Article: "If the Bills Aren't Tanking, What Are They Doing?&#3

[Gugny]

There's a thread titled SI article that was just started a a bit ago. That has it. Briefly, I think McD wants a mindset, from the time you get out of your car to the time you leave for home, whether it be practice, film study, game day. I think Shaw captured it pretty well above.

 

Thanks!

[Boatdrinks]

Lordy, are you ever repetitive. Can you ever have a different post than" I hate what McBeane is doing, they are idiots"

 

We get it, we don't need to see it in EVERY SINGLE THREAD

Nor do we need the lap dogs saying " see, see, i think it's gonna work because you know , they have a plan. !" I'd rather see intelligent and objective criticism than wishful thinking.

[DC Tom]

We have to consider the possibility that the Bills plan for this season is nothing more than to !@#$ with Mike Rodak's head.

 

Which might provide more entertainment than the actual games, at this point.

[Big C]

Gilmore is not a team player yet the GOAT signed him to a big contract? Find that hard to believe.

 

Watkins is no different from most receivers. He wants the ball in his hands. He knows how good he is. He's said some stupid things but people forget he just turned 24 YO. He hasn't established himself as OBJ yet but OBJ is 100 times worse and Giants are smart enough not to send him packing for a 2nd or even 1st round pick.

 

I'd be shocked if they are winning next season. They'll most likely have just as much if not more turnover next season with Kyle Williams, Incognito, maybe Shady, maybe Clay, maybe Tyrod and go with a rookie QB.

 

IMO, They will be entering year 3 with a losing record and the pressure on big time.

 

Obviously I'm not a fan of many of the moves made in dropping very good young talent for average players and unknown draft picks but it can all be a moot point if these guys hit on a very good QB which I HOPE is their plan for this coming draft.

 

Stop passing on QBs for Christ sake the position trumps all others by a wide margin.

 

Regarding Gilmore, it's not just price but also an issue of scheme fit. The Patriots defense relies on elite corner play more than ours will. The team player thing is not something I can properly debate because I don't really know if it's true or not.

[reddogblitz]

You're going to see a coincidence in our rebuilding coinciding with most likely the greatest QB ever retiring and leaving our division in the next few years. That will really help with the division being up for grabs and not consistently won by a team with 13+ wins ever year. Every other division in football over the past 15 years has gone through ebbs and flows and changes of dominance, except for ours. Even Green Bay, a considerably dominate team put up an 8-7-1 record and a bunch of 10 win seasons. Do you know how hard it is to compete against: 14-2, 12-4, 12-4, 12-4, 12-4, 13-3, 14-2, 10-6, 11-5, 16-0, 12-4, 10-6, 14-2, 14-2. There's NO ROOM FOR ERROR. Things will change once he's gone. Not just for us, but for everyone in the AFC.

 

Yet throughout all of this, the Jets and Fish have been able to make the playoffs twice each. Fish even won the division one year. Jets would have been 3 if not for Leodis. Heck, we could have made it last year if we only had a D. That's not Tommy's fault.

 

And in games where Tommy hasn't played, the Patsies** are 13-6. As long as Bill Bellyache and the culture of cheat stays there will be no relief in sight IMHO.

 

It's not a valid reason/excuse.

Edited September 7, 2017 by reddogblitz

[DrDawkinstein]

Yet throughout all of this, the Jets and Fish have been able to make the playoffs twice each. Fish even won the division one year. Jets would have been 3 if not for Leodis. Heck, we could have made it last year if we only had a D. That's not Tommy's fault.

 

And in games where Tommy hasn't played, the Patsies** are 13-6. As long as Bill Bellyache and the culture of cheat stays there will be no relief in sight IMHO.

 

It's not a valid reason/excuse.

 

Yep, exactly. And this is coming from someone who made that same excuse for the Bills as recently as last year.

 

And then I watched the Dolphins make the playoffs with a 1st year head coach. That was the end of that excuse.

 

It is definitely more difficult for the Bills/Jets/Dolphins. We have to basically hope for a Wild Card. But it is possible to still get in. That's been proven.

[quinnearlysghost88]

Yet throughout all of this, the Jets and Fish have been able to make the playoffs twice each. Fish even won the division one year. Jets would have been 3 if not for Leodis. Heck, we could have made it last year if we only had a D. That's not Tommy's fault.

 

And in games where Tommy hasn't played, the Patsies** are 13-6. As long as Bill Bellyache and the culture of cheat stays there will be no relief in sight IMHO.

 

It's not a valid reason/excuse.

You're all over the place with your argument. They're 13-6 without Tom, because he missed an entire season where they went 11-5, and still missed the playoffs. The other 3-1 was the beginning of last season, where we gave them the 1, shutting them out. Tom's the issue.

 

Also take a look at the divisional winners since 2002 in the NFL...tons of parody in every division but ours. Has Leodis been playing on the Dolphins, Jets, and Bills every year for the past 15 years?

 

http://packers.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_National_Football_Conference_division_winners

 

http://packers.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_American_Football_Conference_division_winners

in the last 15 years, NE has won the division 13 times. The next closest two teams are GB and Indy with four fewer division titles (9). Then Seahawks (8). Then Broncos, Eagles, and Steelers (6). Finally, Carolina 5.

 

13 out of 15 years is dominant. This isn't excuse making, this is fact, they're dominant. Throw out the season where Tom's knee is turned into mush opening day, and the number is probably 14 out of 15.

Edited September 7, 2017 by quinnearlysghost88

[Marv's Neighbor]

They're not tanking, more like twerking.

[Shaw66]

 

Great post! This is by far the most plausible explanation I've seen for what the Bills' plan actually is. Hopefully it works out, but I'll believe it when I see it.

It IS the explanation. Like you, I don't know if it's a good idea, but it seems pretty clear that's what they're doing.

[reddogblitz]

You're all over the place with your argument. They're 13-6 without Tom, because he missed an entire season where they went 11-5, and still missed the playoffs. The other 3-1 was the beginning of last season, where we gave them the 1, shutting them out. Tom's the issue.

 

How so? 13-6 is 13-6. And yes they did miss the playoffs without Tommy, but they did go 11-5. That doesn't happen very often.

 

Think about it, Bill Bellyache and the culture of cheat are 13-6 with Cassell, Garapalo, and Brisket. When Tommy leaves, if Bill Bellyache stays, they'll plug in the next man up and roll on.

 

We only play 2 games a year vs them. We could go 14-2 and win the division if our problem not making the playoffs rested on Tommy's shoulders alone.

 

We've split with them a few times but still lost to the Fish and Jets twice (last year) and a bad Raiders team (2015). That's why we're not making the playoffs.

[Guest NeckBeard]

It IS the explanation. Like you, I don't know if it's a good idea, but it seems pretty clear that's what they're doing.

 

Shaw, while I am not a fan of tanking, maybe McBeane pitched the idea to ownership that they needed to start over, and if they could get decent draft picks by trading certain players, then they would entertain that to rebuild the team over X amount of time. Yes, ideally, a new HC/GM would not want to start flaccid out of the gate, but one wonders if it could be by design, and by all accounts the Bills are hardly an ideal team. ;-)

Edited September 7, 2017 by NeckBeard

[oldmanfan]

 

Shaw, while I am not a fan of tanking, maybe McBeane pitched the idea to ownership that they needed to start over, and if they could get decent draft picks by trading certain players, then they would entertain that to rebuild the team over X amount of time. Yes, ideally, a new HC/GM would not want to start flaccid out of the gate, but one wonders if it could be by design, and by all accounts the Bills are hardly an ideal team. ;-)

I think you may be partly right. I believe they intend to be competitive this season, but also have a plan for the long term as they have said. But it would not surprise me in the least if both McD and Beane told Pegula something like Polian did withRalph when he took over. Polian basically toldRalph he needed better players, and he had to open up his wallet. And we know what happened. I'll bet the new regime told Terry he needs a commitment to certain type players and he doesn't have enough of them.

[Shaw66]

Gilmore is not a team player yet the GOAT signed him to a big contract? Find that hard to believe.

 

Watkins is no different from most receivers. He wants the ball in his hands. He knows how good he is. He's said some stupid things but people forget he just turned 24 YO. He hasn't established himself as OBJ yet but OBJ is 100 times worse and Giants are smart enough not to send him packing for a 2nd or even 1st round pick.

 

I'd be shocked if they are winning next season. They'll most likely have just as much if not more turnover next season with Kyle Williams, Incognito, maybe Shady, maybe Clay, maybe Tyrod and go with a rookie QB.

 

IMO, They will be entering year 3 with a losing record and the pressure on big time.

 

Obviously I'm not a fan of many of the moves made in dropping very good young talent for average players and unknown draft picks but it can all be a moot point if these guys hit on a very good QB which I HOPE is their plan for this coming draft.

 

Stop passing on QBs for Christ sake the position trumps all others by a wide margin.

Good stuff. Thanks.

 

Don't take the fact that Belichick took Gilmore as an endorsement. Belichick takes all kinds of guys and gives them a try - if they don't work out, he gets rid of them He took Moss, who was a certifiable head case. He picks up guys, unloads them, and takes them back.

 

I head from an insider that Gilmore wasn't a team guy, which is why I said what I said.

 

I really liked Watkins - the guy is special. And he hasn't played. But the real point is that as I said, Beane's and McD's philosophy obviously is not to spend a lot of talent on the outside. It's obvious - in one off-season, they got rid of Gilmore, Watkins and Darby, all of whom were going to cost a lot of money to keep. You may disagree, which is fine, everyone's entitled to an opinion about how to build a team. Theirs, which isn't unusual, is that spending money on wideouts and corners isn't wise. Spend it on linemen and quarterbacks.

 

You certainly could be right about going into year three with a losing record. It's possible. But if that happens, it will be because McD is failing. He has a decent offensive line and he has a good defensive line. If you have two good lines and you can coach, you should win. That, in fact, is why Rex got fired. The league is about coaching, and the Bills have enough talent to win games.

 

They probably don't have a QB, so they aren't going to win a lot, but if Tyrod is healthy it's enough talent to go 8-8. They did it with Rex, and they should be able to do it with McD. If not, the Bills hired the wrong coach, again.

 

Shaw, while I am not a fan of tanking, maybe McBeane pitched the idea to ownership that they needed to start over, and if they could get decent draft picks by trading certain players, then they would entertain that to rebuild the team over X amount of time. Yes, ideally, a new HC/GM would not want to start flaccid out of the gate, but one wonders if it could be by design, and by all accounts the Bills are hardly an ideal team. ;-)

I don't think so. If they were tanking, they would have unloaded Shady and Dareus. They could have gotten a couple more good picks.

 

I don't think they're tanking. They got rid of Watkins and Darby early, because they knew they wouldn't re-sign them, so they should get value for them when they could.

[Guest NeckBeard]

Good stuff. Thanks.

 

Don't take the fact that Belichick took Gilmore as an endorsement. Belichick takes all kinds of guys and gives them a try - if they don't work out, he gets rid of them He took Moss, who was a certifiable head case. He picks up guys, unloads them, and takes them back.

 

I head from an insider that Gilmore wasn't a team guy, which is why I said what I said.

 

I really liked Watkins - the guy is special. And he hasn't played. But the real point is that as I said, Beane's and McD's philosophy obviously is not to spend a lot of talent on the outside. It's obvious - in one off-season, they got rid of Gilmore, Watkins and Darby, all of whom were going to cost a lot of money to keep. You may disagree, which is fine, everyone's entitled to an opinion about how to build a team. Theirs, which isn't unusual, is that spending money on wideouts and corners isn't wise. Spend it on linemen and quarterbacks.

 

You certainly could be right about going into year three with a losing record. It's possible. But if that happens, it will be because McD is failing. He has a decent offensive line and he has a good defensive line. If you have two good lines and you can coach, you should win. That, in fact, is why Rex got fired. The league is about coaching, and the Bills have enough talent to win games.

 

They probably don't have a QB, so they aren't going to win a lot, but if Tyrod is healthy it's enough talent to go 8-8. They did it with Rex, and they should be able to do it with McD. If not, the Bills hired the wrong coach, again.

I don't think so. If they were tanking, they would have unloaded Shady and Dareus. They could have gotten a couple more good picks.

 

I don't think they're tanking. They got rid of Watkins and Darby early, because they knew they wouldn't re-sign them, so they should get value for them when they could.

 

I didn't say they were tanking at all. And I don't know if you can actually unload Dareus and his monstrosity of a contract. In fact, months ago you quibbled when I said that they were rebuilding. Jeez, Shaw!

[Shaw66]

 

I didn't say they were tanking at all. And I don't know if you can actually unload Dareus and his monstrosity of a contract. In fact, months ago you quibbled when I said that they were rebuilding. Jeez, Shaw!

Sorry. You're right. You didn't say they were tanking. I missed that.

 

But I don't think they're rebuilding, in the classic sense of that word. Rebuilding to me means they're starting over, and I don't think they are. Rebuilding would mean getting ride of core players, and they aren't doing that.

 

I'm sure you're right in one sense. I'm sure they went to the Pegulas and said "we're going to trade Darby and Watkins." But they're explanation is NOT that they wanted to get draft picks. They're explanation was they are not the kind of guys we want on the team, and if we trade them now we can get pretty good value for them.

Scott -

 

I don't know if you saw this SI piece about the Bills - its the subject of another thread. https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/09/07/buffalo-bills-not-tanking-sean-mcdermott-nfl

 

King or whoever says the same thing I said about Watkins and Darby. For one reason or another, Beane and McD decided they weren't the kind of guys they want on their team, because their philosophy is about more than just talent. May be right, may be wrong, but it's a philosophy and they're going to stick with it.

 

Parcells was the same way. If you were his kind of guy, he kept you. If you weren't, even if you were talented, you were gone.

[Guest NeckBeard]

Sorry. You're right. You didn't say they were tanking. I missed that.

 

But I don't think they're rebuilding, in the classic sense of that word. Rebuilding to me means they're starting over, and I don't think they are. Rebuilding would mean getting ride of core players, and they aren't doing that.

 

I'm sure you're right in one sense. I'm sure they went to the Pegulas and said "we're going to trade Darby and Watkins." But they're explanation is NOT that they wanted to get draft picks. They're explanation was they are not the kind of guys we want on the team, and if we trade them now we can get pretty good value for them.

Scott -

 

I don't know if you saw this SI piece about the Bills - its the subject of another thread. https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/09/07/buffalo-bills-not-tanking-sean-mcdermott-nfl

 

King or whoever says the same thing I said about Watkins and Darby. For one reason or another, Beane and McD decided they weren't the kind of guys they want on their team, because their philosophy is about more than just talent. May be right, may be wrong, but it's a philosophy and they're going to stick with it.

 

Parcells was the same way. If you were his kind of guy, he kept you. If you weren't, even if you were talented, you were gone.

 

This is where we disagree. I have a background in engineering, and now I sell technology for a living. It's not unheard of for me to roll up to a prospective customer, understand their needs, tell them why they need to start over, and at what cost, and why they should buy our solution. This is not out of bounds; in fact, the vast majority of deals I've closed have been focused on exactly this. If a customer can rip and replace (an existing bad solution) at a lower cost, and with defined markers for success, then they will always do it.

 

Nobody knows what lead to the Darby and Watkins trades. I know what they SAID had taken place, but nobody knows exactly the dialog McBeane had with ownership. It's possible that they shopped McCoy, too, and when that didn't work out, they had to reassure him that he was good. Again, it's impossible for me to believe that anybody would take Dareus.

 

I think that a lot of evidence exists in (same) ownership's handling of the Sabres. Former regime promised something, and it didn't work out, so they retooled yet again with new people, to yet unknown results. The most logical conclusion, to me at least, is that the new regime laid out a plan for rebuilding the Bills, and they are going to be held to it.

Edited September 7, 2017 by NeckBeard

[Shaw66]

 

This is where we disagree. I have a background in engineering, and now I sell technology for a living. It's not unheard of for me to roll up to a prospective customer, understand their needs, tell them why they need to start over, and at what cost, and why they should buy our solution. This is not out of bounds; in fact, the vast majority of deals I've closed have been focused on exactly this. If a customer can rip and replace (an existing bad solution) at a lower cost, and with defined markers for success, then they will always do it.

 

Nobody knows what lead to the Darby and Watkins trades. I know what they SAID had taken place, but nobody knows exactly the dialog McBeane had with ownership. It's possible that they shopped McCoy, too, and when that didn't work out, they had to reassure him that he was good. Again, it's impossible for me to believe that anybody would take Dareus.

 

I think that a lot of evidence exists in (same) ownership's handling of the Sabres. Former regime promised something, and it didn't work out, so they retooled yet again with new people, to yet unknown results. The most logical conclusion, to me at least, is that the new regime laid out a plan for rebuilding the Bills, and they are going to be held to it.

I don't disagree with this. Every new GM comes in and says he's going to make changes. Every new coach does, too. They wouldn't have been hired if they intended to do the same thing the old guys did. But that doesn't mean they're going to rebuild. Gailey came in and made changes. Marrone did, Rex did. But none of those were considered rebuilds.

 

A rebuild is, I believe, when you start with a new core. Just as you described - rip out the old thing because it wasn't working and replace it. But that isn't what's happened here so far. They kept the entire offensive and defensive lines, and that's the core of the team. And they kept the QB and the running back.

 

Frankly, I think all that's really happened is that people have been rankled because Watkins, a potential star, was dealt. That's the only big change. The second thing was Gilmore, but Gilmore wouldn't have hurt so much if he'd gone anyplace but New England.

 

Other than those two players, this team is going forward with last year's talent. Didn't re-sign a linebacker, but that's the kind of thing that happens every year. Let an old safety go.

 

This leadership hasn't ripped the team apart in order to start over. This leadership intends to win with the current talent and build from there.

[oldmanfan]

I said earlier that they are doing exactly what they said they're doing: they want to be competitive short term and plan for sustained competitiveness long term. To do that based on their experience seeing winning organizations they have a plan or process they feel will do that. The plan means certain guys will be kept , certain guys moved, and certain guys drafted.

 

I understand the frustration of 17 years. Other than '64 and '65 I've been frustrated for 57 years. But it seems there is a jump to not believing what these guys are saying as if there is some sinister plot to hoodwink people, and that is likely due to frustration from the past. Rather than tar them with the same brush, let's see how their plan works.

[Shaw66]

I said earlier that they are doing exactly what they said they're doing: they want to be competitive short term and plan for sustained competitiveness long term. To do that based on their experience seeing winning organizations they have a plan or process they feel will do that. The plan means certain guys will be kept , certain guys moved, and certain guys drafted.

I understand the frustration of 17 years. Other than '64 and '65 I've been frustrated for 57 years. But it seems there is a jump to not believing what these guys are saying as if there is some sinister plot to hoodwink people, and that is likely due to frustration from the past. Rather than tar them with the same brush, let's see how their plan works.

Exactly.

 

And none of likes to see a star go. So there's frustration with that too.

[Cash]

It IS the explanation. Like you, I don't know if it's a good idea, but it seems pretty clear that's what they're doing.

 

I think you probably hit the nail on the head with your line that McDermott "believes in process over talent." And that worries me. Because while I think that's true to some extent, I worry that McDermott thinks that if everyone fully believes in wrestling mats and camo hats, it will turn Ramon Humber into Lavonte David. The wrong culture/leadership can ruin even the most talented team. But even the best possible process needs a certain level of talent to work out. My concern is that, if the team does terribly this year, it will be even harder next year to get guys to "buy in". No one wants to hop on board a sinking ship. On the flip side, if the team looks good this year, it'll be easier to get guys to buy in next year, and success can breed success.

 

The other thing that concerns me is that this roster has basically no young talent to build around. This year's draft picks, sure, but every team has a full draft class right now - that's no advantage for us. Most of our younger players are either terrible, unproven, or in the last year of their contract. I guess our "young core" would be next year's draft, but only if we don't package those picks to move up for a QB. (I hope we don't.) In some ways, it seems to me like we're in Year Zero of a rebuild.

 

 

I think you probably hit the nail on the head with your line that McDermott "believes in process over talent." And that worries me. Because while I think that's true to some extent, I worry that McDermott thinks that if everyone fully believes in wrestling mats and camo hats, it will turn Ramon Humber into Lavonte David. The wrong culture/leadership can ruin even the most talented team. But even the best possible process needs a certain level of talent to work out.