Brandon Beane: "As Long as I'm in Charge, We're Never Tanking"

[K-9]

Just now, ScottLaw said:

So they needed to trade those players to draft a QB? Completely disagree. 

Unless they were willing to mortgage future high picks to do so, yes. Two of the top four QB prospects were taken with the first three picks and all four in the top 10. Needless to say, QBs are at a premium. Would you have been willing to mortgage last year's draft assets PLUS next year's to get into a position to take your guy? Darby, Watkins, and Glenn provided the draft capital to maneuver. Not sure we had anyone else of commensurate value to trade at the time.

 

Assuming you wouldn't have wanted to lose future high picks, how would you have acquired the draft capital to put yourself in position to get into the top 10 in the last draft AND retain those future draft assets?

[Formerly Allan in MD]

When is a tank a tank or simply a very bad team continually losing?  How about some nuance for a change.

[Aussie Joe]

Beane needs to have the best off season from a Bills GM we have seen for a while

 

Lots of holes that need filling in the draft and FA.,,Also Allen needs to be good..

 

If this time next year the team is still struggling he will be gone..He won’t get another chance in 2020

Edited November 9, 2018 by Aussie Joe

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

Unless they were willing to mortgage future high picks to do so, yes. Two of the top four QB prospects were taken with the first three picks and all four in the top 10. Needless to say, QBs are at a premium. Would you have been willing to mortgage last year's draft assets PLUS next year's to get into a position to take your guy? Darby, Watkins, and Glenn provided the draft capital to maneuver. Not sure we had anyone else of commensurate value to trade at the time.

 

Assuming you wouldn't have wanted to lose future high picks, how would you have acquired the draft capital to put yourself in position to get into the top 10 in the last draft AND retain those future draft assets?

 

Or back in 2017 with pick number 10 they could have..........  

[Big Gun]

46 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

This paints a highly unappealing picture.

 

Either this is Beane and McDermott trying their best to win, and failing miserably due to questionable personnel choices and players making dumb mistakes that often equate to bad coaching

 

OR

 

It's Beane lying through his teeth

 

OR

 

Beane's not in charge and we have a rookie coach and/or an owner making the final personnel calls

Cant be any lying as we were told there was no lying going on and were crazy to think there was any lying on behalf of McBeane. Some people that think they know everything just cant see the forest through the trees.

[K-9]

7 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

You can parse the answer that way if you choose, and to be honest, he's in a tough spot.

 

But to come out and say the competition itself was the problem just strikes me as absurd.

 

The reality is that the problem was with their evaluation of the QB's competing.

I agree, especially with the bold text. 

 

Having to have a competition in the first place was indeed a problem as it was totally indicative of the massive non-settled nature at the most important position in sports. That's no small thing to be sure. 

[Misterbluesky]

2 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

 

 

they knew they were going to lose this year...but that does not mean they wanted to I guess. 

In late July,McDermott said he thought the team had deep talent at both WR and the OL...I really think he believed that was the case.In some ways he reminds me of Rex "used car" Ryan.

[K-9]

1 minute ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Or back in 2017 with pick number 10 they could have..........  

That's a COMPLETELY different argument; one that has been hashed and rehashed to death. I have ZERO interest in going back down that rabbit hole. 

[Chugga]

If what I’m witnessing every Sunday isn’t tanking then maybe it’s time for him to no longer be in charge then 

[Aussie Joe]

I don’t get his theory that “we wanted to get rid of all the dead cap in one year... if we are going to have $35 or $40 Million why not make it $50million?”

 

Well maybe that extra $10 mil could have bought them a quality WR or OL piece this year..

 

To me what is the difference in having $90mil in cap space or “only” $80mil next year?

Edited November 9, 2018 by Aussie Joe

[K-9]

4 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Lose future high draft picks rather than trade good, established, young NFL players.

 

Thats exactly what you do, IMO.

 

Or simply take a Mahomes or Watson in the 2017 draft. Understood the new front office wasn't in place yet which again, goes back to the ass backwards way of how the Pegulas and the Bills do things.

OK, so we have Darby, Watkins, Glenn. 

 

The screwed up QB situation is the same. 

 

Conjecture is fun, but HONESTLY, how much better than 2-7 are we with those players in the lineup and, assuming "not much", are you still happy to not have a #1, plus whatever other pick(s) in next year's draft? 

 

And how much do you charge for a ride in the time machine so we can go back and change 2017? That's often a problem around here. Debate about one subject quickly devolves into another. As I said to 26CB, I have ZERO interest in revisiting the tired debate about not drafting Mahommes or Watson, but suffice to say if we had taken them instead, the QB question is a moot point, even allowing for the fact that their respective experiences here, with this staff, and this supporting cast would be entirely different. 

[CodeMonkey]

In the holy name of *****, there has never been, and will never be, a GM that admits to a tank.  

[buffalobillswin]

Well if this isn't tanking then it's proof that the GM is utterly incompetent at his job. I'd rather he admit to tanking. 

[K-9]

Just now, ScottLaw said:

Wait. So the Bills NEEDED to trade those players to trade up? There was no alternative? 

I thought I answered that already. But I'll restate: 

 

Yes. They NEEDED to trade THOSE players for THOSE assets to acquire the draft capital necessary to maneuver in this year's draft WITHOUT having to mortgage high picks in future drafts. 

 

So, NO. I don't see any other alternative as it took good players to acquire high enough picks to interest potential trade partners in the last draft. 

 

I can't state it more plainly. You would have been OK with trading future high picks to move into the top 10 to get our QB. Fine. I disagree. Especially because even with those traded players, I believe our record wouldn't be much better, if any better at all, given the QB situation. And this forum would be in a meltdown over the prospects of having a sucking season with no #1 pick, at a minimum, in the next draft. 

[boater]

I believe he's sincere saying he isn't tanking.

 

Though, I think it's accurate to say he's not pulling out all the stops to win now.

 

(thankfully he's not mortgaging the future to win now)

[WhoTom]

... at least, not on purpose.

 

[NewEra]

Offseason 1 of a rebuild doesn’t constitute a tank. Purging bad salaries results in 55 mill dead cap.  Tough to succeed with that dead cap, losing 2 OLmen to injury, no WRs, not much cap room and a very raw rookie QB.  

[LSHMEAB]

1 minute ago, NewEra said:

Offseason 1 of a rebuild doesn’t constitute a tank. Purging bad salaries results in 55 mill dead cap.  Tough to succeed with that dead cap, losing 2 OLmen to injury, no WRs, not much cap room and a very raw rookie QB.  

Why do people keep saying they purged bad salaries when most of the guys we're talking about are playing for SuperBowl contenders?

 

 

[PittsforDave]

Are we purposely tanking or trying to win and losing? 

[Pete]

does he mean this ***** show of an offense is by design?!?  I was giving him credit for building D and then tanking for a better pick