DaBillsFanSince1973 Posted June 26, 2017 Posted June 26, 2017 He might want a trade after another 7-win flameout... depends how it goes down... depends how it goes down, flameout? possible, yet doubtful. I don't see 7 wins, I'm thinking 10. I do think even with a rookie HC they'll improve the defense and win two or three more games than the two goons that set the team back had last season. I look for a better all around team/organization going forward, even with a rookie HC/GM. I just don't have that negative vibe like the past regimes gave me. I've been down on the team in the past, off seasons have not given much to look forward too. I've been on the same 17 year ride as everyone else but there is a sense that they may of finally got the right people in control. I like McD and I really believe Mike Waufle will be a key to a dominating Dline ? looking forward to the season(s) ahead. GO BILLS!!!
SoTier Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 (edited) Luck was a sure thing. Wilson was just getting lucky. Nobody expected Wilson to be this good, he's too short. You are WAY more likely to find a franchise QB at the top of the 1st than in the later rounds. That's just common sense Wilson was not "just getting lucky". Wilson was the victim of the insistence of NFL GMs that "bigger is better" so a short QB has no chance. If Wilson had been 6'3" or so, he'd have gone #2 after Luck. And Luck's "sure thing" status was fueled by the media hype machine that had been saying he was the next great QB for three years before he was drafted. Furthermore, Luck hasn't proven to be "the next great QB". He was great as a rookie and sophomore QB but he's making many of the same mistakes now as he did in 2013 indicating that he's not improved professionally since his sophomore year. QBs like Newton, Wilson, Tannehill, Cousins, and Dalton (all drafted in 2011 and 2012) have all improved significantly more than Luck in the four or five years they've been in the league. Nobody is arguing that the top QB prospects are almost always to be found in first round, and statistically, mostly in the first three picks, but the idea of deliberately sabotaging a team's season in order to chase a particular draft pick is nonsensical. First off, in order for a mid-pack or better team to land the first draft pick by tanking, they would have to do something blatant like literally selling off their best players or firing their coaching staff during TC. It would be the kind of move that would likely bring in the federal government, something that would be an anathema to the NFL. For a bottom feeder team to tank, what makes you think a team that couldn't get it right for years suddenly picks the right guy? In the 1999 draft, the Browns had the #1 pick, and with unerring skill, they picked Tim Couch over Donovan McNabb. After a 10 win season in 2002, the Niners sank into incompetence that lasted until 2011. They had the #1 draft pick in 2005 and took Alex Smith over Aaron Rodgers. In 2007, the hapless Raiders took JaMarcus Russell when they could have had Calvin Johnson, Joe Thomas, Adrian Peterson or Patrick Willis. Perennially bad teams in the salary cap era are bad because they've perfected their own brand of incompetence, and it's not something they can turn on and off at will. haha well the point was that you better have one of the best QB's in the game if you want to win. true, the Pats got lucklier than any team in history with Brady but the point being the QB is so important that you better be drafting one every year until you get one maybe not EVERY year but when there is a draft with good QB's projected to go 1 and 2 you better be tanking to get them. last year there weren't any QB's that fit that description. there weren't in 2013 or 2014 either. this year Darnold and Rosen are probably 1,2 and that doesn't even factor in other QB's who have had a ton of success and are expected to be great pros like Rudolph, Falk, or Allen. there might be 5 first round QB's this year. we better get whoever we think is the best out of the bunch AT ALL COSTS Who the hell cares how many QBs go in the first round? What counts is that the one your team picks is successful. Five QBs went in round 1 in 1999, and only Donovan McNabb (#2) turned out to be a franchise QB. Of the three first round QBs in 2002, none were franchise QBs. Of the four in 2003, only Carson Palmer the #1 pick was any good. The same happened in 2011 with Cam Newton. Of the three QBs taken in the first round in 2006 and 2009, only 1 from each class were decent. The only year in the last 30 with more than 2 successful QBs from the first round was 2004. Of course, that was the year that the Bills chose to trade back into the first round to take JP Losman. As I said, bottom feeder teams perfect their own brand of incompetence. You guys made great points, but I can't help but feel that 2-14 (plus the 1st round picks we already have.) would put us in a position to re-up on EVERYTHING.... It's unique opportunity that may not come again anytime soon. I can honestly say that If we were to pull a legit tank job. I could handle it MUCH better than I could another 7-9 season... Tanks for all your comments, fellas.. Tanks a lot. Right. Since the Bills "re-upped" just fine after they picked fourth in 2001 and third in 2011, I have every confidence that they will make the right picks after tanking in 2017. Would you also be interested in a slightly used but recently rehabbed bridge over Chautauqua Lake that I have for sale? Edited June 27, 2017 by SoTier
Gugny Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 As unpopular as my opinion is, when the Bills gave Tyrod Taylor his new contract, that's when I saw the writing on the wall for a tank. They have guaranteed themselves a bottom tier passing game going into a painfully difficult schedule. They let their most consistent receiver in Woods walk. They let their best DB walk. They released A. Williams and Robey. They let a solid security blanket in Gillislee walk, knowing that McCoy is getting long in the tooth and very unlikely to play 16 games OR produce how he did just a season ago. They had a great draft (in my opinion), but it really was pretty clear that it was a draft for the future. Zay Jones COULD be great. But that's a question mark. Robert Woods wasn't a question mark. I'm okay with it. I think it's necessary. And I think with a rookie coach/brand new coaching staff, with a below-average QB with one very good receiver in Watkins, that most people don't expect them to win; especially against the opponents they're facing this coming season. Get the QB of the future after next season; let him cut his teeth in the 2018-2019 season; then be expected to be a playoff team in 2019-2020. I am totally cool with that. It's about time they do it right. Wallowing in perennial .500-ish seasons does nothing. GO BILLS!
Rocky Landing Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 He might want a trade after another 7-win flameout... depends how it goes down... 7 wins is a "flameout?"
#34fan Posted June 27, 2017 Author Posted June 27, 2017 (edited) As unpopular as my opinion is, when the Bills gave Tyrod Taylor his new contract, that's when I saw the writing on the wall for a tank. They have guaranteed themselves a bottom tier passing game going into a painfully difficult schedule. They let their most consistent receiver in Woods walk. They let their best DB walk. They released A. Williams and Robey. They let a solid security blanket in Gillislee walk, knowing that McCoy is getting long in the tooth and very unlikely to play 16 games OR produce how he did just a season ago. They had a great draft (in my opinion), but it really was pretty clear that it was a draft for the future. Zay Jones COULD be great. But that's a question mark. Robert Woods wasn't a question mark. I'm okay with it. I think it's necessary. And I think with a rookie coach/brand new coaching staff, with a below-average QB with one very good receiver in Watkins, that most people don't expect them to win; especially against the opponents they're facing this coming season. Get the QB of the future after next season; let him cut his teeth in the 2018-2019 season; then be expected to be a playoff team in 2019-2020. I am totally cool with that. It's about time they do it right. Wallowing in perennial .500-ish seasons does nothing. GO BILLS! I'm at the point where I see tremendous value in a 2-win season... I must insist that all these people proclaiming "Professional athletes would NEVER do that". -don't know many pro athletes... You'd be SHOCKED at what they're capable of Tanking represents a chance to get a new OC and DC primo-talent they can MOLD.... I think Beane is a grownup, and sees the possibilities... If him and his new staff are going to tank, then NOW is the time. 7 wins is a "flameout?" You Betcha.. Edited June 27, 2017 by #34fan
Gugny Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 7 wins is a "flameout?" It is when it's your average for 17 years. Either get to the playoffs, or be bad enough for a decent first round pick.
LABILLBACKER Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 From the Buffalo News... Kinda explains the cold-shoulder to guys like Maclin and Decker... I personally don't think Darnold or Rosen are worth it. http://buffalonews.com/2017/06/24/jay-skurskis-bills-mailbag-buffalo-super-bowl-one-day-charles-clay-get-cut-controls-53-man-roster-anyway/ Darnold will definitely be worth it. Rosen not so much. He's overrated.
Rocky Landing Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 It is when it's your average for 17 years. Either get to the playoffs, or be bad enough for a decent first round pick. Well, by that yardstick, 9-7 is likely a flameout in our division.
Thurman#1 Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 (edited) We dont know if we have replaced it......it really depends on whether you are a glass is half full or empty person Half empty - "we lost veteran players at key positions...unknowns are replacing them so we are going to lose" Half full "we have promising players replacing key veteran players.....they might actually be better" You have to have your glass a lot more than half full to pretend that unproven players are going to be better, especially this year. You have to have your glass about 90% full, with some Old Granddad and some Kool-Aid as part of the payload. What generally happens is the obvious. Of a group of, say five guys, who are unknowns being counted on, one or so will be very successful, one or so will be very unsuccessful and the remainder will be acceptable but take some time and make the kind of mistakes that unproven guys make while they get experience. The bell curve, in other words. I'm at the point where I see tremendous value in a 2-win season... I must insist that all these people proclaiming "Professional athletes would NEVER do that". -don't know many pro athletes... You'd be SHOCKED at what they're capable of Tanking represents a chance to get a new OC and DC primo-talent they can MOLD.... I think Beane is a grownup, and sees the possibilities... If him and his new staff are going to tank, then NOW is the time. You Betcha.. No pro athlete in his right mind would do what you're suggesting. For the simplest reason in the world, because it's against their self-interest. If the athletes play badly they're more likely to get cut. And the team that picks them up will decide on the contract terms by looking at the film. They stand a very good chance of losing huge gobs of cash. They will not do that. It simply won't happen. The athletes will give their all. The front office can make decisions that would reduce the odds of the team winning in the short run. Which they didn't do. If they had decided to do that, Tyrod and Kyle Williams would simply not be on this team. I'd love a two-win season. And they could probably have arranged that by cutting Tyrod and Kyle and McCoy and not re-signing the elderly Lorax. I wish they had done this, but they didn't. . First off, in order for a mid-pack or better team to land the first draft pick by tanking, they would have to do something blatant like literally selling off their best players or firing their coaching staff during TC. It would be the kind of move that would likely bring in the federal government, something that would be an anathema to the NFL. Nonsense on every level. Cleveland just did it. The federal government doesn't give a crap about that sort of thing, and it's happened in the NFL dozens and dozens and dozens of times. If you're a sub-standard team - and the Bills are right now - all you need to do is get rid of your best players, particularly the older ones and particularly the QB, and you wouldn't do this if you had a top ten or twelve QB in the first place. Trade 'em for draft picks if possible. And you could also bring in new schemes on both sides of the ball to ensure the players are still thinking rather than reacting instinctually. Could the team then pick the wrong guy? Of course they could. There's no way to guarantee success. If there were, everyone would do it. There are only ways to improve your chances. And doing a complete rebuild is one of those ways. Right. Since the Bills "re-upped" just fine after they picked fourth in 2001 and third in 2011, I have every confidence that they will make the right picks after tanking in 2017. Would you also be interested in a slightly used but recently rehabbed bridge over Chautauqua Lake that I have for sale? He said "put us in a position to re-up." He didn't say, "guarantee that we will be able to re-up." Doing a complete rebuild gives you a better chance. Nothing gives you a guarantee. But again, it just isn't happening. Not worth even talking about it, really. Edited June 27, 2017 by Thurman#1
Thurman#1 Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 (edited) As unpopular as my opinion is, when the Bills gave Tyrod Taylor his new contract, that's when I saw the writing on the wall for a tank. They have guaranteed themselves a bottom tier passing game going into a painfully difficult schedule. You're missing the point. I'm no Tyrod fan. I don't think he'll ever be a franchise QB. But whatever else Tyrod is he's our absolute best option at QB .... this year. Is there a possibility that will change if one of the other three makes massive improvements? Sure. Around a 5% chance, maybe. Or Tyrod could be injured. But what it looks like now is that keeping Tyrod was keeping our best QB - for this year at least - right here at OBD. And keeping your best option at QB on the roster is the exact opposite of what a team that wanted to tank would do. Edited June 27, 2017 by Thurman#1
Gugny Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 You're missing the point. I'm no Tyrod fan. I don't think he'll ever be a franchise QB. But whatever else Tyrod is he's our absolute best option at QB .... this year. Is there a possibility that will change if one of the other three makes massive improvements? Sure. Around a 5% chance, maybe. Or Tyrod could be injured. But what it looks like now is that keeping Tyrod was keeping our best QB - for this year at least - right here at OBD. And keeping your best option at QB on the roster is the exact opposite of what a team that wanted to tank would do. I'm not missing anything. We just choose to interpret it differently. You think the Bills paid Tyrod because he was their best option to win. I think the Bills paid Tyrod because he was their best option to secure a crappy passing game. Some might say both of us are correct.
PolishDave Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 We already have 2... I wouldn't mind a third... Please explain the problem you'd have with that, Dave. The problem I have is with your ridiculous exaggeration that by tanking the Bills will be able to fill their roster with 1st and second round picks. The only significant positive in tanking is a higher first round pick. You aren't filling the team with 1st and second rounders regardless of how hard you tank. Your reason for tanking is based on something that is completely imaginary. It is entirely illogical.
DaBillsFanSince1973 Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 (edited) I see a few hell bent on their tanking philosophy are going to be very disappointed when they don't, or will they? tanking is not happening, you can bank on that! Edited June 27, 2017 by DaBillsFanSince1973
SoTier Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 Nonsense on every level. Cleveland just did it. The federal government doesn't give a crap about that sort of thing, and it's happened in the NFL dozens and dozens and dozens of times. If you're a sub-standard team - and the Bills are right now - all you need to do is get rid of your best players, particularly the older ones and particularly the QB, and you wouldn't do this if you had a top ten or twelve QB in the first place. Trade 'em for draft picks if possible. And you could also bring in new schemes on both sides of the ball to ensure the players are still thinking rather than reacting instinctually. Cleveland hasn't been a "mid-pack or better" team in at least a decade, and they've proven that bad ownership/FO incompetence practically guarantees failure in the draft even when picking high. How the hell can a team that won 3 games in 2015 and 1 in 2016 (and has had 1 season with more than 5 wins since 2007) be accused of "tanking" in 2017? Since 1999, the Browns have had the #1 pick in 1999, 2000, and 2017 plus they've traded away the #1 pick at least once (2016). They also drafted in the top three three more times and had two first round picks threes times and three first round picks once (2017). They've drafted 4 QBs in the first round: Tim Couch (1999), Brady Quinn (2007), Brandon Weeden (2012), and Johnny Manziel (2014), all busts. They had 5 first round picks in the 2014, 2015, and 2016 drafts but they still managed to win exactly 1 game in 2017. So much for the power of the draft to lift an incompetent organization even into the middle of the pack, and in case you didn't realize it, the Bills FO has proven to be only marginally better than the Browns.
CommonCents Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 I see a few hell bent on their tanking philosophy are going to be very disappointed when they don't, or will they? tanking is not happening, you can bank on that! Neither is 10 wins! Another season of circling the drain, hopefully by the latter part of the season we see some progress for the future.
Doc Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 I'm not missing anything. We just choose to interpret it differently. You think the Bills paid Tyrod because he was their best option to win. I think the Bills paid Tyrod because he was their best option to secure a crappy passing game. Some might say both of us are correct. Huh?
BarleyNY Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 I'd like to add/clarify something at this point concerning the Bills direction this season. They're playing the long game this offseason. They're not trying to maximize wins in 2017. They aren't tanking either. They're trying to be competitive and still build longterm. It's what makes sense. They couldn't sell an obvious tank to the fans and due how many of the larger contracts are structured it wasn't even really possible. So they're filling some holes with long term free agents like Hyde while starting to get their cap in order. They acquired extra draft capital next season. They kept their best option at QB for 2017 at a reduced price, but also added two QBs - one each for backup and development. I expect them to give Peterman a look later in the season to see how that development is coming along. The Bills aren't going to the playoffs in 2017, but it could be the start of a successful longterm build. Theres no guarantees, but that's how successful teams do it and that's encouraging to me.
DaBillsFanSince1973 Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 Neither is 10 wins! Another season of circling the drain, hopefully by the latter part of the season we see some progress for the future. I'd bet on ten wins before I'd bank on tanking. nor do I see "circling the drain" but that's how I see it. think tank. think circling the drain. think ten wins. we shall see.
Doc Posted June 27, 2017 Posted June 27, 2017 I'd like to add/clarify something at this point concerning the Bills direction this season. They're playing the long game this offseason. They're not trying to maximize wins in 2017. They aren't tanking either. They're trying to be competitive and still build longterm. It's what makes sense. They couldn't sell an obvious tank to the fans and due how many of the larger contracts are structured it wasn't even really possible. So they're filling some holes with long term free agents like Hyde while starting to get their cap in order. They acquired extra draft capital next season. They kept their best option at QB for 2017 at a reduced price, but also added two QBs - one each for backup and development. I expect them to give Peterman a look later in the season to see how that development is coming along. The Bills aren't going to the playoffs in 2017, but it could be the start of a successful longterm build. Theres no guarantees, but that's how successful teams do it and that's encouraging to me. I don't know if I would agree with that one.
#34fan Posted June 27, 2017 Author Posted June 27, 2017 (edited) The problem I have is with your ridiculous exaggeration that by tanking the Bills will be able to fill their roster with 1st and second round picks. The only significant positive in tanking is a higher first round pick. You aren't filling the team with 1st and second rounders regardless of how hard you tank. Your reason for tanking is based on something that is completely imaginary. It is entirely illogical. A pair of first round picks next year (one relatively high) gets the ball rolling in a big way... Especially if your FQB or FDT is there... Filling those two spots early is a desirable situation for any HC/GM combo. -Especially a new one... If your guys aren't there, a trade-down scenario helps the team amass picks... The "tank" will hurt for one season, and then it will be over... Sure it's a risk... But the most foolish risk, is never taking one at all.. I think we'd be okay. Edited June 27, 2017 by #34fan
Recommended Posts