation of how Vegas works but I still strongly suggest you go look at W/L totals for any given year and then maybe you will have a better understanding of just how accurate they are.

Most years they're accurate for most teams. That's what Las Vegas wants. But that doesn't mean than any particular line is accurate for a particular team that season.

[CommonCents]

I'm really surprised by the negativity about the Bills. Here's why:

 

The Bills had, in my opinion, some of the worst coaching in the NFL for the past two seasons. I mean, really. The penalties two years ago, the horrible defense giving up 200 yard rushing games last season, the ugly game plans, or lack of game plays. I mean, it was horrible. Still, the Bills were essentially a .500 teams. NOBODY is saying that the Bills had a horrible roster and the only thing that saved the season was the brilliant coaching job.

 

I know that changing coaches and changing to new systems and all of that takes some getting used to, often a full season. But if McDermott can be a quality head coach, even his first season can be better than the job Rex was doing.

 

The question is whether McDermott can do it. I have no idea whether he can. However, I do know that even an average coaching job from McDermott will me much better than what we saw from Rex, so the chances of McD going .500 during his first season are better than many of you seem to think.

 

Most years they're accurate for most teams. That's what Las Vegas wants. But that doesn't mean than any particular line is accurate for a particular team that season.

Of course, we are all here in hope that we are the exception but to say that their W/L total isn't an indication of where the team stands mid May is a little bit disingenuous.

[Rocky Landing]

Ordinary roster turnover is not rebuilding.

Defensively there will be four new faces starting - a corner, two safeties and a linebacker. That's not a rebuild; that's ordinary turnover on modern NFL teams.

And we switch to a 4/3 under a different DC; our #2CB becomes our #1; our nickel competes for #2 with our first round rook; all of our LBs compete for starting roles; there is certainly no guarantee that Brown starts, let alone wears the headset, and neither of our DEs are set in stone. And, of course, as you said, two new safeties.

 

That's not exactly ordinary roster turnover, is it?

[jeffismagic]

I'm really surprised by the negativity about the Bills. Here's why:

 

The Bills had, in my opinion, some of the worst coaching in the NFL for the past two seasons. I mean, really. The penalties two years ago, the horrible defense giving up 200 yard rushing games last season, the ugly game plans, or lack of game plays. I mean, it was horrible. Still, the Bills were essentially a .500 teams. NOBODY is saying that the Bills had a horrible roster and the only thing that saved the season was the brilliant coaching job.

 

I know that changing coaches and changing to new systems and all of that takes some getting used to, often a full season. But if McDermott can be a quality head coach, even his first season can be better than the job Rex was doing.

 

The question is whether McDermott can do it. I have no idea whether he can. However, I do know that even an average coaching job from McDermott will me much better than what we saw from Rex, so the chances of McD going .500 during his first season are better than many of you seem to think.

Most years they're accurate for most teams. That's what Las Vegas wants. But that doesn't mean than any particular line is accurate for a particular team that season.

 

So we have this great roster but coaching was holding us back? Then why were all the scouts and Doug Whaley fired then?

[PlayoffsPlease]

I'm really surprised by the negativity about the Bills. Here's why:

 

The Bills had, in my opinion, some of the worst coaching in the NFL for the past two seasons. I mean, really. The penalties two years ago, the horrible defense giving up 200 yard rushing games last season, the ugly game plans, or lack of game plays. I mean, it was horrible. Still, the Bills were essentially a .500 teams. NOBODY is saying that the Bills had a horrible roster and the only thing that saved the season was the brilliant coaching job.

 

I know that changing coaches and changing to new systems and all of that takes some getting used to, often a full season. But if McDermott can be a quality head coach, even his first season can be better than the job Rex was doing.

 

The question is whether McDermott can do it. I have no idea whether he can. However, I do know that even an average coaching job from McDermott will me much better than what we saw from Rex, so the chances of McD going .500 during his first season are better than many of you seem to think.

Most years they're accurate for most teams. That's what Las Vegas wants. But that doesn't mean than any particular line is accurate for a particular team that season.

The only team as dysfunctional as the Bills this Century have been the Browns. It is so bad they fired the GM, the entire coaching staff and all of the scouts. And you don't "understand the negativity"?

 

The only thing we know about Beane and McDermott is both are rookies to their new roles. And they are different than the last guys. No one knows if these guys will simply illustrate the Peter Principle or if they will lead the team to multiple Lombardi trophies.

While there is nearly two decades of reasons to be negative. There is literally nothing but unproven change to be positive about. Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of change. But that is a thin reed to hang excitement about the season on. And being able to list off a couple of stars and a half dozen decent NFL players on roster is something you can do for pretty much all 32 NFL teams.

 

 

[Thurman#1]

A couple of things about this. First, I didn't say anything about how many games the Bills are going to win. All I said was that this isn't a rebuild situation.

 

When Kelsay and Stevie were the best players on the team, that's a rebuild situation. But when you have legitimately good players like McCoy, Watkins, Incognito, Wood, Glenn, Dareus, Williams, Alexander and essentially three first round picks (Lawson, Ragland, White) and a guy who's likely to become your #2 receiver in the second, it's not a rebuild situation. It's a situation where you find the best players to fill the other spots and go to work.

 

If the coaching is good, there's more than enough talent on the team to go 8-8 or better.

 

 

 

First, agreed that this isn't a rebuild, and that 2010 really was.

 

If it were a rebuild now, we certainly wouldn't have invited Kyle Williams back, for instance, nor McCoy nor Lorenzo Alexander nor Incognito. When you're rebuilding, you jettison the older talent on your roster because you don't really care about this year and those guys won't be around by the time you get good. This isn't a rebuild, there's no question about it.

 

But saying that Stevie Johnson and Kelsay were our best players back then is just not reasonable. Kyle Williams was on the Bills and kicking butt. Jairus Byrd had 9 INTs and was a second-team All-Pro, not just Pro Bowl, but All-Pro. Poz was on that team and playing really well, and Freddy Jackson was earning 1433 yards from scrimmage and averaging 4.5 YPA, while Marshawn Lynch racked up 3.8 YPA behind the same line here.

 

Not that our roster then was as strong as today's group. It wasn't. But you said, "It was generally agreed last season that the Bills had one of the better rosters in the conference, and they still do," and I don't think too many people really thought that outside Bills fandom. I know I thought that roster wasn't going to take us to more than about 8 wins, maybe 9 if things fell well.

 

From what I remember, people thought we had strong areas such as the DL and 4/5 OLs and CB and RB and Sammy if he was healthy and Clay at TE, as well as weak areas such as both safeties and RT and QB and WR and questions at ILB.. Overall, mixed.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

 

First, teams win/lose games, not QBs.

 

Secondly, it's cute how you "know" that the Bills would have won every game they lost without TT, had TT played.

 

 

http://www.footballdb.com/stats/qb-records.html

 

 

 

The real name for this stat, on real sites, is "TEAM wins in games started by this quarterback (regular season)"

 

Note the "Team" part.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TaylTy00.htm

 

Just run your cursor over "QBRec" and you'll see the real name.

 

So he was correct. Wins are a team stat, not a QB stat.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Thurman#1