John Warrow’s High Praise For Beane & McDermott Regime

[Boca BIlls]

2 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

Saints have been in cap hell for years.... they went 13-3 and 11-5 the last two seasons.?

If Beane doesn't release/trade some of those guys there isnt massive amounts of dead cap.?

 

 

Yea they got out of cap hell in 2017  when they went 11-5. Just admit you were wrong 

[Phil The Thrill]

2 hours 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.??

 

John is spot on here

[Phil The Thrill]

3 hours ago, john wawrow said:

 

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

 

TKO.....done

[BullBuchanan]

On 4/30/2019 at 11:01 AM, Gugny said:

 

Nick Foles is still Nick Foles.  If he wasn't still Nick Foles, he'd still be an Eagle.

So, he's a very good QB capable of leading a team to win a SB? I agree. He was elite with the eagles when he was younger. He's not a world beater, but with a good team, he won't be the weak link. That's all the jags need with their defense.

[Phil The Thrill]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

So, he's a very good QB capable of leading a team to win a SB? I agree. He was elite with the eagles when he was younger. He's not a world beater, but with a good team, he won't be the weak link. That's all the jags need with their defense.

 

Jacksonville Jags in the Super Bowl this February!  Doug Marrone!  FTW

[BullBuchanan]

On 4/30/2019 at 10:46 AM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

The thing is, football games aren't played on paper

 

3-13  10-6  5-11 last 3 years

 

It's a question of what one thinks as the reason. 

-Was Fournette a 1-hit wonder who fell off a cliff?

-They had a lot of churn on OL, including losing their LT on IR to an ACL early in the season, losing a LG to FA (then trying to re-sign him and plug him back in, didn't work).  They released their RT go this year.  Was that the reason their run game fell off a cliff and Bortles took 50% more sacks/threw 30% fewer touchdowns?

 

If so, have they fixed the line?

 

Or is it just a case of a team over-performing one year, then regressing to the mean as teams got tape on their plays with Fournette?

The thing about Foles is that outside the Superbowl, he's a mixed bag at QB.  I personally maintain that his crap year with the Stl Rams wasn't his fault - it was "dysfunction junction" and the guy he had as his OC was fired midway through the season and hasn't worked as an OC since.  But it's clear Foles won't work well with any coach and any system.  He needs  guys who will work with him to keep his bad tendencies in check and maximize his strengths, as Shurmur and Musgrave and then Pederson, Reich, and DeFillipo did.

 

I do not think that Marrone and Hacket are quite the same as Shurmur or Pederson and Co. 

 

But I could be wrong.  Maybe Foles/Wentz is the new remake of Brees/Rivers and Marrone is the new Sean Payton. 

 

I'm kind of thinking "no", but could be.

 

 

 

I don't believe Foles is going to all of a sudden take the league by storm, but I absolutely do believe he's Alex Smith 2.0 which is good enough to destroy teams until January. That makes them a massive threat to the Bills near-term.

[Gugny]

5 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

So, he's a very good QB capable of leading a team to win a SB? I agree. He was elite with the eagles when he was younger. He's not a world beater, but with a good team, he won't be the weak link. That's all the jags need with their defense.

 

I guess we'll see.  He did well in a couple abbreviated seasons in PHI as a backup.  He's never done well as an established starter.

[LSHMEAB]

21 hours ago, john wawrow said:

 

It’s quite evident that you missed the 17-year playoff drought in your “it’s so easy” equation.

Or did I somehow miss that in all your zigging and zagging around my points.

Admit it, this hole you’ve dug is pretty deep.

 

I’ll patiently await your illogical response.

 

jw

I'm not quite sure how the Bills futility is anything other than failed HC's, players, etc. It doesn't have anything to do with the difficulty or ease of winning in the league.

 

It's easier to win a playoff game than it is to go 17 years without a playoff appearance. The drought is actually pretty remarkable in that you really have to screw the pooch MULTIPLE times to accomplish that kind of failure.

 

We shouldn't base our expectations on one of the most futile periods in history for an NFL franchise IMO. Let's just hope we have the right guys in place. The proof will be in the pudding.

[Phil The Thrill]

4 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

I'm not quite sure how the Bills futility is anything other than failed HC's, players, etc. It doesn't have anything to do with the difficulty or ease of winning in the league.

 

It's easier to win a playoff game than it is to go 17 years without a playoff appearance. The drought is actually pretty remarkable in that you really have to screw the pooch MULTIPLE times to accomplish that kind of failure.

 

We shouldn't base our expectations on one of the most futile periods in history for an NFL franchise IMO. Let's just hope we have the right guys in place. The proof will be in the pudding.

 

You are right about the odds.  The probability of going 17 years w/o playoffs is minuscule.

 But the Bills did it!!!!

[Nihilarian]

On 4/27/2019 at 6:46 AM, BuffaloBill said:

The truth will come from the W-L record but man does Wawrow seem to be right.  I can’t remember an offseason where there has been so much momentum going into the season.  The Bills had a tough year last year but emerged from it with Josh Allen taking steps forward.  With the exception of a true #1 WR on the roster they have addressed gaps and in many cases with more than one potential starter.

 

WR aside, as I think they will get production out of the group they have, the only real question remaining after last season is will special teams improve?  The Bills were flat out awful at ST’s last season.  The flip side of this is that the D returns nearly intact and should only be better with Oliver at the 3T.  This D has the potential to be scary good.

While I agree with most posted here i don't think the ONLY real questions is will special teams improve. I have more faith in this new ST coach and the added players to make that unit better.

 

KR/PR/WR Andre Roberts, signed a two-year, $5 million deal with the Bills. He joins Buffalo after having a Pro Bowl season as a returner with the New York Jets. He led the NFL in kickoff return yards and punt return average. He scored two return touchdowns — one kick return and one punt return. He provides the Bills with firepower at the return position, something the team has lacked. This player alone should help make a big impact to the ST unit!

 

Offense: The other questions in my view is the run game with the RBs in being able to control the clock, maintain possession and make first downs. The QB should need to play HB and be the one making the first downs because the O line didn't hold up in protections. Just as Roberts will do for ST, the added free agents and #2 draft pick in Cody Ford should drastically improve both the run game and pass game. 

 

 

Defense: What worries me is while the 2018 Buffalo Bills were the #1 team in the NFL in pass defense. That same defense was also atrocious at times against the run and in the red zone. That Colts and Patriots games come to mind. While I like Ed Oliver as a smaller, penetrating DT in getting into the backfield and rushing the passer as he is replacing an all pro who played well last season and yet the defense still had those run stop problems. 

 

The other aspect of the defense that worries me is the Bills pass rush. Buffalo was 26th last year in sacks with just 36 sacks total. Only 6 teams were worse. 

 

These two issues are still to be addressed as I don't see great improvement in those two areas so far. Run stopping, pass rush. This FO fixes these two concerns and they could very well have a dominant defense this year. JMHO

[Augie]

I look back on how eagerly we awaited the draft. There was such a dearth of Bills football! I did LOVE the draft, and now............I have that same painful yearning for an actual football game! To tell you how serious it is, PRESEASON is sounding awesome to me! 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, Gugny said:

I guess we'll see.  He did well in a couple abbreviated seasons in PHI as a backup.  He's never done didn't do well as an established starter on a highly dysfunctional Rams team

 

FIFY.  I believe that Foles is a system guy, but he did OK in 2014 in Philly as the starter.   A regression from his amazing 2013 season, but they'd shipped his favorite target out of town. 

 

I don't think it's "starter" or "fill in" that is the issue, I think it's whether he has a coach and offensive system that will work with and for him, and the right player support.

 

1 hour ago, Augie said:

I look back on how eagerly we awaited the draft. There was such a dearth of Bills football! I did LOVE the draft, and now............I have that same painful yearning for an actual football game! To tell you how serious it is, PRESEASON is sounding awesome to me! 

 

Only what, 9 days until rookie minicamp?  That should help.

[Boca BIlls]

6 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

They had $7 million entering the 2017 offseason, before the 2017 season in which they went 11-5..... all that extra cap space really got them over the top that year.?

They got out of it in 2017, I cannot believe you cannot admit you are wrong ever. Oh well everyone here knows you are wrong and it is documented in posts so that is all that is needed. Pathetic...

 

https://www.canalstreetchronicles.com/2016/9/17/12950486/salary-cap-hell-has-come-gone-for-new-orleans-saints

 

 

Enjoy everyone knowing your wrong and being the only person thinking you are right.

 

Your little laugh emojis remind me of the scene in Tropic Thunder "Farting in the bathtub laughing your ass off"

Edited May 2, 2019 by Boca BIlls

[JoeF]

Wawrow:  After two decades, things appear different and there is a reason for hope.

 

ScottLaw:  After two decades, I have presented evidence and opinion that things are not that different and I want to be vindicated when the inevitable failure happens.

 

Instead of being reduced to name calling and questioning a reporters objectivity in what is at least partly an opinion piece, just stick to the damn arguments.  It's simple.  It's not degrading and its something we can look back on after the results are in and say John had some legitimate observations or ScottLaw was correct -- it was the Same Old *****.  

 

Not that hard unless you really want to take Internet banter personally...which is really dumb...

Edited May 2, 2019 by JoeF

[Hapless Bills Fan]

On 5/1/2019 at 5:31 PM, john wawrow said:

 

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

 

On the contrary, I appreciate the gouge.  But there's a distinction - making a decision "we aren't going to get into a bidding war and tie up too much money in this guy" is not the same thing as "the Bills can't afford to keep him", right?

 

[JohnC]

31 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

On the contrary, I appreciate the gouge.  But there's a distinction - making a decision "we aren't going to get into a bidding war and tie up too much money in this guy" is not the same thing as "the Bills can't afford to keep him", right?

 

I understand the distinction you are making. However, if an organization places a value on a player (or any player) and makes a decision not to go beyond it then the net effect is basically the same as not being able to afford the player/s. In either scenario because of the established parameter you are not going to keep that player. The organization that is the most accomplished in making decisions based on cost/benefit is New England. It appears that under McBeane that cost/benefit approach to contracts relative to talent is now the standard of operation. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

I understand the distinction you are making. However, if an organization places a value on a player (or any player) and makes a decision not to go beyond it then the net effect is basically the same as not being able to afford the player/s. In either scenario because of the established parameter you are not going to keep that player. The organization that is the most accomplished in making decisions based on cost/benefit is New England. It appears that under McBeane that cost/benefit approach to contracts relative to talent is now the standard of operation. 

 

I understand what you're saying but I completely disagree.

 

The assertion that has been made (and was made earlier in this thread, to which I was responding) was that the Bills wanted to keep Woods but simply couldn't afford him because of their cap situation.   I don't think that's true, and I've had a pretty deep dive into the cap at the time and what they spent on other WR afterwards.

 

I have no quarrel with setting a value on a player and making a decision not to go beyond it.  In particular, the Bills had a big unknown - they needed a QB.  Did they want to make a play for one of the pending FA QB such as Cousins? If so, they had a motivation to keep as much cap clear as possible  If that's what the Bills did, it would appear they under-valued Wood relative to his abilities.  I'm not saying that was a wrong decision on their parts all things considered, but it was a decision on their parts.

 

And yes, teams get themselves into situations where they simply CAN'T keep all the players they want to, because cap, and that's very different from a cost/benefit approach.

 

[LSHMEAB]

6 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I understand what you're saying but I completely disagree.

 

The assertion that has been made (and was made earlier in this thread, to which I was responding) was that the Bills wanted to keep Woods but simply couldn't afford him because of their cap situation.   I don't think that's true, and I've had a pretty deep dive into the cap at the time and what they spent on other WR afterwards.

 

I have no quarrel with setting a value on a player and making a decision not to go beyond it.  In particular, the Bills had a big unknown - they needed a QB.  Did they want to make a play for one of the pending FA QB such as Cousins? If so, they had a motivation to keep as much cap clear as possible  If that's what the Bills did, it would appear they under-valued Wood relative to his abilities.  I'm not saying that was a wrong decision on their parts all things considered, but it was a decision on their parts.

 

And yes, teams get themselves into situations where they simply CAN'T keep all the players they want to, because cap, and that's very different from a cost/benefit approach.

 

The only player they couldn't afford to keep was Gilmore. And this was while they were paying the starting QB. They made these decisions. Although in the case of Woods, I believe they would have had to pay him quite a bit more than the Rams. 

 

It's fine if you place a value on a player and don't exceed that number. That seems like a reasonable approach. That being said, they will ultimately judged by how well they do and how quickly they get there.

 

Don't get me wrong; I like the trajectory of the franchise. I simply don't have the same reverence for plans as I do success.

 

People can p&m about their decisions on Woods/Gilmore/Glenn/Watkins/Dareus or they can applaud "cleaning house." None of it matters. Results are the only thing that matter. 

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I understand what you're saying but I completely disagree.

 

The assertion that has been made (and was made earlier in this thread, to which I was responding) was that the Bills wanted to keep Woods but simply couldn't afford him because of their cap situation.   I don't think that's true, and I've had a pretty deep dive into the cap at the time and what they spent on other WR afterwards.

 

I have no quarrel with setting a value on a player and making a decision not to go beyond it.  In particular, the Bills had a big unknown - they needed a QB.  Did they want to make a play for one of the pending FA QB such as Cousins? If so, they had a motivation to keep as much cap clear as possible  If that's what the Bills did, it would appear they under-valued Wood relative to his abilities.  I'm not saying that was a wrong decision on their parts all things considered, but it was a decision on their parts.

 

And yes, teams get themselves into situations where they simply CAN'T keep all the players they want to, because cap, and that's very different from a cost/benefit approach.

 

The difference with paying the amount that Woods could get on the market is that although they could have signed him at that amount it wouldn't have fit in with their strategy of reworking the cap structure for the roster for the upcoming years.

 

I agree with you that if the organization were determined to keep him they could have done so. They decided not to because they made the overarching decision to create more cap space in the near future  highlighted by the fact that they absorbed a major cap hit last year in order to get more cap flexibility this year. 

 

Again, they could have kept Woods but because of their cap and roster strategy they decided not to retain him. That was by choice. 

[Thurman#1]

On 5/2/2019 at 8:23 PM, ScottLaw said:

What am I wrong about?

 

The Saints started winning because they got out of cap hell? That's ridiculous. 

 

 

The cap is a flexible entity. The Saints have been manipulating their cap space FOR YEARS with restructuring of contracts. 

 

Tell me, who did the Saints sign in that 2017 offseason that helped get them from 7-9 to 11-5? 

 

The signing of Kamara was a very good addition.... but he was a draft pick.

 

 

 

"The cap is a flexible entity"? Yeah, but that doesn't help your argument any. Crocodiles and rattlesnakes are flexible too and the cause plenty of harm as well. Yes, the Saints manipulated their cap space for years. But when you do that, you only push the problem down the road and make it more severe when it finally hits. Which it did. The cap is flexible, but that flexibility has limits.

 

Who did the Saints sign in 2017? Four starters, two on offense and two on defense, and a number of platoon guys, guys who saw time and depth guys. They were able to do that because they got the cap under control. No, getting their cap under control wasn't the only reason they got better. But yes, it was a major factor.

 

The cap can absolutely cause major damage to teams chances. It does every year. And teams that handle it well can help their chances.

 

 

Edited May 17, 2019 by Thurman#1