This is not a rebuild, folks...

[BringBackOrton]

 

What part of my response do you take issue?

"The team didn't make the playoffs, the HC bailed, and the organization was faced with both having to find another HC and QB for the following season. How did Orton save anything in that context?"

 

This is all with the benefit of hindsight. Replacing the EJ disaster with Orton gave us our best chance to win games in the now, and not waste one of our best defensive years in franchise history. Was it entirely successful? Obviously not. Was it better than watching a great defense drag us to 5 wins with EJ at the helm? For me? Yeah. If we had a 1st rounder and had a chance at Mariota, I'd otherwise agree with you. But EJ needed to be tossed and I don't begrudge any coach trying to win more games.

Edited May 16, 2017 by jmc12290

[row_33]

I don't recall us gleefully stocking up on playoff tickets as quick as possible when Orton took over the helm.

[Guest NeckBeard]

"The team didn't make the playoffs, the HC bailed, and the organization was faced with both having to find another HC and QB for the following season. How did Orton save anything in that context?"

 

This is all with the benefit of hindsight. Replacing the EJ disaster with Orton gave us our best chance to win games in the now, and not waste one of our best defensive years in franchise history. Was it entirely successful? Obviously not. Was it better than watching a great defense drag us to 5 wins with EJ at the helm? For me? Yeah. If we had a 1st rounder and had a chance at Mariota, I'd otherwise agree with you. But EJ needed to be tossed and I don't begrudge any coach trying to win more games.

 

So, this is exactly what I was saying, and of course hindsight is in play here, because it was suggested that Orton saved the season, and I ask "from what?" We all saw the results of Orton starting. A 9-7 season is meaningless if you have to start over at HC and QB in the subsequent season.

 

EJ was bad enough that maybe the team would not have even gotten 5 wins, or maybe the GM would have traded even more picks to get a QB high. Who knows?

[BringBackOrton]

 

So, this is exactly what I was saying, and of course hindsight is in play here, because it was suggested that Orton saved the season, and I ask "from what?" We all saw the results of Orton starting. A 9-7 season is meaningless if you have to start over at HC and QB in the subsequent season.

 

EJ was bad enough that maybe the team would not have even gotten 5 wins, or maybe the GM would have traded even more picks to get a QB high. Who knows?

That class had Winston and Mariota as 1A and 1B. I fail to see how we could've traded any number of picks to get to #2 overall without a top ten or even a first rounder in 2015. I don't think that's plausible.

 

Orton saved the season by winning more games. We didn't know he'd retire or that Marrone would walk until after. If you know the end result, you could call every FA, drafted player, HC, GM etc a waste in the last 20 years. But that's a short-sighted way to view things, IMO.

Edited May 16, 2017 by jmc12290

[Guest NeckBeard]

That class had Winston and Mariota as 1A and 1B. I fail to see how we could've traded any number of picks to get to #2 overall without a top ten or even a first rounder in 2015. I don't think that's plausible.

 

Orton saved the season from winning games. We didn't know he'd retire or that Marrone would walk until after. If you know the end result, you could call every FA, drafted player, HC, GM etc a waste in the last 20 years. But that's a short-sighted way to view things, IMO.

 

This is pretty over the top, friend. The Bills have been terrible for most of my lifetime, and that says a lot at 45. The Bills have had bright spots through what is in boldface type above, no question, but for years we'd kept seeing a handler applying a patch to a broken dam. As a fan it would have been painful to have witnessed multiple 2, 3, 4, 6, whatever, win seasons from 2014 through 2017, but at some point I can't bring myself to believe that a sole 9-7 season in a sea of failure is a success. I am sorry, but I can't.

[BringBackOrton]

 

This is pretty over the top, friend. The Bills have been terrible for most of my lifetime, and that says a lot at 45. The Bills have had bright spots through what is in boldface type above, no question, but for years we'd kept seeing a handler applying a patch to a broken dam. As a fan it would have been painful to have witnessed multiple 2, 3, 4, 6, whatever, win seasons from 2014 through 2017, but at some point I can't bring myself to believe that a sole 9-7 season in a sea of failure is a success. I am sorry, but I can't.

I don't think it is. Would you say that the Mario Williams signing was a success? I mean, yeah, he was an All-Pro and our best defensive player for years, but it didn't get us anywhere, right?

 

Replacing EJ with Kyle Orton and succeeding in winning more games cost us basically nothing in the long and short run, and we were able to be in the hunt in December and beat or at least compete against good teams with good QB's. I don't fault the decision now even though I know the result. I wouldn't trade shocking GB and dominating Rodgers and actually being on the cusp to watch EJ go 4-12, even knowing the result.

[dpberr]

The Bills can afford neither the deliberate "rebuild" or "tank job." It's playoffs or bust at this point.

 

The 8-8 team is dead last in operating income or what you'd consider "profit."

 

Creating a worse on-field product, even temporarily, means a lot more Pegula dollars going into the business.

 

According to the Forbes 2016 valuations of NFL teams, the Bills had just 26 million in profit. The 31st team, the Detroit Lions had 64 million. That's a big gap just between the cellar dwellers.

 

The only way the Pegulas improve that is by making the product more desirable. To me, such low profit is an effect of not being in the playoffs for nearly two decades.

Edited May 16, 2017 by dpberr

[Guest NeckBeard]

I don't think it is. Would you say that the Mario Williams signing was a success? I mean, yeah, he was an All-Pro and our best defensive player for years, but it didn't get us anywhere, right?

 

Replacing EJ with Kyle Orton and succeeding in winning more games cost us basically nothing in the long and short run, and we were able to be in the hunt in December and beat or at least compete against good teams with good QB's. I don't fault the decision now even though I know the result. I wouldn't trade shocking GB and dominating Rodgers and actually being on the cusp to watch EJ go 4-12, even knowing the result.

 

No, Williams' signing was not a success, in particular in its later years, but to your earlier point about hindsight, that's what we have to go on when assessing the performance of previous squads. Plus, the case of "super Mario" is way different than that of Orton. The Bills had an empty cupboard when they'd signed guys like TO and Mario; practically no good FAs would come to this team during those years, if any at all. The Bills had a team that appeared to be on the rise when it signed Orton, and Orton was in his later years anyways. Heck, before Orton came here, Dallas seemed to be fine to roll with Brandon Weeden instead of him if memory serves. So Orton was better than EJ, but yikes. At times even Orton was horrible.

 

We have a fundamental disagreement about what a winning season means, when talking about a season of winning sandwiched in between seasons of losing or at .500, but that's OK.

 

To the person who'd mentioned rebuilding or tanking, the Bills can afford to do both, and I say this as someone who hates the idea of tanking. Just because we fans say that we're sick of the losing (mediocrity, losing seasons, missing playoffs, dysfunction, etc) and that it's playoffs or bust -- doesn't mean that the same is on ownership's mind at this time. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Who knows? You hope that ownership got 2 key hires right this time. I certainly feel this way. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Edited May 16, 2017 by NeckBeard

[BADOLBILZ]

The Bills can afford neither the deliberate "rebuild" or "tank job." It's playoffs or bust at this point.

 

The 8-8 team is dead last in operating income or what you'd consider "profit."

 

Creating a worse on-field product, even temporarily, means a lot more Pegula dollars going into the business.

 

According to the Forbes 2016 valuations of NFL teams, the Bills had just 26 million in profit. The 31st team, the Detroit Lions had 64 million. That's a big gap just between the cellar dwellers.

 

The only way the Pegulas improve that is by making the product more desirable. To me, such low profit is an effect of not being in the playoffs for nearly two decades.

 

 

The brand is tarnished.

 

While most teams have been able to parlay the growing prestige of the NFL experience into exponentially greater profits and gains in their community.......the Bills have just been able to "not lose much ground".

 

But if you aren't getting better.......you are getting worse.

 

The genius of Russ Brandon is a myth.......most of the success of the Bills on the business end has been the direct result of the Bills worshipping children of the SB era growing up and spending money.

 

But now those kids have nearly grown kids of their own and are entering different stages in their lives that are a crossroads for spending time and money on things like this.

 

Losing is costing them ground now and the 17 year drought will cost them more later because an entire generation has grown up seeing the Bills as irrelevant.

 

What they really need is a transcendent talent at QB of their own..........a Tom Brady-type.........that will keep them contention and raise their profile and help them draw the huge money from that wealthy Ontario market that they can't fully tap without it.

[JohnC]

Good comments. Thanks. I agree with all of it. I have really incomplete memory of historic rosters and I didn't look back. But you got the point, which is that the Bills' roster was weaker back then and rebuilding was necessary.

 

As for how much talent the Bills have, there was one article last year and I believe more than one, that ranked the Bills roster near the top of the AFC. What those articles said is that the Bills have a huge question at quarterback, but comparing the other 21 spots across the conference it was hard to find teams that compared favorably. Now, in hindsight, it looks a little different. Oakland and Miami, for example probably were viewed by those writers before the season as weaker but probably weren't viewed that way at the end of the season. My point is only that I didn't make up that idea about the Bills' 2016 roster; it was in the national press.

 

Finally, where you say "overall mixed," I agree that was and is the right conclusion. But when you're comparing rosters across the conference or league, we all tend to forget that there are very few teams, if any, that can say anything better than "overall mixed." In the modern era, the only way you can be strong across all 22 positions is if you've had incredible success with recent drafts and undrafted free agents. They only way you can be strong across both sides of the ball is if you've gotten a lot really good players cheap. That happened to Seattle. If you look around the league, I think there always are one or two teams like that, where everything has fallen just right. However, those teams can't stay together, because free agency and the cap causes them to lose some their of talent and weak spots start showing up. So the fact that the Bills had some weak areas in their lineup last season is not inconsistent with the notion that they had one of the better lineups. That's because just about all teams have weak spots.

This is interesting. The roster isn't being rebuilt, but the football office is being rebuilt.

I think whether Gilmore is a major loss is really an open question. Tre'Davious COULD be the answer, but I think the change in defensive backfield philosophy changes the skill set you need back there. Gilmore would have been less valuable in the zone that McDermott seems to like to play than in a defense that is playing a lot of tight man coverage. That is, if Gilmore had stayed, I think a lot of people would have thought he was having a bad year, because he wouldn't have been making plays that made him stand out.

 

Plus, it doesn't take long to make a splash in the league at corner. Darby was really quite good as a rookie, and White seems to have a similar skill set.

 

So I'm taking a wait and see approach at corner.

 

Frankly, I'm more worried that going away from man coverage will hurt. Certainly against the Pats. Brady kills zones.

With respect to the highlighted segment I'm saying the opposite. Clearly the front office and coaching staff are new and the roster over time (the next three years) will mostly be rebuilt.

Edited May 16, 2017 by JohnC

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

The Bills can afford neither the deliberate "rebuild" or "tank job." It's playoffs or bust at this point.

 

The 8-8 team is dead last in operating income or what you'd consider "profit."

 

Creating a worse on-field product, even temporarily, means a lot more Pegula dollars going into the business.

 

According to the Forbes 2016 valuations of NFL teams, the Bills had just 26 million in profit. The 31st team, the Detroit Lions had 64 million. That's a big gap just between the cellar dwellers.

 

The only way the Pegulas improve that is by making the product more desirable. To me, such low profit is an effect of not being in the playoffs for nearly two decades.

 

Maybe 5 year fully guaranteed deals to coaches who got fired mid-season the year before aren't advisable? That'll definitely put a dent in your P/L.

[JohnC]

 

 

The brand is tarnished.

 

While most teams have been able to parlay the growing prestige of the NFL experience into exponentially greater profits and gains in their community.......the Bills have just been able to "not lose much ground".

 

But if you aren't getting better.......you are getting worse.

 

The genius of Russ Brandon is a myth.......most of the success of the Bills on the business end has been the direct result of the Bills worshipping children of the SB era growing up and spending money.

 

But now those kids have nearly grown kids of their own and are entering different stages in their lives that are a crossroads for spending time and money on things like this.

 

Losing is costing them ground now and the 17 year drought will cost them more later because an entire generation has grown up seeing the Bills as irrelevant.

 

What they really need is a transcendent talent at QB of their own..........a Tom Brady-type.........that will keep them contention and raise their profile and help them draw the huge money from that wealthy Ontario market that they can't fully tap without it.

Of course a transcendent qb would be wonderful. But the odds of having one are small. That doesn't mean that having a good franchise qb on a well developed team that can seriously compete would not be good enough to spark interest in a franchise that has struggled for more than a generation. Excessive losing is bad enough but what smothers interest even more is being a boring and less than entertaining team.

 

It's going to take at least a few years but building up the roster so this team can be considered a contending team will hopefully rekindle interest from the lost generation who understandably vanished from the market due to the quality of the product.

[JM2009]

 

 

The brand is tarnished.

 

While most teams have been able to parlay the growing prestige of the NFL experience into exponentially greater profits and gains in their community.......the Bills have just been able to "not lose much ground".

 

But if you aren't getting better.......you are getting worse.

 

The genius of Russ Brandon is a myth.......most of the success of the Bills on the business end has been the direct result of the Bills worshipping children of the SB era growing up and spending money.

 

But now those kids have nearly grown kids of their own and are entering different stages in their lives that are a crossroads for spending time and money on things like this.

 

Losing is costing them ground now and the 17 year drought will cost them more later because an entire generation has grown up seeing the Bills as irrelevant.

 

What they really need is a transcendent talent at QB of their own..........a Tom Brady-type.........that will keep them contention and raise their profile and help them draw the huge money from that wealthy Ontario market that they can't fully tap without it.

Where's the genius in RB with the younger generation of fans-who won't be bothered with a losing product over a long period of time. Now the Pegulas are slowly getting it, and 24-24 isn't horrible, but they are getting it in spite of RB.

[Shaw66]

With respect to the highlighted segment I'm saying the opposite. Clearly the front office and coaching staff are new and the roster over time (the next three years) will mostly be rebuilt.

That's NOT a rebuild. Almost EVERY roster in the NFL is rebuilt over three years. Lots of guys come and go from the roster over three years. For example, the New England Patriots, who won two Super Bowls in the period from 2013 to 2016: how many guys from 2013 were still on the roster in 2016? Out of 53 roster spots, 16 guys were on both teams. And Blount left and came back. 70% of their roster turned over in three years.

 

Every team is constantly turning over its roster. If you call that rebuilding, then every team is rebuilding all the time, and the word is meaningless.

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

Things are looking up but we have no chance to make the playoffs with this team. ESPN just made a Patriots vs all the best players of the AFC East and they still said Patriots would win. I am hoping for 2 picks in the top ten in the 1st rd of the draft next year. If we have a good FA and another good draft then we can at least start pushing for the playoffs.

[JohnC]

That's NOT a rebuild. Almost EVERY roster in the NFL is rebuilt over three years. Lots of guys come and go from the roster over three years. For example, the New England Patriots, who won two Super Bowls in the period from 2013 to 2016: how many guys from 2013 were still on the roster in 2016? Out of 53 roster spots, 16 guys were on both teams. And Blount left and came back. 70% of their roster turned over in three years.

 

Every team is constantly turning over its roster. If you call that rebuilding, then every team is rebuilding all the time, and the word is meaningless.

In many respects as you state the word rebuilding is meaningless because it corresponds to the constant player movement. That's why in earlier posts I pointed out that debating that point meant little. The one difference is that teams that have a franchise qb usually keep their qb anchored to the team for a longer period of time. We haven't had an established franchise qb for more than two decades, since the retirement of Kelly.

[Shaw66]

In many respects as you state the word rebuilding is meaningless because it corresponds to the constant player movement. That's why in earlier posts I pointed out that debating that point meant little. The one difference is that teams that have a franchise qb usually keep their qb anchored to the team for a longer period of time. We haven't had an established franchise qb for more than two decades, since the retirement of Kelly.

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.

[Guest NeckBeard]

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.

 

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.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

....this club has been in "rebuild" since Polian was fired.....a comedic FO/Administration/Coaches gang that redefines football ineptitude....a patchwork mess...perennial contenders fill in nicely with a good draft (or perhaps need a 2nd one) followed by filling in gaps either via FA, UDFA's, etc...Buffalo seems to always be filling major HOLES every year.......with only so much putty and money.......

[BADOLBILZ]

Of course a transcendent qb would be wonderful. But the odds of having one are small. That doesn't mean that having a good franchise qb on a well developed team that can seriously compete would not be good enough to spark interest in a franchise that has struggled for more than a generation. Excessive losing is bad enough but what smothers interest even more is being a boring and less than entertaining team.

 

It's going to take at least a few years but building up the roster so this team can be considered a contending team will hopefully rekindle interest from the lost generation who understandably vanished from the market due to the quality of the product.

 

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.