Thurman#1

No, I don't remember that. But I remember many fans saying it. I remember him being very good against the run but being beaten by good fakes by really athletic RBs on a few highlight plays that fans focused on forever. I don't remember him ever being a first round talent, though. And they gave him too much on that last contract. But what was he supposed to do, turn them down and ask for less?

This sort of thing. I'm hoping for more, but expecting around this.

They didn't have to give Shady a new deal. They had him under contract cheaply for another year or two. Huge waste of resources. Picking him up was a good move. Bidding against ourselves to give him a new really huge new contract ... really bad idea, IMHO. In combination with a bunch of other moves it put us in salary cap hell and resulted in us losing a bunch of good players. Again, don't know enough about Ducasse to talk about him. They've done a pretty poor job with the draft over the Whaley years, but a decent job with pro players, so I'd hold criticism for right now. I'm with you that comp picks are important, and wish they would be more careful with this. But if they hadn't picked up Ducasse, they'd still have gotten one more qualifying UFA than they lost, so wouldn't have a comp pick. Ducasse's signing bonus is only $250K. He'd be easy to cut if he doesn't play well, and his average salary is only $1.16 M. It's not as if they gave up much. IMHO they're taking a flier and can easily drop him if it doesn't work out.

The Niners under Harbaugh went from a 3-4 with occasional plays in a 4-3 ... to pretty much the same thing. Tomsula was highly involved on defense under both systems. They weren't switching schemes. I don't remember on offense, but this does not meet my qualifications. I guess if you wanted to argue I wouldn't bother to counter, but our group is going to have a tougher first year, with different schemes. We'll run a lot on offense, that'll stay the same, but the scheme will change. And the history of this is that I challenged one guy who said it happened all the time to come up with ten, and said that I thought he might, but that it would take time and a lot of thought. So far the fact that one person came up with two and another person came up with one (that really doesn't fit) if anything indicates that I'm not on the wrong track. It's taking time and thought. Here's a list of ten coaches joining losing teams putting in new systems to the best of my recollection, who did NOT turn things around in the first year: 1) Chuck Noll 2) Jimmy Johnson 3) Bill Walsh 4) Marv Levy 5) Bill Belichick in either of his two head coaching spots 6) Andy Reid 7) Tom Landry 8) Tom Coughlin in either of his two spots 9) Pete Carroll at the Jets and Seahawks (with the Pats he was 10-6 his first year but the year before NE had had 11 wins) 10) Mike McCarthy (8-8) EDIT: Wanna say Landry doesn't count because it was their first year as a team? Fair enough. I'll replace him with Mike Shanahan at all three of his jobs. Took me like seven minutes. That's the difference. It's easy to find them because it's what happens most of the time. I just tried to think of the most respected coaches historically and currently and checked their records. I did find one on your side as I looked. Lombardi went 7-5 in his first year, pretty impressive as they'd been 1-10-1 the year before. It's certainly not impossible that we make a huge turnaround and become a great team. But it's rare, and therefore unlikely.

Shouldn't have? Well, I don't disagree with you there. Whaley shouldn't have done a crappy job with the cap, but he did. I don't mind Ducasse specifically. I don't really know anything about him except that he's a UMASS guy and that's where I got my Masters. Go Minutemen!!!! But I'm with you that I would rather they had for example not given Shady the raise they did. Or not signed Clay even though it's obvious from the All-22 that he's very open extremely often. Or hadn't signed Harvin so that they were paying him dead cap last year and could have rolled the money over into this year's cap. Or something. Point is, they were in an awful situation and had to let a bunch of guys go that they probably didn't want to ... guys like Gilmore and Zac Brown. And Gillislee. I'm totally with you on that, Wayne. And the new guys obviously both care and get it, because we didn't get any of the re-negotiations that just push the problem down the road. I love it that the new regime is just going to take their medicine right now, fight down the nausea at the taste and get a healthy cap as soon as possible. Enough with the "Gillislee was nothing special" nonsense. Nobody is trying to say he's AP, but he's an excellent player for his role, Excellent. Led the league in YPA last year including shading Shady. Got the cheapest team in the league, a team reknowned for not spending much on their run game, to give him an offer to high for Buffalo to match because of their cap problems, an offer that's one of the highest salaries in the league for non-starting RBs. He's a very good player for what his role is, very good, and we'll miss him. Hopefully we can come up with somebody to replace him, but it's not a sure thing by any means. I asked for ten. And said that he might be able to come up with them but that it would take some real time and thought. So that point still stands. Whereas it would be very easy to come up with ten coaches who came in to losing teams and switched schemes and DIDN'T have success their first year. It happens. It's just pretty rare.

So, you're saying salary cap had nothing to do with it ... and then saying that the reason we lost him is that we offered him a million too little for his tender? You're not noticing that those two things might be very much related. And having $9 mill in cap room on a team which has not yet signed it's draftees who will probably take around $3- $4 mill off the cap ... on a team that generally goes into the season with around $5 - $6 mill available in case they need to make some injury signings .. Yeah, exactly. They have almost no money that they feel comfortable spending. Now, they might cut some guys down the line and pick up cheaper replacements, and that could save them a million or two. But cap problems was a huge part of a bunch of the decisions to let guys go this year. Gillislee too.

"Trimming down the playbook" and "simplifying the offense," are what he said. The playbook isn't what you put together each week. It's the book that shows all the plays in the offense. I know it's an outdated word now that everyone uses computers, but that's what people are talking about when they say "playbook," the stuff you study in training camp. I think you're referring to the game plan. And here's an article where Carson Palmer talks about memorizing a weekly game plan of 171 plays. And he calls it "a game plan," not a playbook. http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/11/17/nfl-carson-palmer-arizona-cardinals-inside-game-plan Lynn said he simplified the playbook. He also said, and this was really depressing for me to read at the time, that he simplified the reads. That's different from what you're implying here. Nobody has said Tyrod doesn't have the mental capacity to handle the offense. He's a smart guy, and there's no indication at all that I've seen that he had trouble understanding the plays. Just that he didn't seem to be able to get through his options quick enough to read enough of the field. Which is one of the single main skills that generally separates the top ten or so guys in the world from everyone else playing the position.

Why did we fire him if he can't do better in his first year? Because after that first year, another year will follow. And another after that. And it'll just keep going that way, whether McDermott's still here or not until the NFL eventually disappears. And because caring more about the short-term than the long-term is not how smart people and teams proceed. Change is difficult, especially when switching schemes. And it isn't even slightly anecdotal that McDermott's defense took a while to get started in Carolina. The numbers show it. That's the way it's very likely to go. Oh, and how were we "knocking on the door" with Rex? The guy took a 9-7 team, and ran them to 8-8 and then 7-9. OK, if rookie head coaches succeed plenty, name ten. But don't count guys like Barry Switzer who took over a team that was already excellent and didn't switch any schemes. Ten rookie coaches who took over losing teams, switched schemes on both sides of the ball and really improved the team in their first year. You might find ten, but I'm betting it takes you a while. For obvious reasons.

Doubt it might take some time? Look at the Panthers defense: 2010 Panthers: 18th in D in the league McDermott is hired as DC from the Eagles after the 2010 season. 2011 Panthers: 28th in D in the league 2012 Panthers: 10th in D in the league 2013 Panthers: 2nd in D in the league 2014 Panthers: 10th in D in the league 2015 Panthers: 6th in D in the league 2016 Panthers: 21st in D in the league They got worse that first year. Wondering about scoring defense? Here's the figures: 2010: 26th He's hired. 2011: 27th 2012: 18th 2013: 2nd 2014: 12th 2015: 6th 2016: 26th Got worse the first year and still below average the second year. It generally takes some time. Wondering if this was because they were rebuilding? Every defensive starter in 2011, McDermott's first year, had been drafted by the Panthers. (Check ProFootballReference.com). That's not a rebuild or anything close to it. The second year they brought in some FAs, starting to get their own type of guys in place ... Ron Edwards from the Bills, Dwan Edwards from Baltimore and Haruki Nakamura from Baltimore and drafting 9th brought in two defensive starters, Kuechly and Norman. They got a few of their type of guys in place and the system had been in place for a year and things started to look up a bit.

Or they won't hear anything bad about TT and need to preach. Virtually every time it becomes a problem it's because there are people on both sides. Pretending that it's only the other side that has the problem is missing the entire point. "Yes, the people who disagree with me have a problem with needing to preach," is like saying "Man, elections suck. Damn that _________ Party that I don't like. They always say things that I don't like to hear, forcing me and my friends to reply angrily." On any issue, it only becomes a problem if there are people on both sides joining in and contributing to the morass.

Agreed it's not a full rebuild. But you don't have to rebuild for it to take time to get where you're going. When you switch schemes it generally takes time for the players to not just learn it but have it become natural. And the guys from the previous regime will often not fit your plans as well as you had hoped they would. It'll likely take time. Yes, Gilmore to the rookie White is going to be a downgrade. If things go well he will reach the same level when he has a year or two of NFL experience. Corners generally take some time, same as WRs and QBs. I hope you're right about McDermott's results being better than Rex's, but the odds aren't great the first year. Down the road is what's important anyway. Agreed. Created a hole where there had been a player performing his duties extremely well. But that's what happens when your last regime gets you in salary cap trouble. You lose some guys you're really prefer to have kept.

Well, yeah, if he were the young Jim Brown he'd have been signed. But that's beside the point. What he is is LeGarrette Blount, a very good but aging RB who is now less likely to get signed than he would have been if the Pats hadn't done this. And that's utter nonsense that only Bills fans care about comp picks. The teams that consistently lead the league in comp picks is also a list of the best and smartest franchises in football, the Pats, the Packers, the Ravens, the Steelers, etc. And it's not a matter of good teams getting them naturally, as the Steelers were also getting them when they sucked for three years in a row and the Niners are still getting them now. The teams that care about picks and are smart enough to use the rules to their advantage get them. The stupider teams don't. And what they do is simple, they raise your chances of getting a larger number of valuable players out of the draft. That's important. Which is why the smart franchises do this.

He's getting screwed because the date when comp picks are lost when you sign a guy has passed. And that means teams are more likely now to pick up a guy. But when the Pats did this, it means that if a team signs him they lose a comp pick even though the date passed. Which will absolutely hurt the market for him. It also screws him by putting a specific end deadline on when teams can pick him up, July 22nd. So he's screwed either way. Before July 22nd, if another team signs him they lose a comp pick, something that's not true for any other player in the league. After July 22nd, even if another team gets a running back injured, they can't sign him, he's restricted to the Pats, so if another team would pay more money than the $1.1 mill the Pats want to pay him, tough luck, they can't. It's not the same as Gillislee because he was signed during the period when every player in the league could only be signed by teams willing to lose a comp pick if they fit those guidelines. Now that deadline has passed and Blount is the only player in the league who will cost a team a comp pick. He's screwed. Vicious rule, but the NFLPA agreed to it when they signed the collective bargaining agreement. Still, tough break for Blount, who has worked his heart out for the Pats.

I really strongly agree with your last paragraph. If you wanted the guy, you've got to give him time. I hear people on the boards saying that because we got McDermott the defense will be a ton better this year. IMHO that's doubtful. He's putting in a whole new system, and those things usually take time. And yeah yeah yeah he says the transition will be quick and easy, but that's what every single coach in NFL history says when they're asked about changing systems. But generally it's the guys who are only tweaking the old system a bit who actually don't need significant time for the transition. There are exceptions. I'm sure people can point some of them out, but they're relatively few and far between. For every Jim Schwartz there are probably five or ten Rex Ryans. If these are the right guys, we'll start to see very impressive results in two or three or four years as guys have been in the same system for a long time. That's when benefits are generally reaped. When making the right choice and being patient allows you the luxury of continuity. ... Anyway, thanks, OP. Interesting to see what someone who's been paying more attention to these guys than we have things.

That's what it looked like to me too. And yeah, the whole thing is interesting.

Garoppolo is going to be a guy in the top half of QBs, IMHO. He won't be a Steve Bono. But I doubt he's a Steve Young either. I agree they have to make this choice. But if Brady doesn't start a drop soon, he'll make that choice very easy and it'll be Garoppolo who's gone. The Pats have a history of trading guys before they start to lose their skills, not after. But there have been exceptions. Guys like Moss, who had started to lose it. Welker had started his descent, not by a lot, but his last year he'd been targeted one more time than the year before and yet receptions, yardage, yards per reception, TDs, all had gone down. I just don't see them letting Brady go for any reason until we see his performances becoming human. And remember when Brady's dad said that Tom wanted to play till he was 70? I don't see retirement until he stops satisfying himself as to his level of play.

The Bills didn't try to trade with the Steelers. They tried to trade above the Steelers. And at the time what they said was absolutely NOT that no trade was available, it was that the price was too high. Looking back, almost no price should have been considered too high.

Climbers who attempt the most dangerous mountain in the world, K2, not just climbers in general. But yeah, it's a dangerous sport.

If you give a crap about making the playoffs and being fodder for the good teams, yeah, Snyder's had more success than the Bills during that time period. But Snyder has never once put together a team that actually looked like they were seriously Lombardi-competitive. To me, there are the teams that have a real chance and the rest. And the Bills and Redskins have been in "the rest" equally long. Both bad. Snyder finally looks like he has a real GM who has put together a roster that appears like it might be competitive in a fairly short time ... and he fires the guy. I'm not a fan of the Pegulas reign over the Bills and Sabres so far, but I'd take them over Snyder. That's not what happened here. On some teams the GM is above the coach. On other teams it's the other way around. This is clearly a team where the coach is going to be farther up the hierarchy from the GM. Nothing wrong (or right) with that. All depends on whether success follows. The main problem with the Nix regime was that he brought in Whaley.

Fact: "none of them even came back for a 2nd interview" Completely unsupported opinion: "were basically interviewed for the hell of it"

IMHO, by "solid starter," people tend to mean that a guy is easily in the top 32 QBs in the league. Whether or not your whole team can beat a good team has little to do with that. By that definition anyway, Tyrod is absolutely and without question a solid starter. Yeah, he has more to prove, especially after last year's regression. Teams are looking for more than a solid starter. They want a guy in the top 10 or 12 QBs. In any case, wins is not a QB stat, it's a team stat. QBs should be judged by how well they play QB. Alex Smith is a good QB. A team can win a Super Bowl with him. Bradford last year completed 71.6% of his passes, had 20 TDs and 5 INTs and a passer rating of 99.3. He's a good QB too. Smith and Bradford when he's playing well are both sort of in the very good game manager with real upside category. 7-9? Bottom of the middle of the pack.

It is indeed. For a while it was that he wasn't willing to restructure. Which honestly you could understand with a six-year $92 mill contract. But that was the original report. Then the one that he was willing to re-structure but not willing to give up any money. Feb. 9th: "It's pretty much an either or proposition, because, based on everything I've been told, Taylor is unwilling to agree to a restructured contract that would reduce his pay. He and his agent, Adisa Bakari, are firmly convinced they would receive every bit as much as the Bills would have to pay in accordance with the extension -- if not more -- in the open market." http://buffalonews.com/2017/02/09/vic-caruccis-bills-mailbag-taylor-either-proposition/?utm_campaign=puma&utm_medium=social&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1486679573 Then the new contract where his pay was reduced. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, particularly in the first sentence. But before the renegotiation there was a very real argument that the Bills were not going to pick up that option to pay that $30.75 mill guarantee. And he didn't have to be Brady-esque to get that guarantee. He didn't even have to throw a single pass. All he had to do was be on the roster this last March, the third day of the league year and ... boom ... $30.75 mill guaranteed. Schefter's original report that the Bills were not going to pick up that option didn't say they didn't want Tyrod. It said that they weren't going to pay that much for him.

What he said was that he would consider restructuring but was not willing to do so if he had to give up any money. Whoops.

Agreed that what the Bills did was smart and hedged their bets. Yeah, they shortened his deal. But they also made it infinitely easier for them to cut him after one year. With the old deal (assuming they'd taken the option, of course) if they'd cut him after one year, they'd have had to pay a penalty of around $14 - $15 mill in dead money. And the alternative - keeping him on the roster through March 2018 - would have meant guaranteeing him about $24 mill more ($40 mill total guaranteed from the beginning of the contract if he was only on the roster in March 2018 ... minus his 2017 impact). If they'd kept the old deal and picked up the option, to keep him or let him go would have cost the Bills a ton more than the new deal will. Either way the Bills save a ton and Tyrod makes a lot less. In the new deal, Tyrod makes $14 mill less money if he's here for one year and $10 mill less money if he's here for two. And his guarantee, a number players fight like rabid dogs to increase, will also be a lot less.

Shaw, you're wrong about the effect that money will have on the likelihood of him getting cut. The way it's structured will make it extremely easy to cut him. Very very easy. Here are the two choices: 1) Cut him before March of 2018: He'll cost the team $8.6 mill in dead money against the cap 2) Keep him for 2018: He'll cost the team $18 mill against the cap, in salary, a major March roster bonus and the prorated portion of his signing bonus. Cutting him would save them almost $10 mill on the cap. That's not a penalty for cutting him, it's a windfall. And let's not pretend guys don't get cut for money-related reasons even when they beat out (or would beat out) the other QBs on the rosters in the NFL. It happens a lot. Not to the franchise guys, but to the guys farther down, who the team thinks won't allow them to be competitive for a title. And that's Tyrod. Osweiler's a good example, the best QB on that roster but not good enough to make that team competitive, so he's gone before they have any idea what they might get in the draft. We don't know whether or not it's likely. Too much is up in the air in terms of what QBs will be available in the draft when we pick, how much Peterman and Cardale will develop and whether or not Tyrod does as well as they hope in the new system, as well as whether the team and the offense are competitive next year with Tyrod. Unless things fall well for him, it could easily make great sense to cut him. The money is a reason to cut him, not to keep him. They could easily keep him for two but it would be just as easy to cut him.