Does it seem like the Bills are adding FA more selectively and with more purpose this year as opposed to previous years?

[machine gun kelly]

Yes

[LABILLBACKER]

Beane and McDermott so far have done a great job chosing a selective and practical strategy that includes positional priority while factoring in character and contract value. Props to them. Stay the course.

[klos63]

1 hour ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

..."under the radar W's" are just fine with me.....eff the national urinalists......as if the frauds would ever retract their now "mea culpas" about the woeful Bills....ONE with bawls would step up to say, "Jesus, guess I underestimated the skills of McBeane and his staff as far as rebuilding Bflo".....THAT ain't happenin' PERIOD......

Let's wait til the Bills give them a regular season reason to praise McBeane, not just an offseason one.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

15 minutes ago, klos63 said:

Let's wait til the Bills give them a regular season reason to praise McBeane, not just an offseason one.

 

...we shall see...respecting differing opinions is the ONLY way this place will work.....I'm "all in" on respect including how we may agree or differ along the way....

[#34fan]

I like maybe two pickups they've made in FA...   I see alot of cash being spent and a lot wet paper being thrown at the wall with hope that something sticks. 

 

April 25-28 reveals the true plan. (If there is one)

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

Think the difference with Beane is he's not scout and didn't come up that route.  He has a handle on all phases of the job and has been involved wit hall the parts up to and including getting coffee for other coaches etc.  Think it's easier for a GM to rely on others for the scouting and concentrate on the financial part of the job as opposed to be heavy into the scouting yourself as likely if you're a scout you think anyone can do the financial part of the job.   While I suspect someone with Beanses background is goign to know he needs input from the scouts.

[bkep32]

90mil in cap space doesnt hurt either 

[PromoTheRobot]

10 hours ago, Florida Bills Fanatic said:

It has occurred to me over the last few days that Beane has taken a very strategic approach to the FA's that he has signed.  None of them just scream "camp fodder" to me. They all seem to address an obvious need.  Under previous regimes, we were signing players that didn't address an obvious need and that most of us knew would not make the final 53 or the practice squad.  Am I just drinking the Kool-Aid or has there really been a change?

 

The players fit a profile: young but experienced, with some starts under their belts. I also assume Beane sees higher ceilings too.

[BobbyC81]

10 hours ago, Florida Bills Fanatic said:

It has occurred to me over the last few days that Beane has taken a very strategic approach to the FA's that he has signed.  None of them just scream "camp fodder" to me. They all seem to address an obvious need.  Under previous regimes, we were signing players that didn't address an obvious need and that most of us knew would not make the final 53 or the practice squad.  Am I just drinking the Kool-Aid or has there really been a change?

 

I  think that’s what Beane meant by being judicious 

[Buddo]

As it seems we are going with a major makeover of the O-Line, I think it's important to note that two of the signings there, have 'previous' with our new O-Line coach.

 

I'm guessing that he also had significant input into some of the other signings for the O-Line. That is something to be optimistic about, as again, it shows there's a plan in place.

 

While it goes without saying that the O-Line guys are literally hungry, for many of the signings made, I'd say it's a figurative one as well. Some of these guys have been good backups, stuck behind better players, who are desperate for a genuine chance to start. They are going to get that opportunity with the Bills, and the competition will be fierce. I also think that that level of competition has the chance to raise the level of play of the group as a whole. Dawkins better not be giving anything less than his best effort, as he could find himself on the bench PDQ.

 

Regarding the other signings at WR, well Brown was a guy they wanted from the year before, as they want speed on the field to get the most out of Allen's arm. In other threads, people have pointed out that while Flacco was still QB, Brown was on pace for his best season, numbers wise. Once Jackson took over, that fell off a cliff, mainly due to a lack of a passing game.

 

Beasley is a receiver whose speciality is getting you another set of downs. I don't care about his numbers, if all he does is convert 3rd downs. Beane specifically referenced this in talking about Beasley.

 

Sometimes I think people lose sight of the 'team' part of football, and get obsessed by the numbers game. No matter which side of the ball you are talking about, you need guys to be complementary to each other, to work as a unit. The NFL is littered with people who put up big numbers for their respective positions, but have won sweet FA, mainly due to the other parts of the teams they were on, simply not working.

 

Having said all of that, while I'm cautiously optimistic for the coming year, these guys haven't set foot on the field yet, so there's an awful long way to go.  I have confidence that they will be an improvement, however, the bigger question is by how much, and will it be enough?

[BarleyNY]

21 hours ago, NewEra said:

We have lots of cash.  Of course

 

This. We aren’t clearing cap space this year, we’re filling holes on the team. 

[SoTier]

20 hours ago, RPbillsfan said:

The NFL has a huge gap in even average offensive lineman, the Bills have added depth and with cap space they can hold onto guys like Ducasse and Bodine until after the draft and see if they can trade them for late round picks in 2020.

 

its all about building depth at as many positions as financially possible.

 

Nobody is going to trade for Ducasse or Bodine.

 

20 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...just trying to antagonize the "fire McBeane and McDermott now!" crowd??.....j/k......McBeane assembled his "Gang of 17 (staff)" made up of several NFL VP's of Player Personnel and Directors of Pro Player Personnel execs ALL on Pegula's nickel.....guessing a $5+ mil payroll including McBeane....McDermott has orchestrated the long awaited and long needed "culture cleanup"......like the "either you're in or you're out...NO exceptions" inference......this gang beats the snot out of ANY "F Troop" misfits running the show post Polian...AND....could even exceed the Polian era....stay tuned.....

 

ROTFLMAO!   The Beane/McDermott regime resembles the wonderful duo of Brandon/Jauron from 2006-2009 far more than Polian/Levy.

 

19 hours ago, Logic said:

The below chart makes very clear what the Bills are doing. They have less money committed on big contracts than any team in the league. Why is this? I would postulate it ties into why they have only been signing average to slightly above average players to no more than modest contracts: They are planning to do the majority of their spending on the retention of their own young core in the coming years: Milano, Edmunds, White, Allen, Dawkins, [Edge draftee], etc, etc.

Rather than spending big chunks of their cap on overpaid free agents, they are meticulously and intelligently allocating their money in a way that will allow them to retain all of their own home grown talent, rather than be forced to watch anyone walk away because the Bills can't afford their contract demands.

It's a breath of fresh air and a massive change from the way things were done under Whaley.
 

 

 

The  "breath of fresh air" will come when the Bills start winning  9 or more  games in a single season more than once or twice a decade.  Until McDermott and Beane produce a team that can do that, they are not any better than their predecessors.

 

18 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Well said and I also agree with the "plan" and how the years are going.

As for some posters who don't agree with this, I would say to wait until the final cuts to see who is on the 53 roster to start the season and

THEN compare to the team they fielded in 2018.

 

You may be happy with winning the off-season/pre-season but the last time I looked regular season and playoff wins are generally considered the measures of success or failure of any regime.

 

18 hours ago, 1st&ten said:

 

Yes and when the Bills start winning the narrative with the national media will change----they'll jump on the bandwagon & the Buffalo bashing will stop. The NFL will want to highlight Kim, makes for good PR----much better than the image of stoned out Robert Kraft & all the other violent incidents by NFL players making headlines.

 

Well, don't hold your breath waiting for this winning to happen ... the Sabres haven't sniffed the playoffs since the first year Pegula owned the team -- before Pegula had a chance to put his losing touch on the team.

[Doc]

5 minutes ago, SoTier said:

ROTFLMAO!   The Beane/McDermott regime resembles the wonderful duo of Brandon/Jauron from 2006-2009 far more than Polian/Levy.

 

Considering they made the playoffs, they resemble the latter more than the former.

 

5 minutes ago, SoTier said:

The  "breath of fresh air" will come when the Bills start winning  9 or more  games in a single season more than once or twice a decade.  Until McDermott and Beane produce a team that can do that, they are not any better than their predecessors.

 

See above.  Time will tell whether they continue with the success but they're already better than their predecessors. 

[oldmanfan]

55 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Nobody is going to trade for Ducasse or Bodine.

 

 

ROTFLMAO!   The Beane/McDermott regime resembles the wonderful duo of Brandon/Jauron from 2006-2009 far more than Polian/Levy.

 

 

The  "breath of fresh air" will come when the Bills start winning  9 or more  games in a single season more than once or twice a decade.  Until McDermott and Beane produce a team that can do that, they are not any better than their predecessors.

 

 

You may be happy with winning the off-season/pre-season but the last time I looked regular season and playoff wins are generally considered the measures of success or failure of any regime.

 

 

Well, don't hold your breath waiting for this winning to happen ... the Sabres haven't sniffed the playoffs since the first year Pegula owned the team -- before Pegula had a chance to put his losing touch on the team.

I find it sad that a fan can be so incessantly negative

[Cripple Creek]

23 hours ago, Florida Bills Fanatic said:

It has occurred to me over the last few days that Beane has taken a very strategic approach to the FA's that he has signed.  None of them just scream "camp fodder" to me. They all seem to address an obvious need.  Under previous regimes, we were signing players that didn't address an obvious need and that most of us knew would not make the final 53 or the practice squad.  Am I just drinking the Kool-Aid or has there really been a change?

No change, more money=more options.

[Ronin]

20 hours ago, Logic said:

I agree. Except I think the bolded leads to some people going overboard on the pessimistic outlooks. Why wouldn't they? The Bills have been so bad for so long that many Bills fans are conditioned to expect the worse, even when there are signs that optimism may be warranted.

I believe that what we're looking at now is the beginning of the 3rd year of a complete teardown and rebuild. Year 1 they jettisoned bad contracts and players and began to build a defense. Year 2 they identified and selected a quarterback and continued to bolster the defense (it finished 2nd in the league). Year 3 is all about building around Allen and making sure he's the franchise QB they think he is. In years 4 and 5, we'll start to see contract extensions for homegrown stars. I also think we'll start to see bigger free agent contracts handed out, being that they are projected to be in the top 5 in cap space again NEXT offseason. 

So yeah, we're still toward the beginning end of a complete rebuild. As such, big dollars have yet to really be committed across the roster. Right now, the team hasn't proven anything and has to be considered below average at worst, average at best. Anything above that, they must prove on the field. But as for the cap dollars the Bills are spending? They look exactly like they SHOULD look for a team in this stage of a rebuild. As always, I am cautiously optimistic. I understand why some choose pessimism, though, whether consciously or subconsciously.
 

 

Great post Logic!  Very engaging.  

 

As to your bolded part allow me to add some perspective there.  There always seems to be a boolean (aka binary) association with things of this nature.  I'm sure that I speak for a bunch of people when I say that they aren't necessarily pessimistic, rather simply not optimistic, largely for reasons that you stated.  So in short, it's possible to be neither over team "news" or player signings.  

 

As for me, I'm simply not seeing any upgrades with the exception of Morse, and there again, he's missed almost half of his games the past two seasons, so if he continues that trend we can't really say that it was a great signing.  Presumably you would agree.  So that one's on ice and IMO that's the best signing we've made.  Otherwise, as someone has already opined, I view it more of a rearranging of the deck chairs.  

 

Now the signings of marquee/premier/impact players are cause for optimism, but A, there are none in the bunch we've signed, and B, again, to McBeane's credit, there really weren't many in free-agency available on offense. 

 

Antonio Brown would have been such a signing, but again, and partial credit to McBeane, it's good to have avoided him.  Mr. "Play by My Rules" isn't exactly what a developing QB that's struggling with his passing game needs at this point.  I can easily see that acquisition having derailed Allen's develoopment.  The absolutely last thing that Allen needs right now is a prima donna rambling in his ear constantly what he should be doing.  So on that end I'm a little surprised that they were even considering Brown.  

 

Here's where we differ on their philosophy:  Their attempt at a rebuild, offensively anyway, actually began last year.  But they swung-n-missed on just about every one of their offensive acquisitions, which frankly, were very similar to what they're doing this year.  Coupled with the fact that McD is a defensive-oriented coach and Beane, quite frankly, is still largely in OJT/Unknown mode, this isn't exactly cause for optimism.  

 

Lastly, the big thing, namely what's going to determine their futures here in Buffalo, perhaps beginning as early as this season but next for sure, is Allen's own progression.  I keep reiterating that, and the narrative is that all of Allen's faults, not talking merely areas required for development common among QBs, but actual faults per se, are all resultant from a "lack of weapons/tools" which IMO is tremendously faulty to assume.  

 

Allen's going to have to take a huge leap in his own rite, HUGE!  Again, as a passer last season his short-medium game was bottom-dwelling, worse than all other rookies.  That can't all be because of a lack of tools, particularly since his fellow rookies for the most part, besides Mayfield perhaps, also didn't have much better talent, if better at all, at their disposal.  Consider too that Jackson had John Brown who's now here.  So if we're going to apply the same standard across teams, then couldn't it also be said that Jackson's play was hindered due to the same "lack of weapons?"  The answer to that is of course it is despite the fact that the narrative here will be that it was all Jackson there for whatever reasons.  But then, why should we be optimistic about Brown here?  Pessimistic not necessarily, but what's the cause for optimism?   I see none.  

 

Think about all of their offensive moves since they arrived, McBeane that is.  How many have worked out?  Any?  I see none, at least not to the level that's going to move us forward and into playoff  competitiveness mode.  That's not a good sign for them.  

 

Having said all of that, IMO, I see absolutely no way that they can avoid drafting an OT with the 9th overall, or preferably trading down in the 1st for more day-1/2 picks yet still getting an OT.  

 

Thoughts?  

[NoSaint]

On 3/23/2019 at 9:42 AM, Florida Bills Fanatic said:

It has occurred to me over the last few days that Beane has taken a very strategic approach to the FA's that he has signed.  None of them just scream "camp fodder" to me. They all seem to address an obvious need.  Under previous regimes, we were signing players that didn't address an obvious need and that most of us knew would not make the final 53 or the practice squad.  Am I just drinking the Kool-Aid or has there really been a change?

 

Who are the examples from previous regimes that were signed early in free agency and were major camp fodder? Like more than an OT signed to play TE camp fodder?

 

hes definitely addresses some needs but it feels like you are creating a storyline 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

I find it sad that a fan can be so incessantly negative

 

....CERTAINLY has carved out one helluva niche, hasn't he?.........

[Ronin]

21 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Half of the playoff teams last year had WRs who caught over 1,000 yards (the Rams had 2).  You don't need 1,000 yards receivers to make the playoffs or even win the SB (Cheaters didn't have a 1,000 yard receiver).

 

You sure about that?  Let's finish that analysis.  Making the playoffs is one thing, being playoff competitive is entirely another.  

 

First of all, I count only 4 of 12 teams, not half, but a third, that did not have a 1,000-yard WR unless we include the Pats, but see below there. 

 

Otherwise, of the four teams that you mention:  

 

Dallas had a 2,000 yard-from-scrimmage RB, the 6th ranked scoring D, and the 7th-ranked red zone D.  We have nothing close to a 2,000-YFS RB, we had the 18th ranked scoring D, and the 30th ranked RZ D.  Dallas wasn't a strong playoff team notwithstanding, they were a good, hardly great team, in a largely mediocre division.  

 

Chicago did not win games because of their offense.  In fact, they were 0-4 when they allowed opponents to score more than 22 points (below NFL average) where they were 12-1, their "1" being their playoff loss to a mediocre Philly (a 9-7 playoff team) where they could only muster 15 offensive points, 9 coming from FGs.  10 of their wins involved holding opponents to 17 or fewer points.  Needless to say they could not advance to the CG.  

 

Seattle was similar, they were 8-2 when holding opponents to average scoring (24 ppg) or fewer.  They were 6-0 when allowing 17 or fewer.  In short, they didn’t do it via offense either.  They were 2-5 when allowing 25 or more points.  

 

Baltimore was a carbon-copy of Chicago.  They were 1-6 when allowing opponents more than 21 points, they were 9-1 when allowing 21 or fewer, 8-1 when allowing 17 or fewer and had the 2^nd ranked scoring D in the league a mere 4 points behind Chicago.  Ergo, they didn’t do it via offense either and were not championship caliber as a result either.  Defense no longer wins championships. Brown was their leading WR with 715 yards and 5 TDs, two 100-yard games and 10 games of 28 or fewer yards.  

 

 

Side notes:  

 

Philly had one in Ertz, but Jeffries was on pace for 1,000 but only played 13 games.  

 

Of the four teams that advanced to the Conference Championships, LA had two 1,000-yard WRs.  

NO had Thomas who had over 1,400 but then also had arguably the best dual-threat RB in the league who logged over 700 yards, and Brees. 

KC had two 1,000-yard WRs as well along with last season's most prolific QB.  

NE had Brady, which means everything.  But otherwise, no WRs (or Gronk) played all 16 games on that team except for Hogan and Dorsett.  Edelman would have had well over 1,000 but was suspended for 4 games. White, a RB in a role-playing mode with only 3 starts, had 751 receiving yards.  Gordon & Gronk both started only 11 games and were otherwise on pace for over 1,000.  Hogan, in only 7 starts as a role-player logged nearly 600.  

 

So yes, good receivers are in fact required to win SBs these days.  In Brady’s case he elevates the level of any given WR by at least one notch, not much argument there.  There's nothing "magical" about 1,000 yards, but there is a difference between WRs that routinely only put up 600, 700, or 800 yards and 3-6 TDs, such as those littering our roster, and those referenced above.  

 

Having said all that, the big hope from this free-agency period so far is Brown who logged 715 yards last season and 5 TDs.  His TDs in distance were 7, 9, 14, 21, and 33, something that hardly fits the “deep game” narrative for Allen.  He had two (2) 100-yard games.  10 of his 16 games he posted 10 games of 28 or fewer receiving yards for an average of 18.5 yards in those 10 games.  

 

 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, TaskersGhost said:

 

You sure about that?  Let's finish that analysis.  Making the playoffs is one thing, being playoff competitive is entirely another.  

 

First of all, I count only 4 of 12 teams, not half, but a third, that did not have a 1,000-yard WR unless we include the Pats, but see below there. 

 

Otherwise, of the four teams that you mention:  

 

Dallas had a 2,000 yard-from-scrimmage RB, the 6th ranked scoring D, and the 7th-ranked red zone D.  We have nothing close to a 2,000-YFS RB, we had the 18th ranked scoring D, and the 30th ranked RZ D.  Dallas wasn't a strong playoff team notwithstanding, they were a good, hardly great team, in a largely mediocre division.  

 

Chicago did not win games because of their offense.  In fact, they were 0-4 when they allowed opponents to score more than 22 points (below NFL average) where they were 12-1, their "1" being their playoff loss to a mediocre Philly (a 9-7 playoff team) where they could only muster 15 offensive points, 9 coming from FGs.  10 of their wins involved holding opponents to 17 or fewer points.  Needless to say they could not advance to the CG.  

 

Seattle was similar, they were 8-2 when holding opponents to average scoring (24 ppg) or fewer.  They were 6-0 when allowing 17 or fewer.  In short, they didn’t do it via offense either.  They were 2-5 when allowing 25 or more points.  

 

Baltimore was a carbon-copy of Chicago.  They were 1-6 when allowing opponents more than 21 points, they were 9-1 when allowing 21 or fewer, 8-1 when allowing 17 or fewer and had the 2^nd ranked scoring D in the league a mere 4 points behind Chicago.  Ergo, they didn’t do it via offense either and were not championship caliber as a result either.  Defense no longer wins championships. Brown was their leading WR with 715 yards and 5 TDs, two 100-yard games and 10 games of 28 or fewer yards.  

 

 

Side notes:  

 

Philly had one in Ertz, but Jeffries was on pace for 1,000 but only played 13 games.  

 

Of the four teams that advanced to the Conference Championships, LA had two 1,000-yard WRs.  

NO had Thomas who had over 1,400 but then also had arguably the best dual-threat RB in the league who logged over 700 yards, and Brees. 

KC had two 1,000-yard WRs as well along with last season's most prolific QB.  

NE had Brady, which means everything.  But otherwise, no WRs (or Gronk) played all 16 games on that team except for Hogan and Dorsett.  Edelman would have had well over 1,000 but was suspended for 4 games. White, a RB in a role-playing mode with only 3 starts, had 751 receiving yards.  Gordon & Gronk both started only 11 games and were otherwise on pace for over 1,000.  Hogan, in only 7 starts as a role-player logged nearly 600.  

 

So yes, good receivers are in fact required to win SBs these days.  In Brady’s case he elevates the level of any given WR by at least one notch, not much argument there.  There's nothing "magical" about 1,000 yards, but there is a difference between WRs that routinely only put up 600, 700, or 800 yards and 3-6 TDs, such as those littering our roster, and those referenced above.  

 

Having said all that, the big hope from this free-agency period so far is Brown who logged 715 yards last season and 5 TDs.  His TDs in distance were 7, 9, 14, 21, and 33, something that hardly fits the “deep game” narrative for Allen.  He had two (2) 100-yard games.  10 of his 16 games he posted 10 games of 28 or fewer receiving yards for an average of 18.5 yards in those 10 games. 

 

Only 6 playoff teams had a 1,000 yard WR (the Rams had 2).  And true Jeffrey would probably have eclipsed 1,000 yards, but barely.  I chose 1,000 yards because it's a nice number but in reality I could and should have chosen 1,200 yards, which is more true #1 territory.