Thurman#1

Yup. I asked for where I quoted Belichick. You finally figured out that I didn't. But there's no "Oops, sorry, made a mistake there." Instead it's a guy with zero sources casting doubt on a guy with one source. You got nothing. And yet won't admit it. Clearly, 'nuff said here.

Speaking of revisionist history, you just used some of it right there. Where did I say that Whaley drafted Manuel? I said he loved Manuel. Which he did. He made it clear from his impassioned rant hours later explaining the pick with his "he's got 'the it factor'" speech and followed that up for years with his unqualified support for the guy. Yes, Nix pulled the trigger. But Nix also established a QB committee before that draft to concentrate on which QB they should draft, and put Whaley in charge of it. And they went on about how everyone was in agreement. So yeah, Whaley loved him some Manuel. And he doubled down on that every time he was asked. He had a chance to back off after Nix left. He never did. Remember him pissing off Marrone by trading away Cassel so they'd have to make Manuel the backup?

I see. I "said something about what someone said about what Belichick said," according to you, right? Fine. It should be right in this thread. So quote it and tell which post I referenced something Belichick said. As you so consistently do, you've completely misread something I said, and the went off to rave irrelevantly. I mentioned something he did, hiring Daboll twice and promoting him. So, let's see it ... the quotation from my post where I say Belichick said something. Unless you can manage to finally respond to something I said, I clearly don't need to actually bother responding.

Scott, yeah it absolutely did need to be all or nothing. Rebuild or don't. And if you don't rebuild, you reload and work for getting as good as you can as quickly as you can. "Why would they continue to suck with those players on the roster"? Are you really asking that? You need to ask why a team that went 7-9 would suck when keeping the same personnel? Good grief, Charlie Brown! Because when they had those players they sucked. The coaching wasn't good but a lot of the reason they sucked is because they didn't do a good job with personnel. They had a below-average passing offence and that was going to continue. That a team whose most expensive defensive contract belonged to Dareus, a guy who averaged 7.25 sacks a year before signing that contract and has eight sacks in the almost four years since signing the contract. Dareus looked like a guy you could build around, a really good run stopper who could rush the passer and has since developed into a really good run stopper being paid $16 mill a year. Outside of the guys the Bills kept, like Hughes and Kyle Williams, there simply wasn't a ton of quality on that roster. The guys traded away and cut have mostly not done all that well, though Woods and Gilmore are two real exceptions. They weren't a good roster, they were a decent roster. An overpaid decent roster. And if you're going to tell me what I'm "acting like," get it right. I'm not "acting as if the only way for them to get [a QB] was to do what they did." There were a million ways to get a QB. Keep Tyrod for instance. Or bring Fitz back. So cut the crap, I'm not acting as if they had no choices. I'm pointing out that this was by far the most likely way they had when looking ahead. They had the #22 draft pick and they got up to #7 by trading away assets Glenn and Watkins and their 2018 #2, which is the kind of thing rebuilding teams do. Without trading those two, they don't get from #22 to #7 without trading the 2018 #22 and almost certainly the 2019 1st and a bunch more, probably the 2nd in one of those years. Which would then leave their reload draft virtually toothless and they would again be in cap trouble next year so they couldn't count on bringing in talent that way either. A terrific blueprint for a longer continuation of Buffalo mediocrity on into the future. And you can kid yourself that we don't know what they were thinking, but we do. They hired guys who were promising a major salary cap slashing to get it in shape by the end of this year. Within weeks of seeing how McDermott worked they hoisted him up and over Whaley, the one guy left that they still trusted at that point. They love these two, despite the promises of pain. They have a history of understanding and tolerating rebuilds with the Sabres. After the rebuild is over, you'd better start to show results. But they understand rebuilding. After this one is over, the pressure will then be on.

Yeah, if I'd said or implied that, you'd really have a point. I find it immensely hard to imagine the mental gyrations you must have gone through to imagine or pretend that's what I meant. What I meant is that if it's NOT a new GM, it's NOT a rebuild. A GM who's been somewhere a while saying "Well, clearly I've been so awful at my job that we need to rebuild" doesn't deserve to have a job. Rebuilding is a new GM's prerogative. Philly and the Rams did not have a reasonable choice to rebuild. They were at a different point in their life cycle. They had better rosters and they also were in good cap shape, unlike the Bills. Then they both got lucky with being able to trade up to #1 and #2. They reloaded and got lucky with QBs. The Bills wouldn't have been able to do that from #22 without the draft capital that they were able to put together specifically because they were in a rebuild and traded away guys who wouldn't fit and that they couldn't afford. Reloading wouldn't have worked for the Bills. The Bills were in desperate need of a rebuild. Well, you can see "7-9 isn't good enough" and "READ", "We are more talented than that," but it would show far more about you and what you're desperate to believe than it would about Terry. It could just as easily "READ" anything from "having seen Rex for two years I don't think he'll ever be good enough" to "he's been bringing in talent that hasn't showed itself on the field as good decisions" to "the guy has looked like a clown and then gone 7-9, why would I keep him around." The only mention of "talent" there is in your own head. Your "READ"ing it that way is pure confirmation bias, seeing what you believe rather than what's actually there, a symptom of the desperate desire to believe that Terry is saying what you want him to say, when he doesn't even appear to be addressing the same issue. Ryan came in promising a successful reload - he didn't need no stinking rebuild - he'd win with what he had. And then he went 7-9. And to repeat for the eight millionth time something that should not need to be said even once, there's no such thing as an NFL tank. They don't make sense in the context of football. Tank is a hockey and basketball word. In football, there are rebuilds. And I'm not a rebuilder either. I'm a football fan capable of seeing a rebuild and identifying it - correctly - as what it is, a rebuild.

Again, no. The Eagles and Rams had had the same GM for years. They weren't in a rebuild, dude, they just weren't. They were building. The Eagles team that won the SB had the the two tackles and the center from the 2015 team you're talking about, Agholor was there, Celek, Ertz, and a lot of the best players on that defense ... Fletcher Cox, Graham, Kendricks, Jenkins. And they were lucky enough to get the Browns to trade back and get Wentz. And they were both in pretty decent cap shape, whereas the Bills were in a horrible situation. And the cap shape makes all the difference. The Bills had to get rid of a lot of players they'd rather have kept and a ton who were decent players but overpaid besides. The Eagles and Rams were not screwed by the cap in the same way. Epstein was able to spend a ton on extensions the past few years because they weren't in cap hell. They're under cap pressure now but winning a Super Bowl makes that look OK. Whereas Whaley's brilliant strategy of spending as if we were in a Super Bowl window when we weren't good enough to get eight wins screwed us but good. Same with the Rams ... they were in good cap shape but now, in a window, have gone all in. Whereas we were already all in on that awful team. And the Rams didn't flip the script in a year. They built. They simply continued to build. In 2016 they already had a lot of this year's team on their roster. Including Aaron Donald, who they say is pretty decent. I hear Gurley's OK too, isn't he? Barron, Brockers, Littleton, Longacre, Hill, Joyner. That's most of the defence. Gurley, Saffold, Havenstein. And they were far luckier than the Bills at acquiring a QB with there being a team willing to trade out of the #1 spot. Happily for them, Goff got better, a whole ton better in his second year. More power to them for picking the right QB and developing him. But that is a team that has been building under the same GM for a while and a team that also got lucky with a 4-12 record in the outgoing coach's last year when he lost the locker room getting them good high picks in that next draft. And you can pretend the Bills were talented, but that's what it is. Wishing and hoping. That Bills team managed seven wins for a reason. We weren't far more talented than the Eagles at all. The Eagles had won 10 games the year before, with Bradford at QB. When had we last won 10 games? I'm not interested in arguing the Mahomes trade. It now looks great for the Chiefs but it could easily turn out to be just as good for the Bills when they get out of the early part of this rebuild ... assuming Allen works out. I'm not convinced he will but he's clearly got a chance. Would Mahomes be as good in Buffalo? At best an open question. And Beane wasn't here to make that call. McDermott isn't a personnel guy and certainly isn't an offensive personnel guy. His GM and scouting staff were the guys who wanted EJ Manuel. Why would McBeane trust them ... even if they did want Mahomes, and there's no evidence they did ... remember how Whaley was the one on the phone to Andy Reid for that trade? Did we hear anything indicating Dougie had a problem with it? And um, we "routed the Rams" that year? That's pretty strong language for 30-19, for a game that was tied well into the 3rd quarter. What we did, we beat them. And we also beat the Vikes and Titans this year. Does that prove we're a more talented team than them? Ridiculous. The Bills weren't talent equals to the Chiefs, but just better coached. That's nonsense. The Chiefs had an NFL-standard QB in Alex Smith. But here's what consistently better talent there than here looks like: Pro Bowlers ... 2017: Chiefs 7, Bills 6 2016: Chiefs 6, Bills 4, 2015: Chiefs 4, Bills 3, 2014: Chiefs 10, Bills 4 2013: Chiefs 6, Bills 3 2012: Chiefs 2, Bills 0 2011: Chiefs 6, Bills 1 Yes, the Bills did it their way. And yeah, it is very likely the most efficient way to go from sub-mediocre talent, no QB and a horrible cap situation to being an excellent team. Neither of those other teams was bringing in a new GM. Both of them were in much better cap shape. Both got teams to trade them the top two picks in the draft, whereas there appears to be zero indication the Bills could have managed getting into the top three this year, at least after the Jets traded up to three in a very nice move, unfortunately. We couldn't have taken the same route. We weren't getting either of the top three spots, particularly not from pick #22. The Rams and Eagles were simply in much better condition, quite a bit farther along in their schedule. I'm not arguing that McDermott and Beane have shown themselves to be great. Far from it. The jury is still out. They still have a ton to prove. But blaming them for rebuilding makes no sense. They were in awful shape for any other course of action and not that great a shape for a rebuild either, with the crappy cap situation and coming off a seven win season rather than an awful year that would have given them a high draft pick to start with. They weren't in good shape for any course of action with that cap situation. But their best option considering their desperation for a QB was a rebuild. And rebuilds (near-complete ones like this one had to be, anyway) suck. They involve at least a couple of years of losing and awfulness. It's what they are.

Those two really did the best they could with that argument. No way, of course. Not happening but their badness this year is due to a weakish roster.

Yup, those were the three I thought of too, and none of them are scatbacks. Ricky Williams also played pretty well into his early 30s. Marcus Allen also went late but IMHO he would't have lasted as long these days against today's more athletic defenders. None are huge guys either, but although they're reasonably close to Shady in size, they are more power-based runners than he is. Ricky Williams also played pretty well into his early 30s. Marcus Allen also went late but IMHO he would't have lasted as long these days against today's more athletic defenders. Franco Harris had a 1000 yard season at age 32. Hush, as I research, I didn't realise Riggins played till he was so old. He was still smashing people into his mid-thirties. He didn't average 4.0 during his last five years, but at age 34 and 35 he was getting a ton of carries and putting up a ton of yards. 24 TDs as a 34 year old. Dorsett lasted a while but his last three years were not that impressive. Walter Payton played well till around 32. IMHO there aren't a lot of folks on that list from recent history and not that many scatbacks at all for good reason. Maybe McCoy can be the first, but it tends to be guys with more power in their game who last. Does power stay with you longer than pure explosion?

Would've been $13.924 mill. Top ten picks get the transition tender Is that substantially lower than $16 mill or just a bit lower? $14 mill for a guy who had averaged around 800 yards a year in his first three years and around 700 a year in his first four years (assuming he hit the same level with in 2017 with Tyrod throwing to him as he did with Goff throwing to him). Does a team trying desperately to clear cap make that commitment? Particularly when they also want to put together enough draft capital to be able to get their franchise guy in a QB-rich draft? Obviously not.

I get off knowing what the owners were thinking the same way I get off knowing that when the barometer suddenly drops and dark cumulonimbus clouds roll in and I hear thunder and see lightning and the forecast is for a storm and rain starts to fall that I know a storm is coming. You have links saying this isn't a rebuild year? Great, let's see 'em. Not links using the word "tank," though. They've said they're not tanking but tanking is not the same as rebuilding. There is no such thing in football as tanking, really, it's a hockey and basketball word. But fine, let's see these links saying it's not a rebuild. Of course the Pegulas want a winning NFL team. Duh!! But they hired a coach who committed to a rebuild. It wasn't a surprise. The coaches were on record during the job interview as saying that their goal was a long-term goal ... to become a team that could consistently be competitive for a championship ... not a short-term goal. They were also on record in the job interview as saying they knew the cap was in horrible shape and they would get it in great shape by the end of this season. When a coach and GM say that in an interview you either prepare for a rebuild, including a season or two of horribleness ... or you hire someone else who will reload. The Pegulas hired McDermott and Beane. You may not have known this year would be horrible. The Pegulas did, as did nearly every pundit out there. They want a winning team. They understood that the winning would not come early. And if the defense doesn't look really good in your eyes ... wow, my bad. Why am I spending time talking to you? My fault. You want to kid yourself that McDermott is gone, that's your right.

Doubt it.

You didn't say they were keeping Woods, Gilmore, Goodwin or Tyrod. But if you think they weren't then you're missing the point. They wouldn't have kept Dareus and the others unless they were reloading instead of rebuilding. And if they were reloading they'd have had to try to keep as much talent as possible, precisely including the guys I mentioned. If you didn't get that, it's exactly because ... well, you didn't get it. And yes, they could have been a better football team ... this year. They might easily have won an extra two or three games and ended up winning six or seven ... at the cost of continual suckage into the future. Sure, they could have traded hope for the future for less immediate suckage. THANK ... GOD ... THEY ... DIDN"T!! This way they got Allen and hope for the future. Yeah, they could have continued in a crappy cap situation, traded away their next year's first and more ... to stick with a lineup you appear to think was talented ... a lineup that managed to get us seven wins with all the "proven commodities in the league" that they had. What they had there was seven-win talent. Corrected things for you. The Pegulas knew how awful this offense would be. Not precisely how awful, but they knew it would be very bad. To be honest, pretty much everyone except a small coterie of Kool-Aid abusing Bills fans did too, just by looking at the roster. The Pegulas knew they signed on for a rebuild. So did anyone with much sense. You're fantasizing here. Get used to McDermott for at absolute minimum another year. Oh, and the idea that this all depends on the offense is actually nutty. It's code language for "I hate McDermott." Fine, hate him, but don't let your hate blind you to reason. When it finally does come time to rate him, a year or two from now, on current results after the rebuild starts to rebuild, he absolutely won't be evaluated on the offense. He is the head coach. He will be evaluated on the entire team. Which right now is not just an awful offense. It also contains an excellent defense. He'd be evaluated on BOTH of those and the STs besides. That will happen once the inevitably horrible first couple of rebuild years passes.

No. The difference between the Bills and teams like the Eagles, Rams and Chiefs was that those three teams were at a totally different point in their team building plans. Those teams were not in the first two years of rebuilds. Not even close, actually. Whereas the Bills are right there, early in a rebuild. Addition by subtraction is a method used early in rebuilds. It is not used late in rebuilds and it is not used in reloads. And since all of those teams you cite are either late in rebuilds or reloading instead of rebuilding ... of course they didn't do that. The Bills had neither the cap situation nor the roster talent to reload, though and that's why they rebuild, necessitating the bloodletting it takes to get a team very quickly from salary cap hell to salary cap sanity and at the same time get the draft pick to bring in a potential franchise QB. It was completely necessary once they decided to rebuild. And in fact, since it has been reported that in their job interviews they promised the Pegulas that they would clean up the cap by the end of this year, the moment they were hired ... this became necessary.

We're not likely to be after "premium offensive talent," in free agency. They have committed to building through the draft and in this article Beane makes a point of saying they will spend "judiciously." Which is what the best teams, the ones who are competitive consistently, do. We'll fill in with low- and medium-priced FAs. And we have a number of spots, particularly on the offense, where that would be a real upgrade and fill holes. It's not lacking even slightly. It's a very convincing argument. The problem wasn't time. As we all knew, and as he further says in this very article, money was at a premium. They were in awful cap shape from the Whaley era and they committed to the owners to fix that by the end of the season. Doing that meant there were only so many holes that could be filled this year. And the young and inexperienced QB should have been on the bench all of this year. When that didn't happen - due to the mistake Beane owns up to making in QB depth - Allen ended up in games. But yeah, they absolutely need to make protecting Allen a major goal going forward.

It was the Jets. And a QB for the Bills nobody had any video on. We still have the same needs. RT, RG and C are major needs, along with slot receiver. A couple of years ago, Clay was getting open all the time. I don't see that anymore, so unless Croom really gets better, TE could stand an upgrade as well. If Teller continues looking good, that's one need met, IMHO. Other than that, still the same needs, I think.

Try FootballOutsiders. Their drive stats are excellent. https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestatsdef2018 And yeah, the Bills defense gets the third-worst average drive start in the league this year, a huge handicap. Not only that, but the average defense has faced 102 drives so far this year, while the Bills defense has faced 114, another major disadvantage. 4th-worst in the league. While the offense gets the 7th best drive starts combined with the third-most total drives, a huge advantage. The defense is very good, and the offense is handicapping them considerably. But nobody should need stats to tell them that. It's clear to the naked eye.

Exactly. Points Allowed is probably 25 - 40% offense and STs. Hell, Peterman has thrown three pick-sixes this year. Should those 21 points really be counted against the defense? In no way. Yards Allowed is virtually all on the defense.

High draft pick, please. I was hoping for a two-win season. Damn. Now I'm hoping for a three-win season, ideally with some visible improvement on the field while still losing. Of course, the players should play to win. But that's not even a question. They will. The question is what fans should root for, and for the long-term good of the team the best thing to hope for is a high draft pick this year and the wins to start coming next year.

No offense, dude, but you didn't know. Your educated guess/opinion turned out to be correct. But nobody knows for sure, ever. And if it had been all that obvious, Mahomes wouldn't have fallen so far. You did well there. I had him as a maybe/maybe not, personally. Tables did not run away from me in fear of being pounded. But as I've said to you before, you're saying McDermott didn't know. And a lot of that may be because the GM he was working with at the time, Doug Whaley, had been all in on the EJ Manuel pick. McDermott was in the driver's seat in that draft, but he was still relying on Whaley and Whaley's scouts. McDermott isn't a personnel guy and he's particularly not a personnel guy with much expertise on the offensive side of the ball. And we don't even know what Whaley was saying. Maybe Whaley hated Mahomes. No way to know. McDermott may well have been taking a very intelligent tack, saying, "I'm not an expert here, and by next year I should have a GM I can get along with in here. I know next year is a good year for QBs. Why don't I wait a year and work with a GM I trust and who is hopefully a lot better than me at picking QBs. We can collect a ton of draft capital this year and be ready to trade up and get one of the big group from next year." That would make sense and be the opposite of concerning.

What history generally shows is that guys go to whoever pays the most, winning team or losing. And yeah there are a few who don't do it that way. But probably 90% do. The ones who don't tend to be the guys looking for a third contract who've already made a ton of money. There are a few cases when it helps. Guys going with one-year prove-it contracts, especially if they play complementary positions like WR or RB, are going to want to be in good situations. A WR doesn't want to have a prove-it contract with a team with poor QBing and an RB looking for a prove-it contract doesn't want to joint a team with a poor OL. But overall it generally comes down to who pays the most. Oh, and yes, we were never tanking. Tanking is a basketball and hockey word. We were rebuilding and absolutely valuing the long-term over the short-term but you're right that it was never a pure rebuild where they gave zero thought to winning this year. They proved that the minute they hung on to Tyrod and Kyle Williams and Shady last year.

Yeah, if those were the only moves that would have been different if they had reloaded instead of rebuilding. But it shouldn't even be necessary to point this out but those are very much NOT the only moves they made differently based on long-term strategy. And yest the results would have been a continuation of cap hell.

Who talks nationally about the Bills? Everyone, that's who. Yeah, they spend far more time on the good teams but they talk about everyone to some degree. And they're often far more on target than Bills fans because they're not emotionally involved. Who was closer on win counts this year, the national pundits or cheery Bills fans? Oh, and is Dareus a better player than Star? Right now? The evidence on that is simply not there. Dareus no longer gets much of a pass rush. He's turned into a far more expensive Lotulelei. Dareus used to be terrific, but he hasn't been the same guy the last three years or so. Dareus has one sack, one tackle for loss and one QB hit this year. If he's better, it's not by all that much. Dareus is only "slightly more expensive"? $16 mill per year vs. $10 mill per year? I think you're straining the word "slightly" there. That's comparing the 4th highest average salary for DTs versus the 15th highest. "Sammy is a #1 WR on most teams", you say? Man, I think you're flat-out dreaming. Five years and 3567 yards and 28 TDs. In what universe are those #1 WR numbers. How many #1 WRs have one out of their five seasons over 1000 yards, and none of them are in the last three years? He isn't even the best receiver on that team or his team last year. Two guys have more catches than him just on the Chiefs, and he's in a two-way tie for third in TDs, just among the Chiefs. Hill has three times more TDs than Sammy and Kelce twice more. Watkins is a #2. Guy's been paid on potential his whole career and nothing is changing now. He's 31st in yards, in a multi-place tie for 43rd in TDs. You don't become a #1 WR based on how many yards and catches and TDs you might get if they threw it to you much. I always liked Sammy and I thought he was going to be a #1. I still hope he becomes one. But right now he isn't even close. And yes, the Bills are overpaying Benjamin. But the fact that the Bills are overpaying (two years for $9 million, $8.5 of which is for this year, but he's off the roster next year w/ no dead cap) for the 24th highest paid WR if you use this year's salary only, is no excuse whatsoever for KC's wildly overpaying the 6th highest paid WR in the league with a contract that will keep him there for years.

Your question is subtly spinning. Watkins, Dareus, Glenn and Darby aren't the only moves they made to save cap. They made a ton of them. So, to unspin, I'll ask the correct question: Simple question: How much cap room would the Bills have this offseason if they hadn't rebuilt, if they'd reloaded instead. Simple answer: A whole shitload less. Instead of being #3 in the league next year in available cap rankings they'd probably be somewhere similar to what they were last year going into the offseason, #26. We'd still probably have Tyrod at QB, and Robert Woods (ah, Tyrod racking up the yards throwing to Watkins and Woods. Yeah, the good old days and all those 300 yard games. I remember it well. From my imagination.) And Gilmore. Marquise Goodwin, maybe. Now to look at your (well-spun) question alone, and give a rough answer based on average salary per year (if you want to be more specific, do your own research, which you could have done in the first place): Watkins: $16 mill Dareus: $16 mill Glenn: $12 mill Darby: Hard to say as this is the last year on his contract. Would we have franchised him? I'll say yes, though he's not playing all that well this year in Philly. $16 mill. Total $60 mill Lotulelei $10 mill Benjamin $0 (his contract ends this year and I don't see them re-signing him, do you?) Murphy $7.5 mill Davis $0 He retired. I'm guessing the Bills go after his bonuses and guarantees. Could they be denied? Maybe, but my guess is they win. Total $17.5 mill Net difference $42.5 mill, just on the guys you mentioned. Throw on Tyrod's salary, Gilmore's, Robert Woods', and Goodwin's and since they're reloading instead of rebuilding they move as much of Incognito's and Wood's dead money from this year to next ... and a few other reload rather than rebuild moves and you're right back in the salary cap crap. And you don't have Josh Allen unless you threw in next year's first or more to go from #22 to #7.

Yeah, if I'd said anything about what Belichick says, you'd have a point. Since I didn't mention or reference anything about this, as seems absolutely standard for you recently, you're completely off-target and your point is totally irrelevant. I'm getting to the point with your recent posts where I feel I don't have to answer because they don't require rebuttal as they're so far off-point they serve as their own best invalidation.

Nah. Points are the most important thing, of course, but points allowed does NOT isolate the defense. Yards allowed does. Points allowed does not. Does three pick sixes thrown by Peterman mean the defense sucks? In any way? It does if you go by points scored. Does any points scored against the STs or the offense mean the defense stinks? It does if you go by this stat. If a Bills fumble is picked up and run back to the one yard line mean that the defense sucks if the opponent scores? It does if you go by this stat. Does a Bills fumble run back to the one yard line when the defense holds and forces a field goal reflect badly on the defense? It does if you go by this. The defense allowed three points, according to this measure. Field position is HUGE in scoring. Scoring is a whole team stat. It's probably 60 - 70% on the defense but the offense and STs are a huge component of points allowed. Yards on the other hand isolates the defense from the offense and STs very effectively indeed. And no, the defense isn't #1. But top ten? Yup, absolutely.