Thurman#1

For the limited amount of time in which it is inevitable to suck in a rebuild, yeah. Same as it's a bad thing to be immature, but actually OK when you're eight or ten years old. Not so much when you're 23, though.

Where do the Bills have more than three? The Bills tendency through the years has been to reload, even when the talent clearly wasn't there. One of the Bills rebuilds was the one led by Polian and Levy. The unfortunate QB-less Nix-led failure was another. The year they picked OJ was another, probably, though the head coach was so awful the improvement would maybe never have occurred if he hadn't been replaced by a Bills icon. The Bills have a lot more reloaders than rebuilders. Rex, Marrone, Jauron, Mularkey, Gregg Williams, Wade, all reloaders. You can make an argument for Gregg Williams, but bringing in Bledsoe and a bunch of other moves always made it seem more like a forced cap dump followed by a reload to me. In any case, nobody says that rebuilding is perfect. It isn't. In fact, it sucks. The only solution that's any worse are all the others. I'm with KellytheDog above that they should've done it earlier and made the rebuild complete. But they didn't and at least we don't have to hear people moan about the playoff streak anymore. Do I think McDermott is in that class? I have no idea. Nor does anyone else. Before those rebuilds, Walsh, Johnson and Carroll weren't yet in that category. And all of them suffered through a ton of "See how horrible this guy is ... he's had long enough and he's proved he's a loser ... dump him fast" knee-jerk criticism in the middle of those rebuilds. If they'd really wanted to gut the team last year, John, they'd have traded Tyrod. And Kyle Williams and probably Hughes. McCoy and Incognito for sure. Could've lost a bunch more games and had a better draft pick. And not had to trade away so much to pick a QB this year. I agree with the rest of your post here, though. this coming year they'll work on the offense.

Correct answer: we'll know in two to four more years. I wanted one of the other three of the big four, and I certainly hoped they'd pick Rosen over Allen when they traded up. But I still thought Allen deserved to be drafted as high as he was, and I'm on record about that. But it'll take Allen a lot longer to reach his potential probably. On the other hand, Rosen might be injury-prone. Too early to know. We'll know in two to four more years.

Tyrod's a character guy and a tremendous physical talent. But he's not a guy who you want mentoring a young guy. He's never shown a real command of the passing game. And he's a guy who requires a certain kind of offense to maximize. You also don't want to have the team running a different offense than the one they want to run the next few years after Allen (hopefully) sees the light come on. I bet Tyrod has a long NFL career, but my guess is he's eventually going to be a backup, and not for a guy who needs a mentor. Please provide the link, brother. Thanks. Makes it easier for anyone who wants to respond. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000979101/article/players-attracting-interest-ahead-of-trade-deadline I'm not clear who Austin Knoblauch, the guy who wrote this, is, other than the "Digital content editor." I don't see this at all, myself.

In two years the Allen project won't have an outcome, at least it won't unless he becomes terrific in that short time. I'm not convinced Allen will ever be a franchise guy. But we're talking about a guy who was said from minute one to require a year or two of development. Mayock said he should be drafted by a team that could let him sit for a couple of years. Highly unlikely that anyone will be putting an end to this project by the end of 2019.

Nah. Rodgers started out at a low level. He had about the best development process anyone could have, under about the best teacher anyone could have. McCarthy changed his motion and taught him the position. McCarthy is considered a QB guru. Tyler Dunne has a great story about it here: http://archive.jsonline.com/sports/packers/mccarthy-can-teach-qbs-with-anyone-el6mfil-168285666.html/ "He's considered an architect of the quarterback position, the modern-day standard. McCarthy has worked with Joe Montana, Rich Gannon, Steve Bono, Matt Hasselbeck, Brett Favre, Aaron Brooks and, of course, Aaron Rodgers. But he never even played the position. McCarthy was a tight end at Baker University (Kan.). His first job? Coaching linebackers at Fort Hays State. The making of this Quarterback M.D. is rooted in his first 10 years as a coach. McCarthy did "the whole sleep-in-the-office thing." Other stuff from the Dunne story: "Over their four years together, Gannon started only 19 games. But it was McCarthy who helped Gannon morph from journeyman to juggernaut. Behind the scenes, he revitalized the quarterback's career. Eventually in Oakland, Gannon would make four Pro Bowls, earn league MVP honors and reach the Super Bowl ... 'He was so organized and so detailed and had such a good way of breaking it down - and he was such a young coach at the time,' Gannon said. 'If I had his quality of coaching early in my career, boy, things would have gone a lot smoother. He just took it to another level.'" "On the field during his QB school, McCarthy forced his charges to visualize a defense. Before a snap - no defense, no receivers, no linemen on the field - he'd call out a defensive formation, such as 'under front, three sky with a Mike blitz,' Gannon said. On the fly, the quarterback had to drop back and react with proper footwork. 'So it's all mental,' Gannon said. 'We got so many mental reps, we were so, so, so far ahead.'" Rodgers sucked his first three training camps and preseasons. McCarthy's "QB camp" was huge for Rodgers, including changing his throwing motion. "Before he got drafted, I worked out with [Rodgers] and now he's a totally different quarterback." - Jerry Rice And the long long time beat writer for the Pack, Bob McGinn, while explaining why he'd take Favre over Rodgers, says the same thing: "The MMQB: You documented how fortunate it was that Aaron Rodgers didn’t have to play the first couple of years—he just wasn’t ready. McGinn: “He was a very poor player here for his first two summers and regular-season practices. Fortunately for him, and he knows that down deep, he didn’t have to play early. His delivery was a mess, bad body language, he didn’t know how to deal with teammates. He learned so much from Brett Favre on how to in some ways be one of the guys and relate, and he became much more of a leader. He was really poor and how many great players have ever had a start like that? Not that many. A lot of scouts look at that exhibition tape those first two years and he was a little bit better the third year, but not to any degree, and then he just really developed. He lost a lot of close games in ’08, but by ’09 he was playing great and by 2010 he was maybe the best in the business." https://www.si.com/mmqb/2017/06/13/themmqb-exit-interview-bob-mcginn-green-bay-packers-milwaukee-journal-sentinel-nfl-beat-writer Rodgers was lucky he didn't have to play early. He didn't look good at GB till into his fourth year.

Yes, you have to sign FAs. No, you don't have to build by signing the high-priced guys. The Pats, Steelers, Ravens, the consistent teams fill in with low- to mid-priced guys while drafting their core players. The Packers signed almost nobody. It was an interesting experiment but it didn't work on defense.

The night before a game? Not a good look at all. Wonder if it's Dareus. I'll be interested to see the names. EDIT: Nope, at least according to Deadspin, it's Barry Church, Ronnie Harrison, DJ Hayden and Jarrod Wilson, and all but Church were arrested but none wound up being charged. https://deadspin.com/jaguars-players-arrested-released-after-misunderstand-1830055056

Ah, the sound of a man surrendering while still trying to insist he's right. The goal posts aren't moving, Avi. I've challenged you five times now, in pretty much the same exact words each time. You aren't coming up with any because there aren't any. But hey, let's make sure the goal posts aren't moving. I challenge you again, in exactly the same words I used in the first challenge. I'll just copy it right to here. You said this: And on Tuesday at 8:44, I said this: Goalposts ain't moving, Avi. You just don't have a football to kick through them. Still waiting.

You don't do this with me because I don't engage with you except when you say something that doesn't make much sense, and because of that you nearly always lose the arguments. You're losing the argument here and you don't respond with a single specific. Again, still waiting for all those national musings about "being annual contenders for the playoffs" you talked about.

Yup. Yeah, them too. The Ravens, the Pack. As DPBerr suggested above, I think the Panthers are there too. Falcons? Maybe even the Vikings? I'm running low, but that's just it, there aren't all that many. To join them you've got improve as a whole organization and maintain some consistency. By rebuilding, getting the cap in order and installing their culture. And consistently improving. Of course, easier said than done. But it is possible in the long term.

Fourth time now I've asked you for all these national musings you reference here. Fourth time I've asked you for any article mentioning "being annual contenders for the playoffs" or anything like it. And strangely enough ... I'M STILL WAITING, AVI!!!!!

As always, you talk, but you never make the point you think you make. It's a weird kind of underachievement, but even when the Bills don't underachieve, you do. You try first to say we didn't underachieve by pointing out the after-season rankings ... ONE rankings. More, the rankings you point out, if they're totally factual and we don't challenge them at all prove precisely the opposite of what you're trying to prove. When you average out those ranking scores - the ones in your own link - they come out to 20.7 ... they say the Bills average out at between the 20th and 21st best team in the league. And yet, the 20 links you're trying so sadly and unsuccessfully to answer predicted before the season that the Bills would average out at 26.47. Meaning they were predicted to end up between 26th and 27th and they actually ended up 20th and 21st if we completely believe your link. What a joke, Avi. You proved they over-achieved. And crowed about it, thinking you'd done the opposite. What a joke. As for your second point, of course they'd begun the teardown. They'd inherited a sub-mediocre roster that was paid as if they Super Bowl contenders. But it was you who used the word under-achieved. You don't underachieve this year with last year's roster. It makes no sense. You under-achieve or over-achieve based on who is on your team. Judging it by people who aren't on your team is ... what? ... under-imagined-achievement? Imaginary-achievement-guessing? And the 2016 Bills team didn't underachieve much either. They weren't especially talented. Offensive starters: Tyrod Taylor, LeSean McCoy, Marquise Goodwin, Sammy Watkins, Robert Woods, Charles Clay, Cordy Glenn, Richie Incognito, Eric Wood, John Miller and Jordan Mills. Defensive starters: Adolphus Washington, Kyle Williams, Marcell Dareus/Corbin Bryant, Preston Brown, Lorenzo Alexander, Zach Brown, Jerry Hughes, Ronald Darby, Stephon Gilmore, Corey Graham, Aaron Williams/Ihedigbo And with that lineup they'd put themselves in cap trouble. Pitiful. The decent players there are either still here (McCoy, Clay, Kyle Williams, Lorax, Hughes), or off the team due to salary cap decisions (Gilmore (performing very well), Watkins, Goodwin, Dareus (perhaps as much a result of not showing up to meeting as a cap decision but these three are still underperforming their contracts), Robert Woods (having a terrific year, the real major loss of these cap casualties), not scheme fits (Darby, who's having a bad year but I think will be fine down the road). Or retired due to injury or craziness (Aaron Williams, Eric Wood, Incognito). The rest are nonentities. That was a mediocre lineup that was being wildly overpaid ... to win a mediocre seven games.

We weren't that talented. We had managed to put together a roster that was sub-mediocre and yet wildly expensive. I've already answered this question about four times, but what's it indicative of? It's indicative that we're in the second year of a near-complete rebuild. The second year of a near-complete rebuild will suck. That's what it does.That's who it is. Has Belichick ever cut his own throat? No. But that's not what we have done here either. Has Belichick ever cut talented players because they didn't fit his scheme or they were too expensive ... even when he only had less talent behind that guy? Yeah. He does it every single year. He cut Richard Seymour, Chandler Jones, Nate Solder, Jamie Collins, Terry Glenn off the top of my head ... any list of the players he's cut when he had worse as replacements would probably go into triple figures. Has Belichick done a rebuild? Yeah. Not a full rebuild like ours but he churned that Pete Carroll roster very quickly indeed. Look at the 1999 Pats roster the year before he arrived. Then look at his roster the next year. With one quick look I think I see 11 starters gone. Look at what he did in Cleveland. Kosar gone, Webster Slaughter, Ozzie Newsome. He inherited a worse roster in Cleveland than he did in NWE and he cut and purged to his heart's content ... something he still does in New England to this day.

You can't tell. You can argue it. You can assume it. You can't know it. In those three stints he had three crappy offensive rosters. Crappy. And he was hired afterwards by two of the canniest tactical minds in football. And in his one year at Alabama they won a national championship while switching QBs in midstream. Jalen Hurts improved a lot, but not enough to satisfy Bama. So they substituted in a better QB and lo and behold Daboll's entire mind changes and he becomes brilliant. And as for having a great offense this year, Alabama has played Louisville, Arkansas State, Mississippi, Texas A&M, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri and Tennessee. Wait till they hit the meat of their schedule. They do look good on offense this year, but you're comparing a team with a good throwing QB in Tua starting this year with a team starting Hurts most of last year as Tua developed and learned. Supposedly Daboll wanted to play Tua sooner than Saban did. And when Tua came in, that looked like a pretty good suggestion. Significant improvement would be nice. But it shouldn't make the difference. A lot of things can cause or prevent that. What should make the difference is McDermott's feeling about how good a job Daboll is doing. Is the roster holding him back? Is he doing a good job with what he has? That simple. And a ton easier to see from the inside than the outside.

No, it doesn't tell you that. It tells you he didn't turn bad players into good ones. None of those bad QBs was a young guy with a ton of potential. They were guys who had been around and been bad for a pretty long time. Might he have gotten the very best possible out of bad talent? Yeah, that's very possible. The best a coach can do is maximize his talent. He can't change one guy into another. Neither Belichick nor Nick Saban hire or tolerate bad coaches. Guys who might not be good head coaches? Yeah, they'll tolerate them. But they don't tolerate guys who don't do their jobs and do them damn well.

This one. Bill Walsh says hello. So does Jimmy Johnson. Pete Carroll. I could go on.

Yeah, remember how Bill Walsh got fired when he went 2-14 and 6-10 his second. So little to be gained from years like that. Hang on, maybe I can find a better example. Remember the Panthers sucking for several years and getting Newton and Kuechly the next two ... oh, wait. The Eagles sucked in Andy Reid's last two years there and turned that into a bunch of players who helped them win the SB. The Saints went 7-9 two years in a row and got Sheldon Rankins, Michael Thomas, Marshon Lattimore, Ramczyk, Marcus Williams and Alvin Kamara out of it. There's plenty to be gained by sucking, as long as it's during a rebuild or you use it to fix your cap and draft well. Rebuilds don't guarantee success. They just maximize the chances of it.

You keep saying, and so do others, that Daboll has a putrid record as an OC. And it just isn't that simple. What people think of you as an OC is dependent on a lot of things, including how good (or in Daboll's case, astoundingly bad) your QBs and offensive rosters are. Daboll's QBs have been Matt Cassel backed up by Brady Quinn in KC, Matt Moore backed up by Chad Henne in Miami. In Cleveland in his first of two years, 2009, his starter was Brady Quinn, backed up by our own Derek Anderson and the next year Delhomme was the original starter for Cleveland and he went 2-2, but the 35 year-old suffered ankle problems that hobbled him for the season and Daboll was left with Colt McCoy backed up by Seneca Wallace. Remind me, has anyone had success with that pack of mugs since they got out from under Daboll? He's had crap rosters and people know that, and yet he's still widely respected by people like Saban and Belichick. It simply isn't clear that he's been bad. He may well have gotten the best out the dross he coached.

I think you're misunderstanding the understanding the Pegulas have of how long rebuilds take. For McDermott to go after next year something along the lines of a complete team meltdown would have to occur. I don't see any way Beane goes. After four years, now, a team that is still looking anywhere near this bad would put the coach in immediate danger and the GM on a very warm seat. Agreed that we have a pretty decent chance to be alright whatever happens.

In terms of complete or near complete rebuilds, there's really almost no such thing as a "two-year rebuild." Unfortunately, they take as long as they take. Being very good in the third year is pretty rare, though there are examples such as the Walsh 49ers. If you're not very good in the fourth year that is probably an indication of some kind of trouble. Rebuilds aren't as precise as teams would like, especially when you've got a QB like Allen who is widely considered to be a bit of a project.

Yup. Ignoring need sounds great, but it's not a real-world solution. No team can afford to ignore need, and none do. In the later rounds, yeah, ignore need. But if you go through nearly any draft, look at every team, you'll find that pretty much every team drafted one of their top three or four needs in the first and second rounds. It's the way the world works. As you say, Hucklebuck, that doesn't mean "passing on a 97 Cornerback to draft a 71 WR." Precisely. But there's a reason why very few guards, non-rushing ILBs and safeties go in the top ten, and it ain't because there are fewer good guards than there are good QBs. You want to avoid wild overdrafts at all cost. But if you have a young Patrick Mahomes you don't draft a QB even if a QB is the guy you have ranked highest. You just don't. Yup, exactly. They nailed those picks. Both guys are playing far better than their draft pick would lead you to expect and doing so very early in their careers. As for the OP, we need WR, RG, RT, a replacement for Lorax as he ages and a pass rusher to platoon with Murphy and eventually take over. Those'd be my top priorities. Kelvin Benjamin and Zay Jones have both picked it up a lot in the last two to three games. They're no longer necessary to replace, though it wouldn't be a shock if we let Benjamin go because he might be too expensive to re-sign.

I think you're seeing something that's not there. Of course he moved without his family. He had to be there the next day. And the kids were in school. And he's got a one-year contract and no guarantee after that. Why would he move his family? But if the Bills like him, they could give him another contract. There's nothing in anything that he's said that would preclude that. Fair enough. It doesn't work very often. Just more often than any other method of becoming unsucky.

If you could perfectly tell how good a rookie QB is from only watching him in practice, life would be a whole ton easier. You often can't. If it wasn't sometimes quite difficult to tell what kind of guy you have, the Chargers would never have drafted Phillip Rivers after three years of seeing Brees in practice and two years of seeing him in games. Your argument that they should have known is simply not reasonable. Sometimes guys who look quite good in practice aren't good in games and sometimes they are. That's life in football. We knew Tyrod wasn't good enough to be with us the next year by then. We knew it was a good year to draft a QB the next year. We knew the team wasn't particularly good, as they were 5-4 against a not very good schedule (5-11 Jets, 11-5 Panthers who had been in a slump and were 5-4 at the time, 5-11 Broncos, 10-6 Falcons who had been in a slump and lost Julio and were 4-4 at that point, 7-9 Bengals, 5-11 Bucs, 6-10 Raiders and 5-11 Jets again) and we were likely going to be 5-5 regardless of who played QB against the Saints. And we obviously didn't know what we had with Peterman. It certainly didn't turn out well. But that doesn't mean taking the risk was indefensible. It wasn't.

Just because nobody would trade a rookie Goff or a rookie Wentz for Tyrod didn't mean Tyrod wasn't performing better that year. He was playing around 20th to 22nd best, probably. Which when that is your ceiling is just good enough to make sure that teams will constantly be trying to replace you. Yeah, there were a bunch more guys that teams hoped had the potential to become better than Tyrod. But around 20 - 22nd is probably how well you would rank his performance each year he was on the Bills, though the first seven games or so before teams got a bead on how to defend him he looked like he might really be something. It's called a rebuild. Rebuilds involve serious pain. It's part of the deal, unfortunately, especially rebuilds where the last GM left the team in a bad cap situation. And it's not like the team they inherited was any better than sub-mediocre. So yes, the guys who have started the rebuild should get to finish it. There are a few exceptions, such as if they totally lose the locker room or start making visibly dumb decisions and statements ala Rexy, but none of that has happened yet. At some point they will have no excuses, they will have to stand or fall by their record. A year and a half into a near-complete rebuild is not that time. Horrible pain at that time is built into the process.