John Warrow’s High Praise For Beane & McDermott Regime

[oldmanfan]

41 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

 

A more curious question ... why is the criticism limited to the post-Kelly years?

 

The Buffalo Bills have sucked in the vast majority of seasons they've been in the NFL.

 

They've had 18 winning seasons.  That's 38%.  And in four of those winning seasons, they didn't make the playoffs.

 

Now I'M MAD!!!!!!

 

 

It really comes down to Buster Ramsay.  The last 58 years are his fault.

[Augie]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

I doubt it's going  happen because Marrone is not the cuddly type of guy. 

 

I don’t know.....who’d have put Rex and a foot fetish together? 

 

We never, never know......

Edited June 19, 2019 by Augie

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, Augie said:

 

I don’t know.....who’s have put Rex and a foot fetish together? 

 

We never, never know......

Rex regularly gets his feet massaged and toes polished. Other than his mouth they are his biggest asset. 

[Augie]

3 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Rex regularly gets his feet massaged and toes polished. Other than his mouth they are his biggest asset. 

 

He also had the belly and the backwards running Bills truck......a man of depth! Lots of BIG assets! 

[BADOLBILZ]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Whether you look at numbers or tape Harrison Phillips outplayed Star. 

 

I believe this also. I also understand it. I had no issue with the Dareus trade even though it left us with the worst DT in the whole NFL (and one of the worst I have ever watched) playing significant snaps from thereon in. They couldn't build what they wanted to build while pandering to Dareus. 

 

 

No doubt on Phillips.

 

But on whether they could build on what they had with Dareus?

 

I believe the chief reason they used the salary cap and other excuses to clear the decks of prime age young players was because those tyes of players have enough leverage to not feign buy-in and want the coach to at least meet them half-way if not actually prove to them that they have a good plan and can make a difference from the sideline.     

 

McDermott wasn't comfortable convincing anyone because he knew he wasn't a McVay who could instantly turn around a moribund franchise with X's and O's and let the culture follow.

 

It's no coincidence that all of the big names moved or lost.......Gilmore, Woods, Watkins, Darby and Dareus..........could afford to take that stance.........and McBeane even doubled down by lining the pockets of McCoy and Wood to get them to pimp "the process".     

 

That summer of 2017 McBeane were really feeling their power...........I think they were too impatient with players like Sammy and Dareus..........I don't think it's too much to ask for a coach to understand that players with options are going to be more cautious about buying into an unproven regime.    You might be able to convince me the bleaching out of prime young talent was worth it if the team hasn't been so bad since the Dareus trade.    They have a 10-15 record since and their point differential actually indicates that that is a false read and they have been worse than that.

 

Ultimately, not many organizations would give that much freedom to tear down a roster.............but the Bills with desperate ownership were willing.

 

 That's happened before under Ralph when he was becoming frail and over-empowered Donahoe and Levy/Jauron and even Buddy/Gailey...........so it's not something we haven't seen...........but in this case it seems McBeane even had full control of the purse strings..........which lead to the biggest dead cap hit season by one in NFL history.

 

And those "too close" haircuts by all of the other regimes repeatedly set the roster too far back for each of their regimes to survive the build.

 

That's ultimately the issue here...........instead of working with what they had like most ownerships force new regimes to do.........the Bills are now playing catch up(again).

 

[Augie]

45 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

No doubt on Phillips.

 

But on whether they could build on what they had with Dareus?

 

I believe the chief reason they used the salary cap and other excuses to clear the decks of prime age young players was because those tyes of players have enough leverage to not feign buy-in and want the coach to at least meet them half-way if not actually prove to them that they have a good plan and can make a difference from the sideline.     

 

McDermott wasn't comfortable convincing anyone because he knew he wasn't a McVay who could instantly turn around a moribund franchise with X's and O's and let the culture follow.

 

It's no coincidence that all of the big names moved or lost.......Gilmore, Woods, Watkins, Darby and Dareus..........could afford to take that stance.........and McBeane even doubled down by lining the pockets of McCoy and Wood to get them to pimp "the process".     

 

That summer of 2017 McBeane were really feeling their power...........I think they were too impatient with players like Sammy and Dareus..........I don't think it's too much to ask for a coach to understand that players with options are going to be more cautious about buying into an unproven regime.    You might be able to convince me the bleaching out of prime young talent was worth it if the team hasn't been so bad since the Dareus trade.    They have a 10-15 record since and their point differential actually indicates that that is a false read and they have been worse than that.

 

Ultimately, not many organizations would give that much freedom to tear down a roster.............but the Bills with desperate ownership were willing.

 

 That's happened before under Ralph when he was becoming frail and over-empowered Donahoe and Levy/Jauron and even Buddy/Gailey...........so it's not something we haven't seen...........but in this case it seems McBeane even had full control of the purse strings..........which lead to the biggest dead cap hit season by one in NFL history.

 

And those "too close" haircuts by all of the other regimes repeatedly set the roster too far back for each of their regimes to survive the build.

 

That's ultimately the issue here...........instead of working with what they had like most ownerships force new regimes to do.........the Bills are now playing catch up(again).

 

Interesting. Many people like the direction, and don’t see this as catch up at all. Major overhaul at OLine, significant additions at WR a year before WR is supposed to be heavily WR oriented, added some hope at TE.....I’ll go with hopeful, thank you. 

[Augie]

 

 

Cordy, who was rarely available, and Dareus who was no longer interested were not great losses. I’m thrilled with what the FO got for what they cast off. The picks for Tyrod and AJ were pure theft, but sure, go ahead and hate. 

Edited June 19, 2019 by Augie

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

No doubt on Phillips.

 

But on whether they could build on what they had with Dareus?

 

I believe the chief reason they used the salary cap and other excuses to clear the decks of prime age young players was because those tyes of players have enough leverage to not feign buy-in and want the coach to at least meet them half-way if not actually prove to them that they have a good plan and can make a difference from the sideline.     

 

McDermott wasn't comfortable convincing anyone because he knew he wasn't a McVay who could instantly turn around a moribund franchise with X's and O's and let the culture follow.

 

It's no coincidence that all of the big names moved or lost.......Gilmore, Woods, Watkins, Darby and Dareus..........could afford to take that stance.........and McBeane even doubled down by lining the pockets of McCoy and Wood to get them to pimp "the process".     

 

That summer of 2017 McBeane were really feeling their power...........I think they were too impatient with players like Sammy and Dareus..........I don't think it's too much to ask for a coach to understand that players with options are going to be more cautious about buying into an unproven regime.    You might be able to convince me the bleaching out of prime young talent was worth it if the team hasn't been so bad since the Dareus trade.    They have a 10-15 record since and their point differential actually indicates that that is a false read and they have been worse than that.

 

Ultimately, not many organizations would give that much freedom to tear down a roster.............but the Bills with desperate ownership were willing.

 

 That's happened before under Ralph when he was becoming frail and over-empowered Donahoe and Levy/Jauron and even Buddy/Gailey...........so it's not something we haven't seen...........but in this case it seems McBeane even had full control of the purse strings..........which lead to the biggest dead cap hit season by one in NFL history.

 

And those "too close" haircuts by all of the other regimes repeatedly set the roster too far back for each of their regimes to survive the build.

 

That's ultimately the issue here...........instead of working with what they had like most ownerships force new regimes to do.........the Bills are now playing catch up(again).

 

This is ridiculous. Pure fiction.  Inconsistent with the facts.  Totally ignorant of who McDermott is and what he is doing. 

 

But it's creative. Congratulations on that.  

[eball]

5 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

This is ridiculous. Pure fiction.  Inconsistent with the facts.  Totally ignorant of who McDermott is and what he is doing. 

 

But it's creative. Congratulations on that.  

 

You say creative, I say delusional.  We now have the "players with options won't listen to coaches" explanation despite nearly every player who has come through the system praising McD and what he is trying to accomplish.  It is comical.

 

Some people will go to extreme lengths to support their dislike of a player or coach (or GM).

 

When the Bills are more than competitive this season there will be a lot of faces covered in egg yolk around here.

[Royale with Cheese]

14 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

As I've said many times regarding Star.....the eyeball test says he was sluggish, didn't impact OL on contact and was too slow to disengage to be able to make plays..............the woeful numbers only confirm the eyeball test.

 

As for the other question.........when Kelvin Benjamin was running with the first team until the week that he was cut was that proof that they liked or were satisfied with what he was doing on the field?    I don't think so.........I think we all know that the situation was complicated by the fact that they swung a trade to get a player they were familiar with and were paying him $8M.    

 

If he was that bad, he wouldn't have played and with all the cap room we had available, I would think they would want to have addressed this.....especially with Beane going on record and stating he wanted to improve the trenches.  

 

No they weren't satisfied and McDermott reduced his role.  Benjamin was on a WR that was the bottom/near bottom in the league (you said it as well)...they literally had no one else to play these spots.  We went out and signed a street FA in Deonte Thompson, claimed McKenzie off of waivers (waived twice in 2018 by the Broncos) just to get something.

https://billswire.usatoday.com/2018/12/01/sean-mcdermott-discusses-kelvin-benjamins-reduced-role-buffalo-bills-miami-dolphins/

Stars role was never reduced...if I'm wrong, let me know.

 

So now we enter the offseason, $50+ million dead cap comes off the books.  We go out and sign the most FA in the league with the extra money....no 1-tech drafted or signed.

We still have/had the money to try to improve the horribleness of Star....didn't do a thing.  We did however go after Ziggy Ansah so money isn't an issue and still looking to improve our DL....just not a Stars position.

 

If Star starts seeing a reduced role and/or he is a healthy scratch like you suggested is a possibility....then I'll start to believe you.  

 

Edited June 19, 2019 by Royale with Cheese

[GunnerBill]

10 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

If Star starts seeing a reduced role and/or he is a healthy scratch like you suggested is a possibility....then I'll start to believe you.  

 

 

He actually did play a slightly lower % of the snaps as the season went on. That might not, necessarily, mean that McDermott had reduced his snaps due to his largely ineffectual play and might just be evidence of that fact that they felt more comfortable rotating their DTs once they had both Phillips boys in the building as depth. But I do think if last season is repeated performance wise then I expect Harrison to continue to eat into Star's playing time. 

[GunnerBill]

8 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

But on whether they could build on what they had with Dareus?

 

So as you know I completely agree that everything they did was choice and they could have chosen to build on what they had. The tear down was not inevitable. It was their decision and the poor talent they fielded last year while carrying $50m of dead cap was a result of that decision. However, once they had asserted that they needed to address culture in the building they could not do that with Dareus. He is, and always was actually - even when he was performing on the field, the antethesis of the approach and personality McDermott wanted from his team. 

 

I have referenced before that I embarked on a culture change project as a semi-pro soccer coach about a decade or so ago now. Within 3 games I had come to the conclusion that I couldn't do it with the most talented player on my current squad. I had to move him on. I didn't tear down the entire squad - but he to me was like Dareus to McDermott. He was the guy who was just never, ever, even if in "bought in" mode going to represent what I wanted to acheive. Results did suffer for a short time. But I managed to get the culture I wanted and within 2 and a half seasons we went from pretty much the worst team in the league consistenly battling relegation to a team competing for promotion and only missing out on tiebreakers. I couldn't have done that with John. As talented as he was.

 

Of all the top end players that McDermott let go in that first year or so (Gilmore, Woods, Darby, Glenn, Watkins, Dareus...) Dareus was the one that I thought was the most inevitable and most necessary. 

[oldmanfan]

The stuff about Dareus, Watkins, etc.  kind of comes down to whether you are more on the side of the player or the coach in terms of how you see a team should be run.  To some here (who should be obvious) the players should be coddled, the coach should acquiesce to whatever the player wants.  It's on the coach to deal with recalcitrant guys and not the other way around.

Count me firmly on the coach side of this equation.  McD tried to get guys like Dareus especially to buy in, and when he didn't he let him go.  Sammy himself has been quoted about how bad his attitude was while here.  Beane and McD have a specific idea about how successful teams are constructed, and they are going to follow that plan.  I don't know if they will ultimately be successful, but I am glad they are holding players accountable.

 

What is it that Belichick preaches, his one thing he tells his players constantly?  Do your job.  Essentially that is what McD is doing. 

[Royale with Cheese]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

He actually did play a slightly lower % of the snaps as the season went on. That might not, necessarily, mean that McDermott had reduced his snaps due to his largely ineffectual play and might just be evidence of that fact that they felt more comfortable rotating their DTs once they had both Phillips boys in the building as depth. But I do think if last season is repeated performance wise then I expect Harrison to continue to eat into Star's playing time. 

Here's Star's game by game snap count.  I would say his line graph would be pretty consistent with just a few dips in 3 blow outs.

I think Phillips will get more snaps this year, I'm actually quite sure of it.  I still expect Star to get mid to high 40's% up to 50%.  Of course if he's not being effective...that will change.

 

You're a better X's and O's guy than I am.  We had all this money, we improved areas that really needed to be improved (or so we think) but I didn't see any commitment to replace Star.  There isn't any "news" from any insiders talking about Stars job could be in jeopardy....no indication unless I missed it.  

 

[Forward Progress]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I have referenced before that I embarked on a culture change project as a semi-pro soccer coach about a decade or so ago now. Within 3 games I had come to the conclusion that I couldn't do it with the most talented player on my current squad. I had to move him on. I didn't tear down the entire squad - but he to me was like Dareus to McDermott. He was the guy who was just never, ever, even if in "bought in" mode going to represent what I wanted to acheive. Results did suffer for a short time. But I managed to get the culture I wanted and within 2 and a half seasons we went from pretty much the worst team in the league consistenly battling relegation to a team competing for promotion and only missing out on tiebreakers. I couldn't have done that with John. As talented as he was.

 

Of all the top end players that McDermott let go in that first year or so (Gilmore, Woods, Darby, Glenn, Watkins, Dareus...) Dareus was the one that I thought was the most inevitable and most necessary. 

 

I had a very similar experience as part of the coaching staff of a hockey team.  

 

We had taken on a team of 16/17 yr-old boys of a AA midget hockey team.  In the previous season, this team had a terrible locker room with bullying issues, while on the ice they played as individuals.  They wouldn't pass the puck, lead the league in penalties and finished 10th in an 11-team league.

 

Through the off-season our head coach devoted hours and hours to get to know the players to find out what kind of people they were (sound like the drafting strategy of any teams you know?).  He spent time with their coaches of other sports, as many of them played lacrosse or soccer in the summer.  He needed to know if they were coachable and team-first players.  When training camp opened, there were 5 players from the previous season that were cut after the first practice.  These players were physically more talented than the 5 players who were ultimately promoted from the team below, but they had to go change the culture.

 

It shocked a lot of people to see the team gutted and many predicted that this team could not win a game with so little talent on the ice.  Remember, this team was almost last a year ago, so how could they compete with so many of the most talented players cut from the team?  The early practices were focused on building the player's individual skills needed to compete as a team.  These were the most efficient practices I had ever seen, without a moment of practice time wasted.  This team that wouldn't (couldn't) pass the puck effectively one season ago was now executing very challenging drills to drive a quick-passing and finesse style of hockey.  

 

This first month of the season was predictably tough, but the team-first culture was evident.  The locker room was healthy with a "team above all else" attitude permeating from every boy on the team.  By the end of the second month, it clicked and close losses turned into close wins.  The team got better and better as the year wore on, finishing in the middle of the standings.  In the playoffs the team won the first round easily, knocked off the 2nd best team in the second round and battled hard but couldn't take down the league champions in the finals.

 

In one year, the team went from second-last to second place with less individual talent because culture matters in team sports.

 

The Bills are on the right track.  Their culture is healthy.  Every player is driven to get better and determined to do whatever it takes to help the team win.  

 

 

Edited June 19, 2019 by Forward Progress

[K-9]

24 minutes ago, Forward Progress said:

 

I had a very similar experience as part of the coaching staff of a hockey team.  

 

We had taken on a team of 16/17 yr-old boys of a AA midget hockey team.  In the previous season, this team had a terrible locker room with bullying issues, while on the ice they played as individuals.  They wouldn't pass the puck, lead the league in penalties and finished 10th in an 11-team league.

 

Through the off-season our head coach devoted hours and hours to get to know the players to find out what kind of people they were (sound like the drafting strategy of any teams you know?).  He spent time with their coaches of other sports, as many of them played lacrosse or soccer in the summer.  He needed to know if they were coachable and team-first players.  When training camp opened, there were 5 players from the previous season that were cut after the first practice.  These players were physically more talented than the 5 players who were ultimately promoted from the team below, but they had to go change the culture.

 

It shocked a lot of people to see the team gutted and many predicted that this team could not win a game with so little talent on the ice.  Remember, this team was almost last a year ago, so how could they compete with so many of the most talented players cut from the team?  The early practices were focused on building the player's individual skills needed to compete as a team.  These were the most efficient practices I had ever seen, without a moment of practice time wasted.  This team that wouldn't (couldn't) pass the puck effectively one season ago was now executing very challenging drills to drive a quick-passing and finesse style of hockey.  

 

This first month of the season was predictably tough, but the team-first culture was evident.  The locker room was healthy with a "team above all else" attitude permeating from every boy on the team.  By the end of the second month, it clicked and close losses turned into close wins.  The team got better and better as the year wore on, finishing in the middle of the standings.  In the playoffs the team won the first round easily, knocked off the 2nd best team in the second round and battled hard but couldn't take down the league champions in the finals.

 

In one year, the team went from second-last to second place with less individual talent because culture matters in team sports.

 

The Bills are on the right track.  Their culture is healthy.  Every player is driven to get better and determined to do whatever it takes to help the team win.  

 

 

Great post. 

 

I can only imagine there are thousands of stories similar to yours and @GunnerBill's that paint similar pictures. It's pretty simple: when your best players have the worst attitudes, they have to go, otherwise the room gets poisoned and there is no possibility of cohesion. Especially when you're new as a coach and trying to establish a winning culture. And that's precisely why Dareus, even as our best player, had to go.

 

Which is why is can't be considered a bad move. Not sure why that escapes people. 

[BADOLBILZ]

2 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

If he was that bad, he wouldn't have played and with all the cap room we had available, I would think they would want to have addressed this.....especially with Beane going on record and stating he wanted to improve the trenches.  

 

No they weren't satisfied and McDermott reduced his role.  Benjamin was on a WR that was the bottom/near bottom in the league (you said it as well)...they literally had no one else to play these spots.  We went out and signed a street FA in Deonte Thompson, claimed McKenzie off of waivers (waived twice in 2018 by the Broncos) just to get something.

https://billswire.usatoday.com/2018/12/01/sean-mcdermott-discusses-kelvin-benjamins-reduced-role-buffalo-bills-miami-dolphins/

Stars role was never reduced...if I'm wrong, let me know.

 

So now we enter the offseason, $50+ million dead cap comes off the books.  We go out and sign the most FA in the league with the extra money....no 1-tech drafted or signed.

We still have/had the money to try to improve the horribleness of Star....didn't do a thing.  We did however go after Ziggy Ansah so money isn't an issue and still looking to improve our DL....just not a Stars position.

 

If Star starts seeing a reduced role and/or he is a healthy scratch like you suggested is a possibility....then I'll start to believe you.  

 

 

 

They drafted a 1 tech in Harrison Phillips in the third round in 2017.

 

For a run stuffing DT only that's most definitely a starting grade draft pick.

 

It's a passing league you don't pick backup 1's or 0's early.........those kinda' guys are late picks who are often inactives or practice squadders.

 

So why you keep ignoring Harrison Phillips and saying they haven't addressed the position with a replacement I don't understand..........you can only suit up 47 on game day Royale.........how many "2 down only" DT's do you think are required?

 

You basically need 1 of them plus a versatile DT who can play either...........a bill which a 6' 6" 340# Jordan Phillips might just be able to handle for the 15% of snaps or so.

 

Hence my take that Star could see some healthy scratches if he doesn't come to camp a changed player.

 

But he CERTAINLY isn't going to be cut even if he performs like KB...........not with close to $19M still guaranteed on the books.........I mean if they cut Star with $19M left AFTER already eating Dareus' $24M.........that would be a true feat of stupidity from a GM over a 1 Tech position.

 

 

Here is my outlook for the season at DT............if Ed Oliver is healthy HE will draw the double teams and Harrison Phillips should have a strong statistical season.

Edited June 19, 2019 by BADOLBILZ

[Rock-A-Bye Beasley]

11 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Great post. 

 

I can only imagine there are thousands of stories similar to yours and @GunnerBill's that paint similar pictures. It's pretty simple: when your best players have the worst attitudes, they have to go, otherwise the room gets poisoned and there is no possibility of cohesion. Especially when you're new as a coach and trying to establish a winning culture. And that's precisely why Dareus, even as our best player, had to go.

 

Which is why is can't be considered a bad move. Not sure why that escapes people. 

 

Thats because it’s nonsense. Every single one of the players they traded or let go besides Glenn have been to the championship game or super bowl. The other example in hockey recently is  Oreilly winning the cup and conn smyth. Evander Kane making the WCF. The same argument was made that they poison locker rooms. Turns out having a bad coach will do a lot more damage than a frustrated but talented player. 

 

Now I suppose this is where you’ll tell me they changed their attitude after leaving. Or that they weren’t the BEST player on their new team so it worked out somehow. 

 

 

Edited June 19, 2019 by Chemical

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, Chemical said:

 

Thats because it’s nonsense. Every single one of the players they traded or let go have been to the championship game or super bowl. The other example in hockey recently is  Oreilly winning the cup and conn smyth. Evander Kane making the WCF. The same argument was made that they poison locker rooms. Turns out having a bad coach will do a lot more damage than a frustrated but talented player. 

 

Now I suppose this is where you’ll tell me they changed their attitude after leaving. Or that they weren’t the BEST player on their new team so it worked out somehow. 

 

 

It isn't always about "this guy is a bad egg and will always be a bad egg." The guy I was specifically referring to in my example I worked with at another club where his attitude was exactly the same but it worked there because he was a fit for who we were and what we wanted to get done. And he was genuinely very talented. Not all situations are created equal. There isn't another of the talented group that the Bills lost in one way or another that I feel like couldn't with time and a bit of meeting in the middle have been a culture fit for what McDermott wanted to build. But I couldn't ever see Dareus being. I happen to agree with Gug that McDermott knew pretty much exactly when he took over that Dareus was not for him long term. 

[Shaw66]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

The stuff about Dareus, Watkins, etc.  kind of comes down to whether you are more on the side of the player or the coach in terms of how you see a team should be run.  To some here (who should be obvious) the players should be coddled, the coach should acquiesce to whatever the player wants.  It's on the coach to deal with recalcitrant guys and not the other way around.

Count me firmly on the coach side of this equation.  McD tried to get guys like Dareus especially to buy in, and when he didn't he let him go.  Sammy himself has been quoted about how bad his attitude was while here.  Beane and McD have a specific idea about how successful teams are constructed, and they are going to follow that plan.  I don't know if they will ultimately be successful, but I am glad they are holding players accountable.

 

What is it that Belichick preaches, his one thing he tells his players constantly?  Do your job.  Essentially that is what McD is doing. 

There are two different philosophies - the star player philosophy and the coach-driven team orientation philosophy.   Belichick is the extreme on the latter, and of course the most successful at it. 

 

The star player philosophy can work, too, but it can't be expected to be as effective for long-term excellence, because stars come and go, stars sometimes become disgruntled, stars sometimes lose their competitive advantage for one reason or another.

 

Whaley clearly was in the star-driven camp.   The Dareus history, the trade-up for Watkins, the trade for McCoy.   And who among us wasn't excited about that path.   Those are three enormously talented players.   Yeah, there were issues with the approach, and the Bills couldn't land a QB good enough to lead them, but talent like that gives you hope.   With the right head coach and the right QB, it's possible the Bills could be really good right now.   To take the simplest example, suppose in 2013 the Bills don't hire Doug Marrone and instead land Andy Reid as he left Philadelphia.   Play out everything the same in terms of personnel choices (except keep the stars), and in 2017 Reid takes Mahomes instead of trading back.   Last season you would have had Andy Reid coaching Mahomes, Watkins, McCoy and Dareus and it's quite possible that would have been a serious winner in the league.  

 

But Reid's coaching approach and philosophy is different from Belichick's and from McDermott's.   It's all well and good to say that there was another way to go with the team - of course there was.  There's always more than one way to go.  McBeane took the route that they believe leads to long-term, sustained success.   What we're seeing today is what it looks like to be on that route.   It's not as great - today - as things MIGHT have been, but it's also better than as bad as things MIGHT have been going the star route (Watkins might still be an underperforming #1, and Dareus might have run off the rails).   

 

The principal reason I'm fully on board with where McBeane are and what they're doing is that they TOLD us they were going to do this.  They TOLD us it was going to take several years.  They TOLD us 2018 likely would be worse than 2017.  They TOLD us what kind of players they want on the team.   It's not as though they intended to be great in year two and when they weren't great, they changed the story.  The story has been the same since the beginning, and it seems their process is going the way it should.   To get back to the fundamental argument here, this season is a critical season.   If they are succeeding at the process they are following, the Bills will be around .500 or better.   If they are 6-10 or worse, there have to be some serious questions asked about whether these men and this process are right for the team.