John Warrow’s High Praise For Beane & McDermott Regime

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

24 minutes ago, JohnC said:

In my opinion one of the most impressive feats that McDermott accomplished in his first year was remaking the backside of the defense without extravagantly spending for the replacement players. Adding players such as Poyer, Hyde and rookie Tre' White and having them seamlessly fit in his system was a tribute to his coaching and scouting talents. I'll even go a little farther in saying that the wrestling coach was masterful in his first year on the job when he got his at best average roster into the playoffs.   

 

I was just thinking this was a theme that wasn’t hit on yet. 

 

Unloaded darby for trade capital, drafted TreD, grabbed Poyer  and Hyde. They’ve been perfect scheme fits and were the key adds that boosted the team to the playoffs. 

 

McDermott grew up a secondary guy. Even though Whaley was still there as I recall,  you gotta believe McDermott was pulling those strings.

 

Dawkins and Milano feel more like Whaley guys, they just fit the mold of guys he’s gotten in the past. 

 

The Rick Dennison OC thing felt like a misstep, but basically they flush Tyrod and Dennison in short order. 

 

Shipping out high priced mediocre talent was done very well for decent capital, didn’t impede a playoff run and led to the QB they think is the guy — of the offense AND the defense!!! 

 

sure there is still that whole headscratching peterman thing... but in retrospect you can actually see the plan unfold.  Maybe it won’t pan out, but their execution appears deliberate and exceptional. 

 

Side note- credit to warrow... normally just the facts without trying to spin too much controversy (which I respect btw) ... for pointing out for readers there is something to see here. 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[Hapless Bills Fan]

8 minutes ago, JohnC said:

In my opinion one of the most impressive feats that McDermott accomplished in his first year was remaking the backside of the defense without extravagantly spending for the replacement players. Adding players such as Poyer, Hyde and rookie Tre' White and having them seamlessly fit in his system was a tribute to his coaching and scouting talents. I'll even go a little farther in saying that the wrestling coach was masterful in his first year on the job when he got his at best average roster into the playoffs.   

 

McDermott has done a creditable job with the D both years especially the secondary, and Beane has done a creditable job supplying him with pieces.

The offense has been less successful, but shows evidence of "learning from mistakes" - moving on from Dennison, Castillo (a McD crony),  2 different WR coaches, Tyrod

 

The biggest head scratcher to me has been the OL and the WR moves and non moves.  Perhaps it is a case of the coach influencing player choice, and one factor in why that coach is gone? 

 

[Delete This Account]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Please.  Never accuse me of being sober.  

 

My sincerest apologies.

 

I was terribly wrong.

 

jw

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

McDermott has done a creditable job with the D both years especially the secondary, and Beane has done a creditable job supplying him with pieces.

The offense has been less successful, but shows evidence of "learning from mistakes" - moving on from Dennison, Castillo (a McD crony),  2 different WR coaches, Tyrod

 

The biggest head scratcher to me has been the OL and the WR moves and non moves.  Perhaps it is a case of the coach influencing player choice, and one factor in why that coach is gone? 

 

I agree with both your points that McDermott has done a good job with the defense, and most particularly the defensive backfield. That shouldn't be surprising because that is his background. And it is evident that McDermott and Beane are working in tandem to get players who not only fit the preferred scheme but also players who fit the coach's preferred player profile. That's a reflection of an excellent working relationship where each of them reinforces the other. 

 

On the other hand I have a more nuanced and less critical take on McDermott's offensive approach. The coach inherited a team that he was going to substantially remake. He wasn't going to be able to redo both sides of the ball all at once. In his first year there was a greater focus on the defense. While this offseason there was a greater attention to the offense with the theme of putting its qb in a position to succeed. 

 

What's interesting to watch as this team is being rebuilt is the degree of coherency throughout the football operation. No one is going to agree with all the many moves but for the most part all the moves made are understandable to an observer. This display of intelligence and thoughtfullness augurs well for the future. 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 minutes ago, JohnC said:

On the other hand I have a more nuanced and less critical take on McDermott's offensive approach. The coach inherited a team that he was going to substantially remake. He wasn't going to be able to redo both sides of the ball all at once. In his first year there was a greater focus on the defense. While this offseason there was a greater attention to the offense with the theme of putting its qb in a position to succeed.

 

It's a fine working hypothesis you've got, but in fact there were a number of moves on offense in 2017 and 2018 that appear to indicate they were trying to improve the offense with the right "pedigree" of players. 

 

Year 1, after it was clear Watkins might not be the payday-motivated player they hoped for in training camp and after Boldin signed then retired in Aug 2017, they knew they had to take steps to bolster the WR corps.  I think they honestly felt Jordan Matthews was a step up replacing Robert Woods.  Matthews had better stats than Woods in a bunch of categories including catch % and YPG; if someone was just going through lists of players and not watching film, one could reach that conclusion.  I think they honestly felt former #1 pick Kelvin Benjamin was an improvement on Sammy Watkins - a "big catch radius" guy more suited to the QB they planned to draft who would come in and lead the locker room.  I could go on - since they moved up and drafted him, they must have believed Zay Jones was The Truth and better than Juju Smith Schuster.  They may have felt Ducasse was a step up from Cog, thus the renegotiated cheapening of his contract, and that Bodine a good enough center at a bargain relative to some other guys whom they could have afforded even with our cap.

 

The point is, it isn't that they didn't expend resources and add guys on offense.  They made a whole bunch of moves that had logic to them on paper (and I am a stats geek so I see it) and that required an expansion of resources, but who turned out to not pass the eye test or work out on the field.

Now maybe McBeane had their college scouts and pro-personnel guys working overtime on QB and defense and gave WR and OL the "bum's rush", looking more at statistical digests and less at film.   I hope that's true.  Or maybe they realized the needed to bolster scouting in those aspects, and they have.  I hope that's true.  Or maybe departed coaches influenced the decisions.  Hope that too.

 

The end result is that we replaced several OLmen and skill players, with guys who weren't as good, and who sometimes cost just as much or more.

 

Bottom line, we all agree let's see what we got this year.  If they've fixed the OL and have a workable WR corps, it's all good.

 

 

[JohnC]

8 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

It's a fine working hypothesis you've got, but in fact there were a number of moves on offense in 2017 and 2018 that appear to indicate they were trying to improve the offense with the right "pedigree" of players. 

 

Year 1, after it was clear Watkins might not be the payday-motivated player they hoped for in training camp and after Boldin signed then retired in Aug 2017, they knew they had to take steps to bolster the WR corps.  I think they honestly felt Jordan Matthews was a step up replacing Robert Woods.  Matthews had better stats than Woods in a bunch of categories including catch % and YPG; if someone was just going through lists of players and not watching film, one could reach that conclusion.  I think they honestly felt former #1 pick Kelvin Benjamin was an improvement on Sammy Watkins - a "big catch radius" guy more suited to the QB they planned to draft who would come in and lead the locker room.  I could go on - since they moved up and drafted him, they must have believed Zay Jones was The Truth and better than Juju Smith Schuster.  They may have felt Ducasse was a step up from Cog, thus the renegotiated cheapening of his contract, and that Bodine a good enough center at a bargain relative to some other guys whom they could have afforded even with our cap.

 

The point is, it isn't that they didn't expend resources and add guys on offense.  They made a whole bunch of moves that had logic to them on paper (and I am a stats geek so I see it) and that required an expansion of resources, but who turned out to not pass the eye test or work out on the field.

Now maybe McBeane had their college scouts and pro-personnel guys working overtime on QB and defense and gave WR and OL the "bum's rush", looking more at statistical digests and less at film.   I hope that's true.  Or maybe they realized the needed to bolster scouting in those aspects, and they have.  I hope that's true.  Or maybe departed coaches influenced the decisions.  Hope that too.

 

The end result is that we replaced several OLmen and skill players, with guys who weren't as good, and who sometimes cost just as much or more.

 

Bottom line, we all agree let's see what we got this year.  If they've fixed the OL and have a workable WR corps, it's all good.

 

 

I don't agree that this staff believed that Jordan Matthews was better than Robert Woods or that Kelvin Benjamin was an improvement on Sammy Watkins, catch radius and all. The primary reason for the departing receivers vs the incoming receivers revolved around the issue of contracts and not talent level. I don't know of many people who would believe that the ineffective Benjamin was nearly as talented as Watkins. And I would make the same judgment that Woods was much more talented than Matthews. Again, the issue relating to the departing players had more to do with the impending contracts than it was over talent. 

 

This regime in its first two years did make a lot of moves on offense. There certainly was a lot of churning on that side of the ball. But many of those transactions were short term in nature until the cap structure was revamped. It wasn't until this offseason that the OL was addressed with better players who were signed at a higher price. 

 

The primary point of the previous post was that initially more attention was paid to the defense than to the offense which was more directly addressed this offseason. Many of the offensive transactions that you cited turned out to be short term deals where those holding pattern players were then let go. It seems to me that this offseason there was more attention and resources directed to the offense. 

 

With respect to the highlighted segment we are in a complete accord.

 

 

[Dr. Who]

In short, Hapless, one generally has more confidence they know what they are doing on D. Hopefully there were mitigating factors on O and assessment has improved on that side.

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

more praise?

 

Could The Buffalo Bills Be On The Threshold Of A New Golden Age?

 

It took the Bills only three years, from 1985 when they drafted Smith and Reed, to 1988 when they selected Thomas, to get all their stars lined up.

 

Maybe the Bills will never find such generational talents again, but sometimes greatness can come from other positions. "We're heading in the right direction," Beane said.

 

Perhaps three years from now, when Bills fans look back at this time in history, they might see what could be the beginning of a new golden age in Buffalo.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

I don't agree that this staff believed that Jordan Matthews was better than Robert Woods or that Kelvin Benjamin was an improvement on Sammy Watkins, catch radius and all. The primary reason for the departing receivers vs the incoming receivers revolved around the issue of contracts and not talent level. I don't know of many people who would believe that the ineffective Benjamin was nearly as talented as Watkins. And I would make the same judgment that Woods was much more talented than Matthews. Again, the issue relating to the departing players had more to do with the impending contracts than it was over talent.

 

Well, perhaps you felt that.  I'm not keeping score.  But can you ever separate talent level and contracts?  

I think it's pretty clear if they had any inkling Woods would be putting up the numbers and play that he has, they would have danced down the street to give him the contract he got from LA.  Can we agree that we mis-evaluated Woods talent? 

And when we traded for Matthews, I heard a lot of stuff about how his numbers were better than Woods even though he was splitting his catches with Ertz with a rookie QB.  Pundits said stuff like  "It's likely Matthews will put up similar numbers in Buffalo" "Robert Woods scored a $6.8 million per year contract coming out of that Bills offense and there is no reason Matthews wont score at least that playing with the Bills."  They presented Matthews (a 2nd round pick who was expected to be the Iggles #1) as replacing Watkins in the Bills starting lineup and pointed at his superior durability.  They quoted Beane as saying "I’m thrilled that in losing a guy like Sammy we were able to get a guy with Jordan Matthews’ skins on the wall."   This ain't "Woods was much more talented than Matthews" talk.

 

We signed up to pay Kelvin Benjamin more than $9M, while Woods signed in LA for $7M/yr; do you really think the Bills would have done the deal for Benjamin if they thought Benjamin was "ineffective", or was gonna be ineffective, when they traded for him? 

 

C'mon Man.  This recks of hindsight.

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Dr. Who said:

In short, Hapless, one generally has more confidence they know what they are doing on D. Hopefully there were mitigating factors on O and assessment has improved on that side.

 

A concise and precise capture of my take on the situation.

Especially we hope they know what they're doing on QB and JA turns into "The Man".

 

Evvybody wants to play with the Hot Hand and nobody wants to go to a team where WR careers "go to die"

[Delete This Account]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

It's a fine working hypothesis you've got, but in fact there were a number of moves on offense in 2017 and 2018 that appear to indicate they were trying to improve the offense with the right "pedigree" of players. 

 

Year 1, after it was clear Watkins might not be the payday-motivated player they hoped for in training camp and after Boldin signed then retired in Aug 2017, they knew they had to take steps to bolster the WR corps.  I think they honestly felt Jordan Matthews was a step up replacing Robert Woods.  Matthews had better stats than Woods in a bunch of categories including catch % and YPG; if someone was just going through lists of players and not watching film, one could reach that conclusion.  I think they honestly felt former #1 pick Kelvin Benjamin was an improvement on Sammy Watkins - a "big catch radius" guy more suited to the QB they planned to draft who would come in and lead the locker room.  I could go on - since they moved up and drafted him, they must have believed Zay Jones was The Truth and better than Juju Smith Schuster.  They may have felt Ducasse was a step up from Cog, thus the renegotiated cheapening of his contract, and that Bodine a good enough center at a bargain relative to some other guys whom they could have afforded even with our cap.

 

The point is, it isn't that they didn't expend resources and add guys on offense.  They made a whole bunch of moves that had logic to them on paper (and I am a stats geek so I see it) and that required an expansion of resources, but who turned out to not pass the eye test or work out on the field.

Now maybe McBeane had their college scouts and pro-personnel guys working overtime on QB and defense and gave WR and OL the "bum's rush", looking more at statistical digests and less at film.   I hope that's true.  Or maybe they realized the needed to bolster scouting in those aspects, and they have.  I hope that's true.  Or maybe departed coaches influenced the decisions.  Hope that too.

 

The end result is that we replaced several OLmen and skill players, with guys who weren't as good, and who sometimes cost just as much or more.

 

Bottom line, we all agree let's see what we got this year.  If they've fixed the OL and have a workable WR corps, it's all good.

 

 

 

As I've noted here and/or on the tweeter before.

The Bills, a year ago, were handcuffed in their plans to upgrade the offense for several reasons.

1. They never anticipated losing Wood and Incognito. Once both were gone, they couldn't afford spending much money on their replacements. As Beane told me, simply signing Bodine, meant the Bills had something like $11 million committed to the center position Wood/Bodine.

2. They did take a run at several receivers, including John Brown. The uncertainty at QB -- remember Bills only had Peterman and McCarron under contract at start of free agency -- led the receivers they desired to go elsewhere.

3. Redoing Incognito was part of the plan. That he went sideways after agreeing to the deal is not the Bills' fault.

4. And they were committed to only spending only so much in free agency, because the objective was to free up as much room under the cap as possible.

5. If you go all the way back to Woods, Bills were very much interested in re-signing him. The trouble began when they looked at the price-tag and determined there was no way they would be able to afford what he was going to get on the market.

6. This of course led them to acquire Jordan Matthews and Kelvin Benjamin on essential trial deals. They would've been ahead of the game had one or both worked out. Neither did and the Bills didn't give up much in acquiring either.

 

I agree, the WRs this year have some question marks. Fewer, however, than in years past.

 

We'll see.

 

jw

[Delete This Account]

9 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

I didn't zig zag around anything.

 

Simply stated facts. They inherited a less than stellar cap situation, but cap hell? Not even close.

 

You compared Beanes approach to Donahoes.... as if his approach was the correct way to go about things when it netted them one winning season in 5 years as GM.? 

 

They've made their fair share of good moves and their fair share of bad ones. Year 3 is big for them. Need to see at least 9 wins and the massive amount of blow out losses needs to stop, IMO. 

 

I'll save the ball washing for when the results are actually seen on the field.??

 

Oh, so that's what you think I'm doing.

Sorrrr-eeee.

I guess it's my job to always be negative, which I'm not. And heaven forbid the few times i'm actually positive, otherwise, i will bear the wrath of ScottLaw.

 

however, shall i now sleep now that ScottLaw has called me out as a homer.

 

aside from that, ScottLaw, still has difficulty explaining exactly how this "teams turn things around all the time" thing goes in light of the other indisputable facts presented.

but that would be asking way too much, because ScottLaw is more into name-calling and zigging and zagging around his own neat and compact narrative to ever suggest another just may exist.

 

but yes, ScottLaw now suggests Year 3 is big for them, as if he conveniently failed to read what I wrote, and instead interpreted my posts as, how did he put it? oh, right, "ball-washing" as if i somehow failed to point out this team still has to prove itself.

 

well, done, ScottLaw. well done.

 

jw

 

[teef]

4 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

 

Oh, so that's what you think I'm doing.

Sorrrr-eeee.

I guess it's my job to always be negative, which I'm not. And heaven forbid the few times i'm actually positive, otherwise, i will bear the wrath of ScottLaw.

 

however, shall i now sleep now that ScottLaw has called me out as a homer.

 

aside from that, ScottLaw, still has difficulty explaining exactly how this "teams turn things around all the time" thing goes in light of the other indisputable facts presented.

but that would be asking way too much, because ScottLaw is more into name-calling and zigging and zagging around his own neat and compact narrative to ever suggest another just may exist.

 

but yes, ScottLaw now suggests Year 3 is big for them, as if he conveniently failed to read what I wrote, and instead interpreted my posts as, how did he put it? oh, right, "ball-washing" as if i somehow failed to point out this team still has to prove itself.

 

well, done, ScottLaw. well done.

 

jw

 

Oh snap!

[Hapless Bills Fan]

35 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

 

As I've noted here and/or on the tweeter before.

The Bills, a year ago, were handcuffed in their plans to upgrade the offense for several reasons.

1. They never anticipated losing Wood and Incognito. Once both were gone, they couldn't afford spending much money on their replacements. As Beane told me, simply signing Bodine, meant the Bills had something like $11 million committed to the center position Wood/Bodine.

2. They did take a run at several receivers, including John Brown. The uncertainty at QB -- remember Bills only had Peterman and McCarron under contract at start of free agency -- led the receivers they desired to go elsewhere.

3. Redoing Incognito was part of the plan. That he went sideways after agreeing to the deal is not the Bills' fault.

4. And they were committed to only spending only so much in free agency, because the objective was to free up as much room under the cap as possible.

5. If you go all the way back to Woods, Bills were very much interested in re-signing him. The trouble began when they looked at the price-tag and determined there was no way they would be able to afford what he was going to get on the market.

6. This of course led them to acquire Jordan Matthews and Kelvin Benjamin on essential trial deals. They would've been ahead of the game had one or both worked out. Neither did and the Bills didn't give up much in acquiring either.

 

I agree, the WRs this year have some question marks. Fewer, however, than in years past.

 

We'll see.

 

jw

 

Thanks for your response.  I agree, fewer WR questionmarks this year than years past. I actually like the Brown and Beasley signings quite a lot, and feel we have some good competition slated for training camp.  We are likely to have to cut some guys we might rather keep, if they play up to their pedigrees.

 

I hadn't thought about "compartmentalizing" and looking at it as "$11M tied up in the Center position".    If they think about dead money as still tied to a position as a sunk cost, purely from a business development perspective I wonder if a different model might be useful.  I ran some back-of-the-envelopes and believe there were a couple FA OLmen, based on what they signed for, the Bills could have managed (Mike Pouncey who signed with the Chargers would be an example).  He signed for 2 years/$15 but it could have been structured to be manageable.  Now, maybe they tried and those guys were all "Thanks but No Thanks" in the face of interest from other teams closer to playoff contention, and we didn't have the money to set up a higher stack, could be.

I truly don't buy that the Bills couldn't have figured a way to afford Woods.  If you add up the money they actually threw at other WR in the last 2 years, it's a heftier chunk of change than the production would lead one to believe.  We weren't so cap limited in 2017, right?  This year, we ended the season with $13.5M in dead cap tied up in WR.  That's $8.4M from Benjamin, $3M from Corey Coleman, $1.5M from Holmes, and $0.7M from Jeremy Kerley.  One has to think that in $13.5M dead cap, there was probably a way to pay a guy we developed who signed with another team for an average salary of $7.5M and had what, $7M last year and $8M this? 

That is the reason I believe there must have been some "here's how we value Woods and the price he commands on the open market is likely to exceed that" in there, where how the Bills valued Woods and what the Rams got from Woods had a significant....gap

Now a caveat that if Beane works by ringfencing certain sums for positional spending and includes his dead money in that, my back-of-the-envelope doesn't factor that in at all.  I'd like to know more about that as a team salary strategy.  I'm not sure the "dead money included" is optimal way to assess what the team can afford at critical positions. 
 

20 minutes ago, teef said:

Oh snap!

 

Ha!  As I quoted upthread:  

"Well," he stated judicially, "start awful early when yu' go to fool with him, or he'll make you feel unpunctual."

?

[Delete This Account]

12 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Thanks for your response.  I agree, fewer WR questionmarks this year than years past. I actually like the Brown and Beasley signings quite a lot, and feel we have some good competition slated for training camp.  We are likely to have to cut some guys we might rather keep, if they play up to their pedigrees.

 

I hadn't thought about "compartmentalizing" and looking at it as "$11M tied up in the Center position".    If they think about dead money as still tied to a position as a sunk cost, purely from a business development perspective I wonder if a different model might be useful.  I ran some back-of-the-envelopes and believe there were a couple FA OLmen, based on what they signed for, the Bills could have managed (Mike Pouncey who signed with the Chargers would be an example).  He signed for 2 years/$15 but it could have been structured to be manageable.  Now, maybe they tried and those guys were all "Thanks but No Thanks" in the face of interest from other teams closer to playoff contention, and we didn't have the money to set up a higher stack, could be.

I truly don't buy that the Bills couldn't have figured a way to afford Woods.  If you add up the money they actually threw at other WR in the last 2 years, it's a heftier chunk of change than the production would lead one to believe.  We weren't so cap limited in 2017, right?  This year, we ended the season with $13.5M in dead cap tied up in WR.  That's $8.4M from Benjamin, $3M from Corey Coleman, $1.5M from Holmes, and $0.7M from Jeremy Kerley.  One has to think that in $13.5M dead cap, there was probably a way to pay a guy we developed who signed with another team for an average salary of $7.5M and had what, $7M last year and $8M this? 

That is the reason I believe there must have been some "here's how we value Woods and the price he commands on the open market is likely to exceed that" in there, where how the Bills valued Woods and what the Rams got from Woods had a significant....gap

Now a caveat that if Beane works by ringfencing certain sums for positional spending and includes his dead money in that, my back-of-the-envelope doesn't factor that in at all.  I'd like to know more about that as a team salary strategy.  I'm not sure the "dead money included" is optimal way to assess what the team can afford at critical positions. 
 

 

Ha!  As I quoted upthread:  

"Well," he stated judicially, "start awful early when yu' go to fool with him, or he'll make you feel unpunctual."

?

 

Keep in mind, Beane wasn't making a majority of the decisions in 2017 free agency. And neither was Whaley.

McDermott was essentially serving in a stop-gap role and wasn't, at that point, going to gum up the works before the next GM arrived.

And the decision was made early on that the Bills weren't going to get into a bidding war early to tie up too much money in Woods. Of all the players McDermott didn't want to lose, it was Woods. And yet, circumstances helped dictate his departure.

 

Don't shoot the messenger on this one. I'm merely stating what I know of the Bills state of mind at that time.

 

jw

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Delete This Account]

7 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Didnt the Bears just go from 4-12 to 11-5 in one season? 

 

Didnt the Rams do the same thing in 2017? 

 

The facts you present as indisputable, such as their salary cap situation, are in fact disputable which is why I quoted one of your posts.

 

I like a lot of what they've done which I stated in my original post, I'm also skeptical of other moves they've made. 

 

 

Ah, yes, ScottLaw is one to take the narrowest view approach to support his wonderful theory of how teams go from being non-contenders to contenders virtually overnight.

of course, this effort requires ScottLaw -- who has accused me of being a "ball-washer" -- to take some convenient shortcuts in his mathamaticing by ignoring the 10 previous seasons in which the Rams won no more than seven games. somehow, this doesn't fit the equation of overnight success, so why even make note of it, ScottLaw believes.

 

no different than the Bears, this team that has been a juggernaut for lo all these many seasons. all the way back to, well, 2018 to be exact.

let's omit the fact Chicago won a grand total of 19 games in its previous four years, and simply note they made this jump from just one season to the next.

 

hey, by your math, if the Bills win their opener, next season, they'll be 100, nay, 1000 percent better than, they were a year ago.

 

of course, the narrow view is ScottLaw's final chance to make his point, because otherwise, he'd have to finally admit, he has none to make.

 

sad, ScottLaw. sad.

 

jw

[Patrick Duffy]

Just wanted to stop in for the "ball washing ceremony" that I saw a few post up... He who washes ones balls. Interesting.

[Delete This Account]

1 minute ago, ScottLaw said:

Seriously? 

 

The Rams and Bears won 11 and 12 games in the FIRST YEAR of their respective regime changes and the Rams went to the Super Bowl this past year in the 2nd year of their regime change..... these guys didn't come in their and blow up their respective teams. They built around the talent already in place from previous regimes. 

 

The Bills and McBeane took the opposite approach. 

 

And that’s the plan they laid out upon their arrivals.

The Bills were a team of unmatched parts based on the various needs of previous coaches and GMs.

i see Tyrod and Dareus and Watkins have gone on to become perennial NFL All-Pros in their own rights. and we’re all mourning the loss of Zach Brown and well, whomever else was left over from the powerhouse Rex and Whaley left behind.

 

After all the coaching carousels, the only plan forward was to go with a clean slate.

That time has arrived.

 

I otherwise have no clue as to what grand solution you had in mind unless it was extend the more of the same run of fitting high-priced players with left overs and turning this average stew that was accustomed to losing into a winner.

 

But sure I’m a ball-washer after all.

 

jw

[Dr. Who]

9 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

 

And that’s the plan they laid out upon their arrivals.

The Bills were a team of unmatched parts based on the various needs of previous coaches and GMs.

i see Tyrod and Dareus and Watkins have gone on to become perennial NFL All-Pros in their own rights. and we’re all mourning the loss of Zach Brown and well, whomever else was left over from the powerhouse Rex and Whaley left behind.

 

After all the coaching carousels, the only plan forward was to go with a clean slate.

That time has arrived.

 

I otherwise have no clue as to what grand solution you had in mind unless it was extend the more of the same run of fitting high-priced players with left overs and turning this average stew that was accustomed to losing into a winner.

 

But sure I’m a ball-washer after all.

 

jw

I have a list of annoying posters I'd like to see you respond to.

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Well, perhaps you felt that.  I'm not keeping score.  But can you ever separate talent level and contracts?  

I think it's pretty clear if they had any inkling Woods would be putting up the numbers and play that he has, they would have danced down the street to give him the contract he got from LA.  Can we agree that we mis-evaluated Woods talent? 

And when we traded for Matthews, I heard a lot of stuff about how his numbers were better than Woods even though he was splitting his catches with Ertz with a rookie QB.  Pundits said stuff like  "It's likely Matthews will put up similar numbers in Buffalo" "Robert Woods scored a $6.8 million per year contract coming out of that Bills offense and there is no reason Matthews wont score at least that playing with the Bills."  They presented Matthews (a 2nd round pick who was expected to be the Iggles #1) as replacing Watkins in the Bills starting lineup and pointed at his superior durability.  They quoted Beane as saying "I’m thrilled that in losing a guy like Sammy we were able to get a guy with Jordan Matthews’ skins on the wall."   This ain't "Woods was much more talented than Matthews" talk.

 

We signed up to pay Kelvin Benjamin more than $9M, while Woods signed in LA for $7M/yr; do you really think the Bills would have done the deal for Benjamin if they thought Benjamin was "ineffective", or was gonna be ineffective, when they traded for him? 

 

C'mon Man.  This recks of hindsight.

 

With respect to Watkins and Woods the question wasn't so much a talent consideration as it was an unwillingness to pay them their next big contracts. It's not a hindsight evaluation to make an assessment that both of these players were individually and collectively better than the receivers who took their places. Whether you are talking about Matthews or Benjamin neither could match the talents of the departing Bills receivers. And that was evident by their production on the field. If I recall correctly Benjamin was an in-season addition. He was traded for to add to a troubled receiving corps for a team that surprisingly was vying for a playoff spot. It's not unfair to say that deal didn't work out for us. 

 

You don't have to accept my view on the receivers in question and what transpired with them. John W, who certainly has an inside peek into the organization, pointed out that contracts more so than talent were significant factors in the decisions to let these two players go. The backdrop not only was McDermott going to fill the rosters with his players but he was also very aggressively going to rework the salary structure of this team. And that's exactly what he did here. He let two more talented receivers go who were entering free agency and brought in lesser talented players who had short term deals.

 

It may seem that I am using hindsight to criticize those deals but I am not. It was these types of tough minded talent and money/contract transactions that gave this organization the flexibility to aggressively participate in the free agency market.