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

[Ronin]

11 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

As a self proclaimed holistic and objective observer, you may want to look back in history as to the eventual impact of big name free agent signings on a team's overall performance.  You may be surprised.

 

The job of a GM is to look for ways to upgrade his team.  They brought in two WRs that are upgrades to the position vs. last season.  Brown takes essentially Benjamin's old job, Beasley takes what was essentially a non-filled spot.  Morse upgrades the C spot, they brought in two tackles one of which starts unless they draft one day 1 or two, two at G that should upgrade Miller and Ducasses and give competition to Teller, a TE that upgrades over Clay, an All Pro KR that upgrades that spot plus a good gunner for special teams, and two CBS for depth to upgrade there.

 

At some point people are going to have to listen to Beane and believe what he says.  He has said you look to FA to fill holes and the draft to get the best guys you can.  That is what he has done and is doing.  Now, if you want to give the all too trite "I'll believe it when I see it", or "show me the baby" stuff go ahead.  Of course we have to see how it works out.  Duh.

 

As for contract length, it is also clear Beane values cap space.  He has a lot of it next year, some remaining this year.  By signing this crop of FAs to manageable short contracts he gives himself flexibility to extend guys that he knows are integral ( like a Hyde and Poyer), and he can extend any of his FAs that merit the extension and let others walk after a year of service.  Pretty astute approach.

 

 

 

Well, OK, but keep in mind that "upgrade" is relative.  We weren't exactly on the cusp of having impact talent last year. 

 

I guess I would say that if Brown is an upgrade, and I seriously question whether he is for reasons that I've pointed out, then it must've been wholly inadequate to begin with.  And keep in mind, "listening to Beane" also involves having listened to him last year when we made "upgrades" then too.  We see how those worked out.  The offense is bereft of talent.  

 

I'm listening, but I'm not believing.  

5 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Ugh. I can see that coming from a mile away. Your posts are depressing!

 

Yeah. I really don't care if it's Metcalf at 9 or someone later in the draft, but they have got to swing and HIT on a receiver.

 

Sorry, I call it the way that I see it, and I see it based upon reality, not how I'd like to perceive it.  

 

As to the Draft, honestly, if we're going to talk about upgrades, and given that Allen's a shoe-in at QB, there's not another one of the 10 offensive roster spots that couldn't  benefit from a significant upgrade.  

 

I still say that they really need to bolster the OL.  Top priority.  The difference between an OT that can be had in round 1 and later rounds is going to be much more pronounced than the difference between a WR in round 1 and later rounds.  In fact, WRs are very difficult to predict sometimes.  

[Thurman#1]

On 3/24/2019 at 1:25 AM, 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.

 

 

... while maintaining a healthy cap situation for the future.

 

Don't think "... as financially possible." Think "judicious."

[Thurman#1]

On 3/24/2019 at 2:45 AM, TaskersGhost said:

 

Last time I checked, the amount of money players got wasn't necessarily correlated to how good they are.  

 

See Lotulolei as one prime example.  

 

The money is irrelevant.  Does it really need to be reiterated how many horrible huge contracts we've handed out that have A, made no sense, and B, weren't anywhere near what we paid them?   Many of the same people opining here applauding McBeane were also likely the same ones that applauded some of the asinine moves that we made in that way back then too.  

 

Money/contract is one thing, performance is another.  

 

I think it's a case of fans seeing what they want to see, to start, and also partly from being down for so long, which for many having absolutely no recollection of the teams from the early '90s, that they really don't know what a good team looks like looking at it from an unbiased perspective.  

 

The other thing that you have to keep in mind is that McBeane is in a little bit of a bind.  I said last season that it was prime (actually the season prior was) to trade Shady because of his age, an age where RBs routinely decline in performance.  I realize that fans rarely see that day coming, but coaches and GMs should know better.  Either way, the kept their eggs in his basket.  Otherwise, they didn't make many good changes.  Benjamin, Jordan, other moves on offense didn't work out well.  

 

So now they're in a bind.  They've "gotta do something" or they'll be viewed poorly, so despite the notion that this isn't the best free-agency for offense, nowhere near or even above-average, they're making moves with the perception that they're improving things when the reality is that they're really simply brining in players from other teams that don't have performance histories much better than what we have had, which has been below average, offensively speaking that is.  

 

 

In answer to your question, no, it doesn't need to be reiterated how many horrible huge contract we've handed out that made no sense. Reiterated, no. Argued convincingly for the very first time, yes. This administration has handed out very few big contracts.

 

Lotulelei is a good example, but of the exact opposite of what you're arguing. He's not making huge bucks. He's tied for 14th for average DT salaries. And he's doing the job they brought him in for very well. He's part of the reason they were a very good defense last year.

 

They're not in a bind. Or not more so than any other GM. Yeah, they committed very few resources to the offense last year and that showed, which they expected and didn't worry about, as they knew it was a rebuilding year. They also got the cap situation in excellent shape, expecting to be able to commit a lot of resources to the offense this year, and they've done so. The plan is moving ahead just as they expected. They're bringing in medium- and low-priced FAs, which has always been their plan, as they've made it very very clear that they expect to get their impact guys through the draft. You're underestimating Bills fans, who see this. They've upgraded the talent a lot. They've got the offense up to where an offense which had major gaps and holes last year doesn't really this year.

 

Depending on how Allen develops, the offense has every chance to be functional this year, when it really wasn't last year so early in the rebuild and with the awful cap situation. That's big.

[Ronin]

6 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

Lotulelei is a good example, but of the exact opposite of what you're arguing. He's not making huge bucks. He's tied for 14th for average DT salaries. And he's doing the job they brought him in for very well. He's part of the reason they were a very good defense last year.

 

The only problem with your theory is that Lotulolei's snap count on the season was below 50% of defensive snaps, and he lost snaps as the season went on specifically because he was not effective.  So no, he didn't do the job that they brought him in for, much less having done it very well.  

 

He was graded average by PFF.  

 

He had no sacks, 1 TFL when he's averaged nearly 6/season, and no QB Hits when he's averaged 5/season prior to last year.  

 

Not quite sure how that's doing the job, much less doing it very well.  I guess we all have our standards tho and no one says that they're the same.  

 

 

[Thurman#1]

On 3/24/2019 at 2:58 AM, 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.
 

 

 

People have been talking for ages about how we had the largest amount of money available in 2020, and I kept cautioning that that was more a function of not having many guys under contract for 2020. I warned that that would change. And it has.

 

It had adjusted itself to not being #1, but instead being top five, as you've noted here. But it's kept going.

 

Right now, we're 10th, according to Spotrac. Still significantly above average, but not so much so as we used to be. We're around $11 mill below the top five at this point, but about $20 mill above average.

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/2020/

 

In any case, I wanted to post that caveat, but that was a great post. I think you're right on target.

[Doc]

24 minutes ago, TaskersGhost said:

The only problem with your theory is that Lotulolei's snap count on the season was below 50% of defensive snaps, and he lost snaps as the season went on specifically because he was not effective.  So no, he didn't do the job that they brought him in for, much less having done it very well.  

 

He was graded average by PFF.  

 

He had no sacks, 1 TFL when he's averaged nearly 6/season, and no QB Hits when he's averaged 5/season prior to last year.  

 

Not quite sure how that's doing the job, much less doing it very well.  I guess we all have our standards tho and no one says that they're the same.

 

That's wrong.

[Bob in STL]

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?

 

They are making careful signings.  Many are low cost with favorable contracts.  Some may not make the team,  depending on how the draft shakes out.  There are always surprises.  

 

I expect our starting talent and depth to be much higher next season.  We even picked up a few guys to help on ST.  

[Thurman#1]

6 hours ago, TaskersGhost said:

 

The only problem with your theory is that Lotulolei's snap count on the season was below 50% of defensive snaps, and he lost snaps as the season went on specifically because he was not effective.  So no, he didn't do the job that they brought him in for, much less having done it very well.  

 

He was graded average by PFF.  

 

He had no sacks, 1 TFL when he's averaged nearly 6/season, and no QB Hits when he's averaged 5/season prior to last year.  

 

Not quite sure how that's doing the job, much less doing it very well.  I guess we all have our standards tho and no one says that they're the same.  

 

 

 

 

That's a fact, not a problem. 

 

Oh, the reason he lost snaps as the season went on was that he was not effective? I didn't realize that. But if that's a fact as you're presenting it here, then you'll be able to link to where Beane or McDermott said that. Otherwise - and we both know you won't be able to find anything like that - what you've got there is a guess that fits your preconceptions.

 

He lost snaps as the season went on? Yeah? Here's how his week-by-week snap percentage looked.

 

48%

66%

36%

50%

43%

46%

39%

53%

47%

39%

44%

49%

46%

53%

47%

44%

 

Is that what it looks like when a guy loses snaps as the season goes on? In four of his last five games he averages more snaps than he did over the year? Or were you just completely making that up? Yeah, precisely. His snaps went up and down week to week, probably depending on formations and game situations, and they didn't go down as the season went on.

 

He was brought in to be a two-down guy. He'd been one in Carolina, under McDermott. He was under McDermott for four years and in two of those four he was below 50%. And the other two years he was at 59% and 65%. They knew what they were getting. He's doing just what they expected, just what they wanted. Yes, PFF tends to grade guys who aren't pass rush types average. That's fine. But clearly this is what McD wanted and knew very well enough to expect.

 

And you may well be not that sure ... but how you feel ain't really all that important. How McDermott feels, that's the key. And judging by the fact that the defense took another major step up, he likely feels pretty good about it.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by Thurman#1

[oldmanfan]

58 minutes ago, TaskersGhost said:

 

The only problem with your theory is that Lotulolei's snap count on the season was below 50% of defensive snaps, and he lost snaps as the season went on specifically because he was not effective.  So no, he didn't do the job that they brought him in for, much less having done it very well.  

 

He was graded average by PFF.  

 

He had no sacks, 1 TFL when he's averaged nearly 6/season, and no QB Hits when he's averaged 5/season prior to last year.  

 

Not quite sure how that's doing the job, much less doing it very well.  I guess we all have our standards tho and no one says that they're the same.  

 

 

It's funny that the holistic, objective stats guy didn't apparently bother to actually look at the numbers before posting this.

[Bing Bong]

18 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

Ugh. I can see that coming from a mile away. Your posts are depressing!

He's totally right haha. In the offseason we thumb our noses at "diva WRs" and say we don't need them. The Quarterback made them. Yet the second Josh Allen's performance is affected by poor WR play we'll be placing the blame on WR every chance we get and complaining "look at the kinds of catches other WRs can make in this league!"

 

And the circle of life thus continues at TSW. In a black and white world where Quarterbacks make WRs.. until they don't and it's the WRs ruining the QB.

 

So.. that's a bummer of a post. Here's to having good WR play next year!

[Doc]

8 minutes ago, BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P said:

He's totally right haha. In the offseason we thumb our noses at "diva WRs" and say we don't need them. The Quarterback made them. Yet the second Josh Allen's performance is affected by poor WR play we'll be placing the blame on WR every chance we get and complaining "look at the kinds of catches other WRs can make in this league!"

 

And the circle of life thus continues at TSW. In a black and white world where Quarterbacks make WRs.. until they don't and it's the WRs ruining the QB.

 

So.. that's a bummer of a post. Here's to having good WR play next year!

 

You don't need/want diva WRs.  You want true #1 WR who don't cause problems.  There are several out there but their teams aren't giving them up.  The diva WRs...yeah, their teams gave them up.

[IgotBILLStopay]

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?

With an empty roster and loads of cash, we kinda expected this FA signing frenzy no? That said, I agree that it does appear we have filled the holes and not really overpaid on a single contract so far this year (but we have to wait to see the games).

[Bing Bong]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

You don't need/want diva WRs.  You want true #1 WR who don't cause problems.  There are several out there but their teams aren't giving them up.  The diva WRs...yeah, their teams gave them up.

Well broadly speaking.. Of course we don't want negative characters.

 

Depends on how you define them. There's maybe 2 or 3 that are talented but could be a liability for me. I've heard it all from DHop to Amari Cooper: the board is pretty darn liberal with the "diva" label. It's natural for a good WR to pipe up every now and then to see more targets.. play Madden career mode as a WR. It's a boring position if you don't get 20 targets a game. I'd be the most diva of them all haha.

 

Like if all the great active WRs that haven't been labelled "divas" on here are just Larry Fitzgerald and Julio Jones.. we need to temper our expectations of talented #1 WRs lol. They want to win, and they know getting the ball more helps that, and they'll pipe up now and then. That's not AB or ODBJ bad.. that's just natural. 

 

Gotta stop making it so black and white is all. Playmakers that want to see the ball isn't necessarily a bad teammate by that strict definition. Sammy Watkins isn't so bad at all in that sense. He just couldn't stay healthy and wasn't as productive as his salary demands.

Edited March 26, 2019 by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P

[Doc]

1 minute ago, BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P said:

Well broadly speaking.. Of course we don't want negative characters.

 

Depends on how you define them. There's maybe 2 or 3 that are talented but could be a liability for me. I've heard it all from DHop to Amari Cooper: the board is pretty darn liberal with the "diva" label. It's natural for a good WR to pipe up every now and then to see more targets.. play Madden career mode as a WR. It's a boring position if you don't get 20 targets a game. I'd be the most diva of them all haha.

 

Like if all the great active WRs that haven't been labelled "divas" on here are just Larry Fitzgerald and Julio Jones.. we need to temper our expectations of talented #1 WRs lol. They want to win, and they know getting the ball more helps that, and they'll pipe up now and then. That's not AB or ODBJ bad.. that's just natural. 

 

Gotta stop making it so black and white is all. Playmakers that want to see the ball isn't necessarily a bad teammate by that strict definition.

 

The only thing black and white is saying "we need any diva WR."  Again the Bills want a #1 who doesn't cause problems, but their teams (and there are a lot more than just LF and JJ) aren't looking to get rid of them, for obvious reasons. 

[Bing Bong]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

The only thing black and white is saying "we need any diva WR."  Again the Bills want a #1 who doesn't cause problems, but their teams (and there are a lot more than just LF and JJ) aren't looking to get rid of them, for obvious reasons. 

I'm not sure I would have traded our 1 to Oakland for Amari like Dallas did. But his character and talent is what made him as high priced and comparable to ODBJ's deal. Definitely would have given up a 2. Let's draft our dude ?

 

Good odds between a high grade pick and Robert Foster we get an all around WR1 when the 2 get some more years under their belt.

 

And appreciate a good WR corps helps Josh Allen. They don't make the other's careers. They make their own working with each other. It's pitch and catch, takes 2 to do it. But I don't want to keep hearing the "JA's WRs suck (during the regular season), but we don't need WRs (in off-season)" narrative

Edited March 26, 2019 by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P

[Ronin]

17 hours ago, Doc said:

 

That's wrong.

 

You're funny.  

 

 

LOL, OK, since "your word" seems to be the end-all-to-be-all in the discussion, sure. 

 

See, this is what happens when you argue based on opinions only.  

 

BTW, here's one more, he ranked 18th in combo tackles and 20th in solo tackles.  His contract was far from the 20th in compensation.  

 

 

 

16 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

That's a fact, not a problem. 

 

Oh, the reason he lost snaps as the season went on was that he was not effective? I didn't realize that. But if that's a fact as you're presenting it here, then you'll be able to link to where Beane or McDermott said that. Otherwise - and we both know you won't be able to find anything like that - what you've got there is a guess that fits your preconceptions.

 

He lost snaps as the season went on? Yeah? Here's how his week-by-week snap percentage looked.

 

48%

66%

36%

50%

43%

46%

39%

53%

47%

39%

44%

49%

46%

53%

47%

44%

 

Is that what it looks like when a guy loses snaps as the season goes on? In four of his last five games he averages more snaps than he did over the year? Or were you just completely making that up? Yeah, precisely. His snaps went up and down week to week, probably depending on formations and game situations, and they didn't go down as the season went on.

 

He was brought in to be a two-down guy. He'd been one in Carolina, under McDermott. He was under McDermott for four years and in two of those four he was below 50%. And the other two years he was at 59% and 65%. They knew what they were getting. He's doing just what they expected, just what they wanted. Yes, PFF tends to grade guys who aren't pass rush types average. That's fine. But clearly this is what McD wanted and knew very well enough to expect.

 

And you may well be not that sure ... but how you feel ain't really all that important. How McDermott feels, that's the key. And judging by the fact that the defense took another major step up, he likely feels pretty good about it.

 

 

 

Well then they're stupid for paying a 2-down guy that much money, particularly one that doens't produce.  I know I know, his mere presence on the field was the reason why the D was good otherwise.  LOL  

 

Otherwise, it is a problem for the aforementioned "theory."   It doesn't reconcile.  Changing the argument/theory after the fact is not good form.  

16 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

It's funny that the holistic, objective stats guy didn't apparently bother to actually look at the numbers before posting this.

 

What's even funnier is that you provided none. 

 

 

 

There's one.  Now if you'd care to find a site that has him having logged sacks or more than 1 QB pressure, please feel free.  

 

You guys are hilarious, you post nothing but opinions to counter the numbers that are all over the place.  

Edited March 26, 2019 by TaskersGhost

[Ronin]

Just so you guys realize, I'm going to put all three of ya on ignore to smooth out my days.   

 

 

[oldmanfan]

14 minutes ago, TaskersGhost said:

 

You're funny.  

 

 

LOL, OK, since "your word" seems to be the end-all-to-be-all in the discussion, sure. 

 

See, this is what happens when you argue based on opinions only.  

 

BTW, here's one more, he ranked 18th in combo tackles and 20th in solo tackles.  His contract was far from the 20th in compensation.  

 

 

 

 

Well then they're stupid for paying a 2-down guy that much money, particularly one that doens't produce.  I know I know, his mere presence on the field was the reason why the D was good otherwise.  LOL  

 

Otherwise, it is a problem for the aforementioned "theory."   It doesn't reconcile.  Changing the argument/theory after the fact is not good form.  

 

What's even funnier is that you provided none. 

 

 

 

There's one.  Now if you'd care to find a site that has him having logged sacks or more than 1 QB pressure, please feel free.  

 

You guys are hilarious, you post nothing but opinions to counter the numbers that are all over the place.  

This is dumb.  The data you've showed here is indecipherable vs. what Thurman has shown.  You claimed his snap counts went down.  They didn't.  Then when you get caught on that you switch to things like numbers like sacks.  You do 'tiniest what Frazier and McD asked him to do in the context of their D.  He presumably ate up double teams to free up other guys.

 

So when people show you're wrong you put them on ignore?  Wow.  Pretty holistic and objective.  The reality is you claim some mythical statistical expertise you don't have.

[Ronin]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

This is dumb.  The data you've showed here is indecipherable vs. what Thurman has shown.  You claimed his snap counts went down.  They didn't.  Then when you get caught on that you switch to things like numbers like sacks.  You do 'tiniest what Frazier and McD asked him to do in the context of their D.  He presumably ate up double teams to free up other guys.

 

So when people show you're wrong you put them on ignore?  Wow.  Pretty holistic and objective.  The reality is you claim some mythical statistical expertise you don't have.

 

LOL  

 

You have yet to provide any data.  

 

And what, you're incapable of looking things up yourself?  LMAO  

 

Never any lack of humor here.  

 

Not sure why I'm still getting notifications about you, but I won't respond in the future.  There's nothing to discuss.  You're right, everyone else is wrong despite what they present as evidence despite the fact that you provide absolutely nothing but narrative and opinion,half the time those not even aligning.  

[oldmanfan]

30 minutes ago, TaskersGhost said:

 

LOL  

 

You have yet to provide any data.  

 

And what, you're incapable of looking things up yourself?  LMAO  

 

Never any lack of humor here.  

 

Not sure why I'm still getting notifications about you, but I won't respond in the future.  There's nothing to discuss.  You're right, everyone else is wrong despite what they present as evidence despite the fact that you provide absolutely nothing but narrative and opinion,half the time those not even aligning.  

The stats thrown around so much aren't treated in in a proper statistical way.  People don't consider variables as I explained to you in another thread.

 

Oh, and Thurman gave you data.  I saw no reason to cite the exact same data since it was already presented and adequately rebutted your holistic and objective claptrap.

 

by the way, I thought I was being ignored?

Edited March 26, 2019 by oldmanfan