THE ROCKPILE REVIEW - Ramblings of a Madman

[Shaw66]

12 minutes ago, grb said:

 

That's a pretty good summary, but I'd add this : The team traded off your primary target, only true number-one receiver and sole deep threat. Taylor made a point of saying his contract renegotiation allowed the team to add weapons. Now, I concede that was largely spin : He wasn't going to get long-term money elsewhere and a short term deal with the Bills set him up to play for a future deal. The team's offense in 2016 had performed reasonably well, and Taylor had to think that was a good foundation to shine this season. Instead, the new OC changes the run / blocking scheme, which (along with injuries) left the running attack a shell of it's former self. And the front office sold off talent in a fire sale, including Watkins - Taylor's main guy. Add weapons? Not a bit. Taylor may well believe he was played for a fool.

I agree.   I didn't go there because I'm shooting my mouth off too much any way, and there's a contrary argument that Matthews and Benjamin might be better for Taylor, given that they're two really good receivers to throw to when they're covered.   Still, I agree with you.   Remember, McCoy called Watkins the "Ferrari" for a reason, and every time the Ferrari was on the field, Taylor showed he knew what to do with him.   

 

It'll take a miracle for Taylor to stay.   Now, some people will say "fine, he should have been gone by now anyway and Prescott or Watson should have been the starter."  I get that.  But given where the Bills were two weeks ago, the best future for the Bills over the next three years was to build a team around Taylor.   That option is now gone.  

Edited November 22, 2017 by Shaw66

[y2zipper]

4 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I can argue with minor points, but overall what you say sounds right.  I've been blind to it for six months while some people have been saying it, but it very much looks like you say.

 

I defended Jauron for a long time, and I'll defend him here.   I think Jauron was a really smart guy with the wrong philosophy.   He was almost hopelessly conservative.   Now, maybe, if presented with a top-notch philosophy he would have a taken a different approach, but I think that conservatism was in his blood.  

 

BUT - I'll say this.   Jauron's teams never got blown out like the Bills have been for three weeks running.   Maybe Jauron's boys got run out of the stadium once in a while when they were playing the league's juggernaut, but other than that his teams actually stayed in the game.   This team hasn't forced a punt in 22 possessions.   Two 4-6 teams have beaten the Bills just as soundly as an 8-2 beat them.   That didn't happen to Jauron teams. 

 

I've gotten extraordinarily pessimistic about this coach very quickly.   Last week I said that before the Jets game McDermott was a leader in the race for coach of the year.   After the Saints game, he would be a shoe-in for coach of the year if he could turn it around and get to the playoffs.    Turning this around this season will take nothing short of a miracle.   Right now you have to conclude that McDermott is MUCH closer to failing as a head coach than taking a team to a Super Bowl.   

 

This echos my concern with the coaching regime. Getting blown out so much is more than a talent problem. This season it appears that teams have diagnosed the system and McDermott doesn't know how to adjust to what the other teams are doing. This and the lack of competitiveness are why I would say McDermott is coaching for his job right now. These things just don't take that much time.

 

 

[Shaw66]

6 minutes ago, y2zipper said:

 

This echos my concern with the coaching regime. Getting blown out so much is more than a talent problem. This season it appears that teams have diagnosed the system and McDermott doesn't know how to adjust to what the other teams are doing. This and the lack of competitiveness are why I would say McDermott is coaching for his job right now. These things just don't take that much time.

 

 

You may be right, but I don't think he's coaching for his job.   I wrote this somewhere:  I think the Pegulas knew when they hired a young coach and Gm that there were going to be mistakes and they'd have to be patient.   All head coaches say they learned a lot in their first season.   I think you have to give these guys three years, minimum, unless the Bills defense is getting blown off the field most every game between now and midseason 2018.   

[grb]

31 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I agree.   I didn't go there because I'm shooting my mouth off too much any way, and there's a contrary argument that Matthews and Benjamin might be better for Taylor, given that they're two really good receivers to throw to when they're covered.   Still, I agree with you.   Remember, McCoy called Watkins the "Ferrari" for a reason, and every time the Ferrari was on the field, Taylor showed he knew what to do with him.   

 

It'll take a miracle for Taylor to stay.   Now, some people will say "fine, he should have been gone by now anyway and Prescott or Watson should have been the starter."  I get that.  But given where the Bills were two weeks ago, the best future for the Bills over the next three years was to build a team around Watson.   That option is now gone.  

 

A few weeks back I thought it was obvious Taylor would stay. Yes, the Bills would draft a first-round QB regardless, but McBeane wouldn't want to stake his development - and their careers - on throwing him in the pool to learn swimming. Taylor is due a pretty reasonable starter's salary in '18, particularly since there is a pay-out needed to cut ties anyway. It made sense, with the only caveat being Peterman - who might look good enough to bide the team over while their golden boy matured.

 

All that still seems legit, and Peterman look less likely now as a trusted fail-safe. But now I feel Taylor is gone. McBeane will dump Taylor as a matter of face. After all, one of the easiest ways to deal with unease over treating someone like dirt is to continue treating them even worse. That way they "earned" the first go-round. Sordid human psychology 101.  So it will be Peterman, a veteran burnout, and the shiny-new Number One. It might work out - but it could be a disaster. And if things go south, McBeane could find themselves in a bad way. In this millennium I think Bills' coaches and GMs last about 2.75 years on average. 

Edited November 22, 2017 by grb

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, grb said:

 

A few weeks back I thought it was obvious Taylor would stay. Yes, the Bills would draft a first-round QB regardless, but McBeane wouldn't want to stake his development - and their careers - on throwing him in the pool to learn swimming. Taylor is due a pretty reasonable starter's salary in '18, particularly since there is a pay-out needed to cut ties anyway. It made sense, with the only caveat being Peterman - who might look good enough to bide the team over while their golden boy matured.

 

All that still seems legit, and Peterman look less likely now as a trusted fail-safe. But now I feel Taylor is gone. McBeane will dump Taylor as a matter of face. After all, one of the easiest ways to deal with unease over treating someone like dirt is to continue treating them even worse. That way they "earned" the first go-round. Sordid human psychology 101.  So it will be Peterman, a veteran burnout, and the shiny-new Number One. It might work out - but it could be a disaster. And if things go south, McBeane could find themselves in a bad way. In this millennium I think Bills' coaches and GMs last about 2.75 years on average. 

My thinking was similar, except that the scenario a few weeks ago left room for the continuing improvement of Taylor, so that there'd be a QB controversy in 2019 or 2020 - Taylor or the new guy (like Alex Smith and Mahomes).   That's a much better place to be than betting the ranch on the new guy.   Plus, now they have to go up to get a new guy who looks like a starter now, instead of taking a guy later in the first or second and developing him.  

[Hapless Bills Fan]

On 11/21/2017 at 8:33 AM, mead107 said:

To the pit of misery.  Dilly Dilly 

 

May we re-name New Era Field and try to take it viral?

 

New Era Field is now Pit of Misery.

 

Dilly Dilly.

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

May we re-name New Era Field and try to take it viral?

 

New Era Field is now Pit of Misery.

 

Dilly Dilly.

I like it!   We can start it right here.   From now it's the Pit of Misery for me!

[BadLandsMeanie]

I'm sorry that you had to endure the horrors on the road to where you are at Shaw. But I like this change in you!

[Shaw66]

1 minute ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

I'm sorry that you had to endure the horrors on the road to where you are at Shaw. But I like this change in you!

Wouldn't you prefer if the Bills were 7-3 and we all were happy?

 

Next week I drive 6 and half hours to see the Patriots.   What a joy. 

[BadLandsMeanie]

13 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Wouldn't you prefer if the Bills were 7-3 and we all were happy?

 

Next week I drive 6 and half hours to see the Patriots.   What a joy. 

Yes very much so.

But since we are of the Untouchable caste, figuratively speaking among NFL fans, accept and adapt is my strategy. 

 

I have had the impression that you have been very unwilling to question authority or expertise when it comes to the Bills and their coaches.

 

I like it better when you don't set your opinion aside as automatically less valid.

 

Rock on Shaw I say!

 

PS That Pats are going to slaughter us. Better I think to just enjoy watching one of the greatest of all time perform surgery on our secondary live and in person.  I did that once so I am not saying you should do it but I couldn't. And it is a lifetime fond memory just having got to watch him because he is so good at that.

Edited November 23, 2017 by BadLandsMeanie

[Shaw66]

14 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

Yes very much so.

But since we are of the Untouchable caste, figuratively speaking among NFL fans, accept and adapt is my strategy. 

 

I have had the impression that you have been very unwilling to question authority or expertise when it comes to the Bills and their coaches.

 

I like it better when you don't set your opinion aside as automatically less valid.

 

Rock on Shaw I say!

 

PS That Pats are going to slaughter us. Better I think to just enjoy watching one of the greatest of all time perform surgery on our secondary live and in person.  I did that once so I am not saying you should do it but I couldn't. And it is a lifetime fond memory just having got to watch him because he is so good at that.

I think you and others misunderstand me.   Yes, it's true I tend to put a lot of confidence in coaching and management, because I've learned over the years that people with experience generally are better in their field than people without experience.   Like Clinton, Obama and Trump, all amateurs who stumbled along in the White House, trying to figure it out.  

 

So what I generally try to do is try to figure out why a rational person with a lot of experience as a head football coach would decide to do what he did.   In most cases I come up with a theory that I'm comfortable explains why he did it.   That doesn't mean what the coach did was right; it just means I have some insight into why he did it.   

 

As we've talked about the Peterman start, the awful three-game performance and the Dareus and Benjamin trades, I've concluded there simply isn't a rational explanation for all of that other than horribly bad judgment.    I'll repeat what I've been saying:

 

It looked to me that what Beane and McDermott were doing was following a plan that went like this:   Teach guys the system this year, while they're weeding out some guys who don't fit.   In the process of weeding, pick up some draft picks.   Next May, use the picks to fill several holes.   Along the way, pick up a QB prospect, but plan to play Taylor in 2018 and, if all goes well, in 2019 and 2020.   When they conclude Taylor has hit his ceiling, decide whether to move on or not.   Their hope and expectation was to build from 7-9 or so into a playoff team.   If they got there this year, great, but if it took another year, that's fine.  

 

I know there are plenty of people who didn't like that plan, because they want Taylor gone.  But that was the only rational plan I could see short of blowing things up, and it seemed to be McD and Bean were on that path.    

 

What they've done, I think, is burn the live-with-Tyrod bridge, which means they need a QB now, which means they don't get to fill the holes because they have to seriously consider moving up in the draft next May.  If they do that, they don't have the capital to fill the holes.  That seems to me to be a much worse plan.   

In short, until they benched Tyrod, they had left themselves the option of moving forward with Taylor.  It's always better to have options.   

[BadLandsMeanie]

2 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I think you and others misunderstand me.   Yes, it's true I tend to put a lot of confidence in coaching and management, because I've learned over the years that people with experience generally are better in their field than people without experience.   Like Clinton, Obama and Trump, all amateurs who stumbled along in the White House, trying to figure it out.  

 

So what I generally try to do is try to figure out why a rational person with a lot of experience as a head football coach would decide to do what he did.   In most cases I come up with a theory that I'm comfortable explains why he did it.   That doesn't mean what the coach did was right; it just means I have some insight into why he did it.   

 

As we've talked about the Peterman start, the awful three-game performance and the Dareus and Benjamin trades, I've concluded there simply isn't a rational explanation for all of that other than horribly bad judgment.    I'll repeat what I've been saying:

 

It looked to me that what Beane and McDermott were doing was following a plan that went like this:   Teach guys the system this year, while they're weeding out some guys who don't fit.   In the process of weeding, pick up some draft picks.   Next May, use the picks to fill several holes.   Along the way, pick up a QB prospect, but plan to play Taylor in 2018 and, if all goes well, in 2019 and 2020.   When they conclude Taylor has hit his ceiling, decide whether to move on or not.   Their hope and expectation was to build from 7-9 or so into a playoff team.   If they got there this year, great, but if it took another year, that's fine.  

 

I know there are plenty of people who didn't like that plan, because they want Taylor gone.  But that was the only rational plan I could see short of blowing things up, and it seemed to be McD and Bean were on that path.    

 

What they've done, I think, is burn the live-with-Tyrod bridge, which means they need a QB now, which means they don't get to fill the holes because they have to seriously consider moving up in the draft next May.  If they do that, they don't have the capital to fill the holes.  That seems to me to be a much worse plan.   

In short, until they benched Tyrod, they had left themselves the option of moving forward with Taylor.  It's always better to have options.   

 

I know your take on what you do. I understand that and you have said it before so it isn't new to me.

 

You might say you construct a theory that fits the facts  that we know.

 

I think you are more like a defense attorney. You have a built in approach that the client is innocent. And you construct a story incorporating the known facts that supports that conclusion. Those are similar but not the same.

 

For whatever it is worth I thought the plan was to have Peterman start next year and have the QB they get this year learn behind him. It is 16 million dollars cheaper and lets them assemble a roster that fits their vision for the offense.  It also gives them two guys who might win out as a long term starter instead of just teh one they draft this year.

 

I think that plan, if it ever was a plan,  is in trouble too.

[Ayjent]

12 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I never really thought much about it, but I think you're absolutely correct about this.   Fans complained that Jauron's philosophy was "playing not to lose," and McDermott is very much in the same mold.   Bend don't dreak defense, conservative offense to run the clock, keep the game close so that you have a shot to win in the end.   In retrospect, the Jaguars game told us all we needed to know.   McDermott didn't open up the offense until literally the last drive or two.  It was completely clear that he was content to be behind so long as he trailed by less than two scores.   Then, late in the game, he opened up the offense and the Bills actually threatened to tie it.   In the following weeks, we saw the same things.  

 

That's a good philosophy to follow when your team isn't competitive in the talent category.    Play conservatively and hope for something good to happen.   Maybe that's all that happened in the first seven games:  maybe the Bills were just lucky, catching the Falcons when they were stumbling around, catching Denver when THEIR wheels were falling off.  Maybe it was just luck.   And maybe Beane and McD knew it.   And maybe they traded Dareus intending to tank.   And maybe they started Peterman because they  knew the season already was in the crapper.   I'd be okay with that, but then why in the world would you trade a second for Benjamin?   If you believe you're in total rebuild mode, you don't make that move.  

 

You know what's really maddening about this, from the offensive side?   Rex comes in and says it's going to be ground and pound.   He brings in a run-oriented offensive coordinator.   One game into his second season, he fires the offensive coordinator, the Bills open up the offense, at least relatively speaking, and the offense flourishes, at least relatively speaking.  McD comes in and brings in a run-oriented offensive coordinator who takes away much of what Taylor does best and asks him to succeed doing the things he isn't so so good at.   And what is that ?  It's staying in the pocket.   And you know what's amazing about that?   Look around the league - offensive lines all over the league are struggling to protect their QBs in the pocket, and everyone is saying you need a mobile QB to win.  New England is the only exception.   Rodgers, Brees, Luck, Mariota, Tannehill, Wilson, Watson, Smith - those are the kind of QBs everyone wants.   Eli, Palmer, Flacco - those are the guys you don't want.   So McD brings him an OC and gives him a QB who fits  the current model, and the OC installs an offense designed to restrict the QB's mobility. 

 

Jauron at least had an excuse.   He didn't have a QB.   

Jauronic: playing not to lose with highly motivated, but marginally talented players.  

 

I hate to agree with this line of thought but there is absolutely nothing that is aggressive or adaptive about this team except it’s desire to move players from the previous regime, and it does seem a lot like history repeating itself.  I was skeptical about this hire,especially the staff put together and the jettisoning of players.  Then they looked like they might just know what they are doing collectively although nothing made you feel like things were stable, but we’ve watched the Pats do this smoke and mirror act for years where guys just come together as a team and start playing well together.  maybe we had our own guy capable of that as well...nope. 

[Shaw66]

29 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

 

I know your take on what you do. I understand that and you have said it before so it isn't new to me.

 

You might say you construct a theory that fits the facts  that we know.

 

I think you are more like a defense attorney. You have a built in approach that the client is innocent. And you construct a story incorporating the known facts that supports that conclusion. Those are similar but not the same.

 

For whatever it is worth I thought the plan was to have Peterman start next year and have the QB they get this year learn behind him. It is 16 million dollars cheaper and lets them assemble a roster that fits their vision for the offense.  It also gives them two guys who might win out as a long term starter instead of just teh one they draft this year.

 

I think that plan, if it ever was a plan,  is in trouble too.

Yeah that's a fair characterization of what I do, except when I disagree with my client I say so.  

 

What you say about Peterman is a fair plan not in consistent with what I said.  Go with Taylor and look for your replacement.  

 

I thought they were riding in a motor boat looking for a speed boat.  Peterman might have been the speed boat or some player to be named later.  What McDermot just did is Jump Out of the motor boat with no other boat in sight. I can't defend that. 

Edited November 23, 2017 by Shaw66

[BadLandsMeanie]

21 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Yeah that's a fair characterization of what I do, except when I disagree with my client I say so.  

 

What you say about Peterman is a fair plan not in consistent with what I said.  Go with Taylor and look for your replacement.  

 

I thought they were riding in a motor boat looking for a speed boat.  Peterman might have been the speed boat or some player to be named later.  What McDermot just did is Jump Out of the motor boat with no other boat in sight. I can't defend that. 

If Shaw can't defend it, it must be pretty hard to defend.

 

I think he may have put a monkey on Peterman's back too.

 

If you make a decision like he did, you really have to be right. He was far from right and to do that so early in his tenure was a very risky thing.  I don't see what the payoff he was picturing  would be. If you bet a lot you want to win a lot. Did he suppose Peterman was going to take us the the playoffs? 

 

It seems like he thought he had his speedboat but it turned out to be a rubber duck.

 

Very puzzling. I think as a class of people, NFL players and coaches are really bad at at anticipating and planning for failure. Always thinking positive has a down side. They didn't even seem to have plan for if things started to go wrong for Peterman out there. 

 

Why not wait until our fate was decided and if we were out of "the hunt"  then stick Peterman in there?

 

Oh well. I have signed up for the films I will take a look over the next couple days and see if I spot anything useful.

Edited November 23, 2017 by BadLandsMeanie

[oldmanfan]

Shaw, you are way over exaggerating the consequences of one decision.  If anything can be said about McDermott, it is that he thinks before making decisions.  And he made a decision that he himself referred to as a calculated risk with Peterman.  Why?  Because he felt it gave the team- the team- a better chance to win.  I like TT myself but guys like Benoit on si.com talked about how he was missing open guys.  So he made a decision, and it didn't work out.

 

Now if it were just ego he'd hang with that decision.  But he had the sense to realize the decision was wrong, and now goes back to TT because he realizes putting Peterman back in, in a hostile place like Arrowhead, would be wrong.  And that TT gives them the best chance to win, even given his limitations

 

What about other decisions?  Again it's about team.  And they are consistent with what he and Beane have said for quite a while now; they have a short and a long term view.  So Dareus.  Long term they knew his performance/attitude did not merit his huge cap number.  It may have affected our D now but even when Dareus was not on the field earlier this season they played well.  So given that it did not seem a huge short term risk.  Benjamin?  Simple, had an opportunity to get a big target that helped short and long term, and a guy they knew from Carolina.

 

i question other personnel decisions, like why Ducasse starts.  I'm also not at practice every day.  I question Dennison and his philosophy; I like you would like to see them move TT around.  But I've complained about O coordinators since Buster Ramsey ran things. (And his first choice is now back on the market??).  And for the life of me I can't figure out what happened to the defense.

 

Bottom line going forward is this:  we have a young coach that was on the list of coordinators from the NFL ready for his shot. You have a young GM also ready, and the two are in synch with what they want to do.  Beane said when he got here you can't win without the star QB.  I have no doubt they draft one this year.  And I think they'll sit him behind Peterman next year.  I think they'll also focus on front seven on D and O line in the draft and FA because they know games are won in the trenches.  Beane has amassed a lot of solid personnel guys on his staff, and hopefully that translates to a good draft and good FA picks.  

 

Three weeks ago ago no one was complaining.  Now they've run into a bad stretch.  And the HC made a risky choice last week that didn't pan out.  It won't be the last time either.  Let's let the process work, because ultimately as much as people mock "the process" successful organizations all have processes they define and follow.  Or they're not successful.

[Billsfan1972]

19 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I didn't think he was rebuilding in the classic sense of the word.   I thought he was transitioning.   

 

It's all about Taylor.   I think the Bills could win with Taylor while they were looking for someone better.  As I said, use the six picks in the 2018 draft to get some talent, bring a couple of free agents with the money you're not spending on Gilmore and Watkins and compete in the league.   That approach could have worked over the next season or two AND made the Bills really good by 2020, maybe with Taylor as your quarterback, maybe not.  

 

You can't follow that plan when you know that 2018 will be Tyrod's last season in Buffalo.   Now you MUST go looking for a replacement for him.   That won't be a free agent, so you have to do it in the draft.   So many teams are looking for QBs that now you have to be prepared to burn two or three or four good picks to get a QB NOW so that he can be your starter in 2020.  On top of that, instead of being a team perceived to be on the rise, the Bills are a team perceived to be rebuilding, so their ability to sign quality free agents, and especially quality free agents in the $2-$5 million per year range is diminished.   The only way free agents are coming is if they're getting top dollar from the Bills.   

 

In short, I think the Bills have abandoned a possible route to success and now are a total unknown for the next three years.   Can these guys evaluate talent?  I don't know.   Even near the top of the draft, getting a QB is a crapshoot, so the Bills could draft a guy who turns out to be LESS productive than Tyrod.    The ENTIRE future of the Bills now depends on McDermott and Beane, and ther now are HUGE questions about whether they know they're doing:  How could they not know that Peterman wasn't ready?   How could they not know that they couldn't afford to lose Dareus for the second half of the season?   If they knew their talent was bad and they started Peterman and traded Dareus because they had given up on the season and were looking ahead, how could they decide to give up a valuable pick to add a stud pass receiver to a team going nowhere?   

 

They didn't say they were rebuilding, and I didn't think they were.   But they are now.,  

I feel terrible for not following this thread and continually bogged down in others.

 

Very smart discussion here.

 

I never bought the Beane, McDermott Koolaid.  All I asked was for a chance to see if Taylor was a good Qb.  Putting in an offensive scheme no one run successfully drives me crazy.  The countless posts & threads that I've made explaining that to be good you need a passing offense capable of 250+ yards/wk and not just when trying to come back.

 

I was excited at the idea of Watkins finally being thrown to (4 straight passes in the preseason game) and healthy, a good prospect in Jones, Clay and veteran in Boldin said maybe they were turning the corner.

 

Then they blew it up and started the "Selling the Future" line.  How a team that has been between 7-9 & 9-7 the past # of years sold fans that it is better we go 4-12, then aim for the playoffs (17 years and counting) is preposterous and turned me off the team early this year.

 

The Carolina game was beyond frustrating as Watkins & Boldin definitely would have made a difference (as they too would have vs. Cincy).

 

SO now I'm back to false hope with Tyrod back in that they will be pissed and they'll actually take chances.  

 

Ready to be disappointed again.

[Shaw66]

3 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Shaw, you are way over exaggerating the consequences of one decision.  If anything can be said about McDermott, it is that he thinks before making decisions.  And he made a decision that he himself referred to as a calculated risk with Peterman.  Why?  Because he felt it gave the team- the team- a better chance to win.  I like TT myself but guys like Benoit on si.com talked about how he was missing open guys.  So he made a decision, and it didn't work out.

 

Now if it were just ego he'd hang with that decision.  But he had the sense to realize the decision was wrong, and now goes back to TT because he realizes putting Peterman back in, in a hostile place like Arrowhead, would be wrong.  And that TT gives them the best chance to win, even given his limitations

 

What about other decisions?  Again it's about team.  And they are consistent with what he and Beane have said for quite a while now; they have a short and a long term view.  So Dareus.  Long term they knew his performance/attitude did not merit his huge cap number.  It may have affected our D now but even when Dareus was not on the field earlier this season they played well.  So given that it did not seem a huge short term risk.  Benjamin?  Simple, had an opportunity to get a big target that helped short and long term, and a guy they knew from Carolina.

 

i question other personnel decisions, like why Ducasse starts.  I'm also not at practice every day.  I question Dennison and his philosophy; I like you would like to see them move TT around.  But I've complained about O coordinators since Buster Ramsey ran things. (And his first choice is now back on the market??).  And for the life of me I can't figure out what happened to the defense.

 

Bottom line going forward is this:  we have a young coach that was on the list of coordinators from the NFL ready for his shot. You have a young GM also ready, and the two are in synch with what they want to do.  Beane said when he got here you can't win without the star QB.  I have no doubt they draft one this year.  And I think they'll sit him behind Peterman next year.  I think they'll also focus on front seven on D and O line in the draft and FA because they know games are won in the trenches.  Beane has amassed a lot of solid personnel guys on his staff, and hopefully that translates to a good draft and good FA picks.  

 

Three weeks ago ago no one was complaining.  Now they've run into a bad stretch.  And the HC made a risky choice last week that didn't pan out.  It won't be the last time either.  Let's let the process work, because ultimately as much as people mock "the process" successful organizations all have processes they define and follow.  Or they're not successful.

 

I'm often wrong, so this won't be the first time.  And frankly, I've been thinking as I write that I maybe making too big a deal about it.   But I don't think so.  

 

Two things I could be wrong about.   One is that maybe he hasn't burned the bridge to Tyrod staying in Buffalo beyond his contract.  Maybe Tyrod will be a really big man and say it's okay, let's see how it goes.   I doubt it.   He's been dumped on repeatedly since McDermott took over, and he doesn't have much reason to believe it will change.   

 

The other is that maybe McDermott and Beane have decided to move on from Tyrod, they knew that benching him would mark the beginning of the end of Tyrod in Buffalo, and they're okay with that.  If they thought that, then I disagree with the decision but at least they understood the consequences.  I disagree because I think you don't get rid of your best quarterback until you have a better one on board, and the Bills are very far from having a better QB on board.  Tyrod is the best QB the Bills have had since Bledsoe, maybe since Kelly.  

 

I think this decision forces the Bills to bet the ranch on a franchise QB rookie in the upcoming draft.   Last time the Bills were forced to take a QB because they had no one they got Manuel.  It's much better to be shopping for something when you don't absolutely need the thing.   

[Shaw66]

Some decisions are bigger than other decisions, and some have more far reaching consequences than others.  

 

I think starting Peterman had significant long-term consequences.   It was more than let's play the guy for a game and see what happens.  It was more because it's the most important position.  It sent a message to Taylor.   It sent messages to all the other guys on the team.  What does he do now?  Stand in front of the team and say "I made a bad decision.  It's clear now, and should have been clear then, that Peterman isn't ready"?   Can't really say that without dissing Peterman in front of the team, which is a coaching no-no.  "I made a mistake, and I'm telling you now Tyrod is my guy"?   Can't say that because you've said it before, and you obviously didn't mean it before.   

 

Start the wrong guy at safety, fine, you just move on.   Start the wrong guy at QB, it has consequences.  

[Hapless Bills Fan]

21 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

In short, I think the Bills have abandoned a possible route to success and now are a total unknown for the next three years.   Can these guys evaluate talent?  I don't know.   Even near the top of the draft, getting a QB is a crapshoot, so the Bills could draft a guy who turns out to be LESS productive than Tyrod.    The ENTIRE future of the Bills now depends on McDermott and Beane, and ther now are HUGE questions about whether they know they're doing:  How could they not know that Peterman wasn't ready?   How could they not know that they couldn't afford to lose Dareus for the second half of the season?   If they knew their talent was bad and they started Peterman and traded Dareus because they had given up on the season and were looking ahead, how could they decide to give up a valuable pick to add a stud pass receiver to a team going nowhere?  

 

Shaw does a beautiful job of spelling out the contradictions in McWrestler and Mr Beane's approach that lead some of us to question whether they know what they're doing.  If you want to tank, Tank - but in that case, why not trade (or release, rather than renegotiate) Taylor and trade Dareus in the off season before cheapening his stock with benchings and dis-talk?  On the other hand, if you want to rebuild while winning now, why not tailor the offense to Taylor's strengths instead of insisting he become something he's not?

 

Why start a rookie on the road, when you're 5-4, then after he craps the bed, go back to the benched guy saying "we're in the hunt"?  (there's a story about the soprano Bev "Bubbles" Stills gleefully accepting a future "dream role" offered during a phone call - then calling the director back 5 minutes later to decline: "I can't, I'm pregnant".  To which the director replied, rather stunned, "weren't you pregnant 5 minutes ago?").  If you really didn't know he would crap the bed....see above question, how could they not know Peterman wasn't ready?

 

Maybe there's a master plan and process behind all this, but from here it just looks like a Hot Mess with a side helping of Bad Player e v a l Judgement.

Edited November 23, 2017 by Hapless Bills Fan