Thurman#1

Pretty wacky.

This early, one guess is as good as another. Will there be injuries? Will the line gel? Who knows. My guess would be be they'll be significantly better than this guy thinks. But whatever.

Yeah, I like Kelso a lot. Wood is smart, though. Maybe he'll be as good.

Agreed. It so often takes far too long. And even after replays they seem to make mistakes.

Nonsense. If anything the problem has simply been that he didn't have enough resources and that WR was one of the positions to suffer because of that. It's too early - duh - to judge any of the WRs who we've brought in this offseason. So you can only look at performance ... but, and this is crucial ... factoring in what we gave up for him. For a guy getting paid $500 K or $600K, nearly any productivity is success. SUCCESSES: Robert Foster, Isaiah McKenzie ($555K), Deonte Thompson (min.), Brandon Tate (good returns, minimal receptions for minimal investment), Andre Holmes (a bit of production for minimal investment) FAILURES: Kelvin Benjamin MEH: Taiwan Jones (minimal production for minimum investment), Terrelle Pryor (no production, cost them $74K ... not $740K, only $74K), Jeremy Kerley (7 yards, no signing bonus, no guarantee, released after one game) TOO EARLY TO JUDGE: Zay Jones (trending significantly up, but still too early to judge) INJURED, COULDN'T BE JUDGED: Jordan Matthews (on a cheap rookie contract, but couldn't play, Philly paid him more last year than we did the year before) That isn't a record of a GM making bad calls on WRs. Kelvin Benjamin was their one bad call. Other than that, it's a list of Zay (not a Beane pick and too early to judge), Mathews, who was injured, and a regime with no money to spend throwing guys on minimum salary at a problem they couldn't afford to address. And for that kind of commitment they actually had several guys who gave them good production for the pay they received. This year they've finally put a bit of money into WRs. We'll finally see how they are at picking WRs when they're willing to do more than take fliers at minimum.

Puh-leeze. Like the Bills haven't been doing the exact same thing, very well, since probably the '70s when PR started to become a science? Yes, Beane is good at PR. But the Bills PR department has been good for a long time, though they had less to work with sometimes, for example in the Gregg Williams air horn days and with Rex in the prime of his ridiculousness. And you're right that they have made mistakes. It's just that their good moves have greatly outnumbered them. Which is something new. Oh, and that's nonsense that Marrone was a rebuild. Obvious nonsense. The rebuild came under Gailey. Marrone was reloading, as was Rex. And reloads have a massive structural advantage over rebuilds in the first couple of years. Rebuilds look terrible the first couple of years, it's the nature of the beast. Of course Rex and Marrone had better records. If that continues the next couple of years, it will indeed be a horrible sign, but so far it's S.O.P. for rebuilds. If anything they have done a ton better with Ws than rebuilds usually do. Actions do indeed speak louder than words. Which is the real reason this new regime is a breath of fresh air. They're doing things the smart way, consistently. It's so different from Bills as usual. Do they still have to prove themselves? Absolutely. But a regime that understands best practices and uses them is not the usual thing for this franchise. You're dead right, though, that we'll have to see from results. But this is the most hopeful I've been since Wade.

That may have been your narrative. It was not "just about everyone's." But it was also a lot of people's narrative as each of our coaches have gone for the last couple of decades. We're so so so very close. We don't need no stinking rebuild. Just a reload and a few tweaks. And it's been wrong every time. Sure they could have reloaded. Not likely to have worked very well, though. Acting as if a reload would have been a one-year sure thing is absolutely ridiculous. We weren't all that close. And we were in horrible cap shape, which would have hamstrung any attempt at anything.

Yeah, you're wrong about that. Again, they were in crappy cap shape. And if you would have kept them in crappy cap shape if you were GM, that's fine. I find it hard to care even enough to send up a short prayer you're not the GM. It's too obvious why you're not. Not acquiring Kelvin Benjamin is supposed to save us all the money to get us out of cap trouble? Um, he was on a rookie contract. He cost us a bit over $1 mill while he was here. Keeping Watkins would have cost us a ton, as would the rest of your moves. You'd have had us right back in the cap crap and unable to do with the OL what Beane has. Which is fine. But it also points out why nobody's paying you to make football decisions. Yeah, I got your point. You're right they could have kept Woods. At the cost of being in worse cap shape. You're wrong that the cap stuff was overblown. Again, Beane told the Pegulas at his interview that they were in crappy cap shape and that they were going to have to suffer, and promised that he would get them in excellent cap shape by the start of this season. The Pegulas were right with them, and it is one of the reasons they hired him. If they hadn't liked that idea, they'd have hired someone else, someone with views closer to yours. But they didn't. So you may not be down with the whole five year plan. But the Pegulas were very down with the understanding that the first two years were going to suck, and that the whole thing would take time.

But wait, Prisco sucks. Oh, wait, he said something good about the Bills, so today he's a genius. IMO a reasonable prediction, maybe a bit on the high side but well within possibility if things continue as well as they seem to have so far. If Brady's still here next season I don't agree with the 2020 prediction, but possible. I'd like to think that by 2020 they'll be competitive with the Pats, at least. I doubt that'll be necessary. When Brady goes, the Pats would still be good with Belichick, but not the way they are now.

No. Strangely enough, there are indications that more than one person writes for CBS Sports. :- )

Correct. But doesn't make your point. They, the Bills and Panthers both, go into each year with $7 - $10 mill available for emergencies, knowing that unspent money simply gets carried over. Yeah, you could spend every penny, and further burden yourself with more money due over the next few years. That is NOT what smart teams do. If I have several thousand dollars in savings and have expenses and income that will put me in roughly the same spot or a bit worse next year ... yeah, I could spend the thousands and hope things change. But it would be stupid. It's not what the smart households do, though it may well be what the majority do. The smart ones plan several years down the road. They create a system that will leave them flexibility consistently. And they sure as hell don't get hemmed in years when they're not even getting close to their goals (the best I could do as an analogy for being in a Super Bowl window). Whaley not only did a crappy job by getting them in cap trouble. He did it with a team that wasn't even close to competing. He hamstrung this team with poor cap management. https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/08/29/buffalo-bills-training-camp-josh-allen-sean-mcdermott-brandon-beane (from training camp in 2018) "Lord knows the temptation was there for Sean McDermott. The 44-year-old Bills coach and GM Brandon Beane snapped the franchise’s 18-year playoff drought last fall, their first in Buffalo, and got there by winning four of their final six. "The arrow was pointing up, without question. Which makes their discipline all the more laudable in resisting the natural inclination to ride the momentum into 2018. “ 'Yeah, that’s the near-sighted view, though,' McDermott said, heading off the field on Monday following a walkthrough and his team’s ugly Sunday showing against Cincinnati. 'I understand that. But where I came from in Carolina and before that in Philadelphia, we were able to build and do it the right way. We were able to build a strong, solid foundation. And once we did that, we were able to sustain the success.' "Then, McDermott let himself go a little. “ 'Heck yeah, you want to go out and spend money,' he added. 'But the draft picks, there were only so many left from before we got here. That’s a challenge—we’re not able to depend on those players; they aren’t here anymore. And the cap wasn’t in good shape in order to go out and spend and do some things we wanted. And you don’t want to mortgage, because then you keep having to pay the debt on that mortgage.' "McDermott and Beane haven’t. And they won’t. "That’s why around here this summer, there’s a feeling almost like this is Year 1 2.0. Gone are mainstays like left tackle Cordy Glenn, guard Richie Incognito, center Eric Wood and quarterback Tyrod Taylor. In their places, as everyone saw on Sunday, is a whole lot of the unknown around rookie quarterback Josh Allen. "After last year, that might be tough for Bills fans to swallow. For Beane and McDermott, it’s exciting. And it’s not that they wanted to go through the process of deconstructing the winning team they built in 2017. It’s that they’re moving closer to what they’ve been looking to establish from the start—a foundation that won’t be fleeting. “ 'You gotta be honest with yourself,' Beane said. 'What did we do well, and what are we struggling with? Right off the bat, one thing we struggled with was stopping the run, and we tried to address our front, again not deviating from our plan to get out of this cap situation. We said all along, it’s at least a two-year process—I said two to three, depending on how quickly we could out from underneath some of the bigger deals.' ” You would have spent the money, LSHMEAB? Fine, whatever. They couldn't have done that and follow their plan. Which involved getting the cap in excellent order by this year.

Yeah, um, no. That's simply wrong. Yeah, they wouldn't have had to get draft capital together to get a QB. But yes, they still would have had to get the horrendously screwed up cap in order.

That's one guess. The article itself contains the "way too early" qualifier. That's correct, it's way too early to make a very intelligent projection on final record next year.

Results are the only thing that matters, yes. But results are a result of tactics. Bad tactics produces bad results. Tactics matter. Same for your other way of putting the same thing. Success comes as a result of plans and tactics. And that's nonsense that the only player they couldn't afford to keep was Gilmore. There was a guy or two they cut because they didn't fit, most particularly Dareus. But all the other cuts there were for two reasons, cap cuts and draft capital to get a QB. It wasn't a mistake that those two reinforced each other.

"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.

Almost certainly not. But serious improvement - particularly in the second half of the year - seems very likely indeed.

Langston Walker played RT pretty well. So they got rid of Jason Peters and switched Walker to LT, which he couldn't play.

Funny how it's always the people who are wrong who don't think it's about being right or wrong. And guess what, if your only point is that Guys A, B, C, D and E are gone, here's what you should have done. You should have said, "Guys A, B, C, D and E are gone. You should NOT on the other hand have said ""I think Leslie Frazier may be the only initial staff still with the team ... " That was the problem.

Panties in a bunch from being wrong? Yeah, I understand. Don't take it so seriously, though. Everyone makes mistakes. Just don't try to spin so much and when it's pointed out that you're wrong, accept it. It's the way to go. Oh, and don't use the phrase "cherry -picking" till you understand it. I didn't pick and choose. I included every staff member who stayed. You probably should try to avoid obvious exaggerations too. There are no waterboys or the like listed. They're all listed in the "coaching staff" listing at buffalobills.com. It was you who tried to go beyond that, saying Frazier may be the only "staff" still with the team. "The only staff," you said, and it's me who's desperately exaggerating? If you'd said, "the following coordinators and position coaches have changed," I wouldn't have argued. Or if you'd said, "only one of the three original coordinators is around, Leslie Frazier," again, I wouldn't have answered. But you didn't. Instead you piled on the wrongness. To remind you of what you said, here it is: "I think Leslie Frazier may be the only initial staff still with the team ... " "Staff," you said, not "coach." That's called being full of it, not to mention spinning like a turbo-charged dreidel. As for the attaboy for pointing that out, thanks. You're right, I deserve it. As I mentioned, there was not that much turnover among staff. Certainly some. And anyone who would have gone ahead and put the specifics would have gotten my approval. And don't worry about about throwing in a straw man in the last paragraph, accusing me of saying something I never said so you can pretend you have a point to make. Or find where I said I was continuing to "think McD did a bang up job ..." though you won't find it, because those are your words, not mine. Typical straw man tactics for someone trying to draw attention away from their own mis-statement.

I don't know if I'd feel great at that. But not bad. It would probably be real progress. You didn't do it, Hapless, but many on here are confusing win-loss record for a QB stat. It's not. That's a team stat. Again, the real name for that stat is "TEAM record in games started by this QB (regular season)." For Josh, I'm hoping to see a bit better than your YPG. That completion % would be a real improvement, and for his second year I'd be happy. I hope guys like VW82 above are wrong in thinking Josh will never have a high completion percentage, but I think that's one very possible scenario, that he turns into a kind of Cam Newton type. I hope that cleaning up his mechanics will let him go far beyond that, but I'm far from sure of it.

I politely disagree. IMO he's not all that smooth but he makes his points.

Equally, he was handled badly. When you've got a guy with bad mechanics, do what KC did. Make him do mechanics drills till he drops. And when he gets up again, make him do more. Don't let him near a game till it's part of muscle memory. No one can know if that would have helped. Probably not. But it pretty much ended his chances to be put in so early and let the mechanics slide.

No, he's not. Writers don't write headlines. That's the copy editor's job. It's the headline, not the article, that tries to hook readers and write an unbelievably quick summary and in taking out the perspective makes a slightly inflammatory headline. In the article that quote is put in perspective. It's the copy editor and the OP who used the headline rather than the article's point. And as for the "no QB should mentor" stuff, that's just as wrong. Pretty much every QBs should mentor. Not as priority one, of course, but the QB room, like every room, should work together for the benefit of the team. QBs get injured and if that happens, the new guy should hopefully be as ready as possible to step in and take over. That happens best when everyone is helping everyone else.

It's very arguable. That 2016 offense was in no way "formidable." They just weren't. Not that bad? Yeah, fair enough. They were 16th in the league in yards. And yards are how you measure an offense, separating their performance from the rest of the team. That offense was average, at best. Did they get worse the next two years? Yup, that's what happens when you rebuild ... worse yet when you rebuild with a horrible cap situation. They traded Sammy Watkins to save cap and get build up draft capital to bring in a QB. They traded Cordy Glenn for the same reasons. They cut Tyrod to save cap, and there was a bunch more. Scoring is much more how you measure the team as a whole, as scoring depends a whole ton on field position where you receive the ball. In scoring offense, if you get the ball on the one after a long kickoff return and just barely manage to squeeze it in on fourth down ... even if you lost 28 yards and kick a field goal ... the offense looks good. Hell, in 2016, the Bills defense had a pick-six and two TD fumble runbacks. Only a slowcoach would think that means the offense was good, but if you look at scoring that's exactly how it presents itself. Three extra TDs ... way to go offense for the cheering on the pick six and the runbacks. Totally made the difference. The other units were a lot of the reason they scored a bunch in 2016. The offense got the 11th best field position overall in terms of their drive starts. Made so few yards that they consistently put the defense in bad field position to start drives, 23rd in the league to be specific. Few turnovers per drive. That, the offense did well, but they weren't all that productive. Pretty much average.

Don't you get tired repeating the same old nonsense again and again? You say that "basically all their offensive moves last offseason have been flops," and that's clearly and absolutely wrong. The problem wasn't that they made a lot of bad decisions on offense. The problem was that they put very few resources into the offense due to the horrible cap situation they have now fought their way through. They brought in a bunch of guys at very low cost and many to most of those guys played pretty well for how little they were paid. As you point out, Foster was a great move. Leaving Allen out of it, there were a bunch more good ones. They signed Derek Anderson, he worked out well and cheap. They should have brought him in sooner, as they have already admitted, but it was a good move, as was Barkley for almost nothing. They drafted Dawkins, and he looks very good so far. Teller looked excellent for a 5th rounder, though he may not even make the team with how much they have Bodine was cheap and without him Groy would have made the O-line look considerably worse than they finally did. Isaiah McKenzie was a terrific pickup for $555 K for the year. He traded for Jordan Matthews who unluckily got injured but has been on rosters since and performed decently. Philly took him right back when they had the chance. He's been signed by SF for next year for a bit more than the Bills paid for him for his injured year. Croom did very well for a guy we’re paying $480K for. Ivory did a solid job for his $1M salary. Marcus Murphy was a real bargain for a guy making $630K. Sirles looked good for a $650K guy. Other than Allen, who they bent their drafts around, they went heavily defense those first two years. Are there no huge successes there? Yeah, that's correct, but it's largely because they simply didn't put almost any resources towards the offense. Did they make some bad decisions? Yeah, absolutely. More solid and good ones worth the very small amounts of money they were paid, though. Now that they've got money they're obviously handling things in a totally different way this year.