K-9

Per the bold, abso friggen lutely! The inherited roster was largely played out, especially at the most critical position in sports (never mind some were and continue to be convinced that all TT needed was a better supporting cast). Now I expect to see the usual suspects chime in with, "Well, if the roster was so played out, why are so many ex-Bills having such great success elsewhere." Not an honest question, imo, as the answer lies in they went to better teams and situations. But it's really only a few players. But honestly, had we kept those players, especially with TT at the helm, can anyone really suggest with a straight face that they'd have experienced the same success? No. And Woods and Gilmore were leaving, anyway. BUT WE DIDN'T DRAFT MAHOMES OR WATSON!!! While that's fair, especially with the required 20/20 hindsight goggles, I cannot fault a front office that didn't have either rated highly enough, especially with the 2018 QB draft class on the horizon. And again, that assumes the absurd notion that either would have had the same kind of success in Buffalo. I gotta stop now. I just started enjoying a nice Sunday afternoon pour and rehashing the same crap ruins a nice scotch.

Hypothetical thoughts don't bother me at all. They actually spur interesting conversation at times. But when those thoughts come off as incessant whining about the state of affairs and over several seasons to boot, they are more than just hypothetical thoughts and that tends to bother people.

But, but, but what if I have hope and they disappoint me again? That's scary to me. I need to protect myself in a shroud of negativity cause I just couldn't take it again.

Nobody has said they made the wrong choice? Really? Then why all the complaining about how they shouldn't have cut this guy or shouldn't have traded that guy? Whenever one uses the word "shouldn't" they are by extension saying "that's wrong." If saying the rebuild wasn't the "right" choice, they are saying it's the "wrong" choice. It's a pretty binary proposition for those that do that. Any idiot should know we won't be able to say quantitatively whether or not anything was wrong until it all plays out and the final chapter on this regime is written.

Well, what was it if it wasn’t s choice? What the Bills did by deciding on a specific strategy and which tactics are best used to implement it, was a series of choices and it continues to be. The problem some people seem to have is their inability to accept those choices because they don’t agree with them, which makes the Bills automatically “wrong” in choosing that course. And when it’s obvious that all of it still needs to be determined, it’s really an ignorant position to take at this time.

Yeah, but paint chips don’t taste nearly as good as they used to.

For every team in every sport since time began. But it’s fun to think the Bills are the only team to be in that situation.

I’ve only been watching since the second half started and she’s made a ton of amazing saves. Add a couple of posts and cross bars and it could easily be 8 nothing.

Misery love company? A little skeptical?! And the universe is a little vast!

Negativity also favors the less courageous. It's cowardly, actually. Because if I make bold negative proclamations about how we will suck and they go 0-16, well, I'm a fricken genius. But if they go 16-0, then I can breathe a sigh of relief, enjoy the party, and act like I knew it all the time, too. There is no downside in negative proclamations. At least for those making them, that is. The rest of us will just have to suffer their presence.

Good point about the CoT crusaders. What’s ironic is that many of them are the very same negative posters we have around here.

Great points all around. Regarding Sammy, as much as I liked him as a prospect and as much as I’d like to see his injury issues go away so that he can reach his full potential, he flat out admitted he didn’t have the kind of DNA McBeane are looking for. And I give him credit for that maturity, too. The moves Beane made to acquire the draft capital required to implement his plan were bold, forward looking, and very effective. Time will tell if they were and continue to be the right moves in the long run, but damn!, I like his willingness to make them. As the old saying goes, “Fortune favors the bold.”

Well, I disagree with your disagreement as you don’t seem to grasp the nature of my analogy, which is based STRICTLY on the different level of complexity in compositions written for full symphony orchestration vs. music compositions written for the pop music of today. Maybe had you read all of my posts the thread, my meaning would have been clearer to you. Thanks for the music and art history lessons, though. Although none of that has to do with the discussion I was involved in here.

I said Sammy is better. But I’ll stick to the perhaps he would have helped. Because it’s a HUGE leap. How can you say there’s no “perhaps” when you do nothing but denigrate the players we had on offense last year? Ok, let’s do that: Perhaps Sammy would have turned Peterman into a good NFL QB. Especially with all those similarly talented alternate targets we had like in KC. Perhaps Sammy would have made our OLine one of the best in the league. And the biggest perhaps? PERHAPS Sammy would have stayed healthy all year and not be the CURRENT injury liability he is now. Your arguments, when they aren’t moving goalposts, are utterly nonsensical at times.

Agree entirely. An absolutely stupid take by this twitiot.

No doubt both are better, but other than three really poor games against the run last year, we didn’t miss Dareus much, if at all. Sammy would have helped, perhaps. But he’s simply not the same receiver he was prior to his foot issues. He is just not as explosive out of his breaks at the moment. And that’s the key to his game. But they aren’t better for this team and it’s vision going forward. I get that you don’t agree with GMs and coaches who have their own preferences and prerogatives that don’t align with yours, but it’s their show, regardless. Can you at least understand why they made those personnel choices?

Total crock. All of your consternation, ALL OF IT, comes from the fact that the Bills have deliberately set forth on a strategy that you disagree with and, because it’s not the way YOU would do it, it’s wrong. And when any element of that strategy is explained, it’s just an excuse. Have you written your letter to the Bills demanding that apology you are owed?

I’m going with “Opportunity Knox.”

Not me. I’m recklessly optimistic with Allen. He will be the best QB in his draft class, win the most titles, and become a first ballot HOFer five years after he retires. Book it, Danno.

It was meant as a joke. Lighten up.

Per the bold: be that as it may, there is still one team that has gone longer than Buffalo and Vancouver without winning a cup, regardless of our number of years in the league without one.

I agree entirely with your premise that front offices have to play rookies faster and that vets are finding it more difficult to keep them on the bench. In that regard, many things have changed as you said. The economic realities are what they are. But that all speaks to the “expectation” management has for their draft picks. While the timeline for rookie development has dramatically shortened and teams feel a sense of urgency to get them into lineups sooner than later, the players themselves, the scouts and other talent evaluators assigned to scout them, and the tools at their disposal to do so, haven’t changed that dramatically. So while teams don’t have the luxury of those three years to evaluate, a player still may need that time to fully develop. Or not. Anyway, it’s an interesting question to me. I’m gonna get in touch with a few people and get their opinion on it as well. Regardless, this year will tell us a lot more about the 2017 draft. In terms of the economic realities of the game and the pressure that puts on front offices to get younger players in the lineup sooner, I agree. In terms of the players, scouts, other talent evaluators, and their tools to assess talent? Not much has changed at all. My comment about the news cycle and social media speaks more to expectations fans have for draft picks. IMO, that has definitely changed our expectations for draft picks and our level of patience with their development.

That is certainly a plausible scenario regarding Pegs. Something else you said 1000x is that a coaching change in mid-stream can dramatically turn the fortunes of a team. Berube and the Blues certainly proved that!

I can't disagree with any of this. Especially the lack of comments by the players as you pointed out. And I'm still intrigued by the Cam O'Reilly element to it all. Something was off about that entire deal with the Marlies. Nobody can convince me JBotts didn't want him off the Amerks; and quickly. I think there may be some truth to the rumors about him being a prick towards Nylander and JBotts wasn't having it.

Used to be that a draft couldn’t be properly judged until three years after those players were in the league. That was a universally adopted paradigm league wide. What’s changed? The players aren’t radically different. Nor are the personnel professionals in charge of evaluating them. So what’s the difference? I submit it’s the (still) mostly uninformed consumer of the 24/7, 365 news cycle in the age of mass social media and the unreasonable (again, mostly uninformed) expectations that occur as a result. Anyway, the 2017 Bills draft is considered above average by most pundits. But this year will tell us the most about it.