Shaw66

By the way, this narrative tells a nice story, but of course it paints a picture inconsistent with the facts. The facts are that HALF of McBeane's picks at the top of the draft for the last two years were for the offense (Allen and Ford) and HALF of their big free agent signings in the past two years were for offense (Morse). Plus, they have almost completely retooled the offensive line. Your comment suggests they've ignored obvious opportunities to stock up on high end offensive talent. It isn't true. They've been building the talent on offense as much as, perhaps more than, the defense. But your narrative sounds good because the offense wasn't good last season and is unproven so far this season. Sounding good doesn't make it correct.

This is the kind of be argument style that makes it not worth talking to some people. My comment was made in the context solely of the management of the QB situation. Instead of responding, "you're right, the 2018 QB decisions have had no long-term impact, let's move on," you imply my comment was incorrct by saying the QB decisions have to be viewed in a broader context. The conversation in which I was participating had a context, and it was narrow. It's bs to change the context and claim victory. Sure, there are all kinds of valid and interesting things to be said about the relative ineffective development of the offense since McBeane arrived. I agree with many of them. I think there are valid explanations for some decisions, not all. I'm also willing to be patient with young first-time GM and coach. None of that has anything to do with the point that was being discussed. GMs and coaches make thousands and thousands of decisions every year. Many of those decisions turn out well, many turn out poorly. It makes sense to me to examine and criticize decisions that turned out poorly, like how McBeane handled the o line last year. It makes little sense to waste time on decisions that turned out well, like the QB decisions. Those decisions didn't hurt the team in 2018 or 2019, so there's little point in dissecting them. Decisions fall into four categories: theoretically good that turn out well, theoretically good that turn out bad, theoretically bad that turn out good and theoretically bad that turn out bad. It seems in your mind it isn't enough for a decision to turn out well - you want the decision to have been made for the right reasons, too. To be logically consistent, then people should stop complaining about the Benjamin trade, because it was made for the right reasons - it just didn't work. But no, McBeane gets beaten up just as badly for that deal. They had bad luck on a good decision to get Benjamin. They had good luck on some bad decisions at quarterback. You can't depend on luck to pull you through. You have to get decisions right as much as possible, because that minimizes the impact luck has on you. They got lucky at QB last season. Accept the luck and move on.

Thanks. Your response makes sense. I realize now that we have different perspectives. I understand how you can call a game, or even a series of plays a disaster. I've done it, I'm sure. But when we are talking about whether a regime is succeeding in building a football team, from my perspective one or two games is not a disaster. It's just part of the normal course of a successful season. Whenever I reread the history of the regular seasons in 1964 and 65 and the Super Bowl years, I'm surprised how ugly some losses, and some wins, were. Some losses were disasters in your sense, but how the team responded was more important. But you are right that Peterman was bad on a monumental scale, and what McDermott was thinking is a bit of a mystery. I can speculate, but it takes almost comic-book-like creativity.

There was no consequence. If your philosophy is to have your rookie QB ride the pine, it's because he isn't ready to play in the league and needs seasoning. Allen showed from day one he was ready. If your philosophy is to start your rookie, by all means you want him to get first team reps in training camp. But by the end of Allen's rookie, the fact that he didn't get a lot of first team reps in training camp was largely irrelevant. Where he is today in his professional development has not been affected materially by his not getting those training camp reps. To call that outcome a disaster is absolutely ridiculous. A disaster is something that requires an extraordinary recovery effort. The Bills have had to do absolutely nothing to recover from how the QBs were handled. What you mean is it was a theoretical disaster. It was not textbook, by any measure. But it absolutely was not a disaster. The Bills putting themselves in the position where JP Losman was their starter, that was a disaster. The Bills putting themselves in the position where EJ Manuel was the starter, that was a disaster. The Bills lost games because of those decisions. Nothing about the 2018 QB situation was a disaster. Now, if you want to call the 2018 handling of the offensive line a disaster, okay, be my guest. Quarterback was in no way a disaster.

Bad hires get fired, true, but people get fired, true./ But most people at the higher levels of the NFL get fired because their teams didn't win. Each season, three quarters of the teams in the league are unsuccessful, and upwards of half of their head coaches get fired. Most of those teams had inadequate quarterbacking, but the coach still gets fired. There are very few guys hired as head coaches who are not qualified, who haven't had a lot of success for many years in the NFL or college. They get fired because almost all coaches get fired, not because they aren't competent.

I get it Chem. As I've said before, I don't agree with the points people make about whether and how to rebuild, and whether particular player personnel decisions related to talented guys were the best decisions, but at least there's a real discussion to be had about those decisions. Whether Watkins and Dareus should have been on the team in 2018 and should still be on the team is at least worth talking about. My point was that it's virtually impossible to build an argument against McBeane based on their handling of the backup QB situation in 2018, because there was no material consequence, positive or negative, that can be ascribed to those decisions. No consequence in 2018, and no consequence in 2019.

How would today's Buffalo Bills, on June 20, 2019, look different if Beane had hired backup QB more quickly and McDermott had cut Peterman more quickly? What is the practical consequence today if McBeane had acted differently last September? I'd suggest that THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER. The Bills' roster would be exactly the same as it is today. So we're talking about two isolated decisions that have no practical consequence today out of tens of thousands decisions McBeane made in 2018 .

Responding to this discussion generally, and only partly to what WEO says. What he says is implicit in what others are saying here. Plain and simple, it is almost an absolute certainty that McDermott and Beane know more about football and make more informed judgments about the game and personnel than anyone posting here. Anyone. The NFL is closer to being a pure meritocracy than almost any large organization, university, government that we have. It functions beautifully as a meritocracy. The notion that it's populated by a bunch of noobs who are lucky they can tie their shoes is just wrong. Success in the NFL is measured by wins, not by who you know. If Rex Ryan got the Bills job because of who he knew, how'd that work out for him? Less than two seasons of crappy performance, and he was out. There's turnover in the front offices of NFL teams not because the people getting fired are incompetent; it's because they aren't making the playoffs. Most teams don't make the playoffs, so most teams have front office turnover. Simple as that. Who you know may get you in the door at the bottom of the heap. Belichick knew people in the Colts organization; that's how he got himself a volunteer job at the beginning. But knowing people didn't get him promoted and promoted and promoted. Parcells didn't take Belichick with him every place he went because Bill's father was a coach. Making positive contributions that his bosses saw got him promoted. If he hadn't made positive contributions, he would have been teaching junior high school social studies somewhere. The guys at the top of the pyramid, the GMS, the HCs and the coordinators, the directors of scouting, got to those positions by being good at all the jobs below that that they did. They got promoted and promoted because they were good at those jobs and someone gave them a chance to step up to the next level to see if they could succeed there. It's exactly the same as players - JV in high school, then varsity, then recruiting and college, then training camp, then practice squad or worse for many of them. All along the way, the least capable are being left behind and the successful move on. It's a quintessential meritocracy, and it's the same off the field as it is on the field. McDermott's oline coach, his wideout coach, his special teams coach didn't produce. What happened? Gone. Only one thing matters - doing your job, winning at your job. Some of the coaches come up strictly through the pro game, many others come up through some combination of the pros and college, like Daboll, some strictly through college. But whichever way they've come up, they've demonstrated talent and drive and success. If my job depends on winning, if winning depends in part on the quality of people working for me, I'm not making my college roommate's son my offensive coordinator just for old time's sake. So when someone here makes himself out to be a smart guy who would certainly be in the front office somewhere but he just didn't want to make the sacrifice, financial or otherwise, I just laugh. I mean, it COULD be true, maybe he could. But when someone tells you that he could have won multiple Grammy awards if he'd only chosen to spend several years playing in a band in bars throughout the midwest, do you believe him? When someone tells you he could have been a brain surgeon except that he decided to move to Toledo to be with his girlfriend the physical therapist, do you believe him? Brain surgeons got to be brain surgeons for a reason. But somehow people here seem to think that GMs got be GMs by kissing someone's behind. The fact is that, just like on the playing fields, the NFL weeds out the weak, the less determined, the less able jlong before those people are getting hired into senior front office positions. The front offices are left with, by and large, the most qualified people in the country doing those jobs. We don't like to admit it, because, after all, any fool could see that Peterman wasn't the answer. But the truth is that McDermott is as smart as any of us, is as determined as the most determined of us. McDermott has spent over 20 years working 60-80 hours a week doing this: William & Mary (1998) Graduate assistant Philadelphia Eagles (1999–2000) Scouting administrative coordinator Philadelphia Eagles (2001) Assistant to head coach Philadelphia Eagles (2002–2003) Defensive assistant & quality control Philadelphia Eagles (2004–2006) Assistant defensive backs coach Philadelphia Eagles (2007) Secondary coach Philadelphia Eagles (2008) Linebackers coach Philadelphia Eagles (2009–2010) Defensive coordinator & secondary coach Carolina Panthers (2011–2016) Defensive coordinator Buffalo Bills (2017–present) Head coach It's foolhardy for any of us to think we understand what needs to be done better than McDermott. People will argue with me about that, but it's true. McDermott understands the significance of thousands of details about the game that we don't. We can't, because we haven't spent the time studying the game the way he has. Yes, there's the occasional Rex Ryan who gets hired for a second time as a head coach, but they're relatively few and far between. Winning is too important for an owner or a GM to hire less than the most competent people he can find. Pretty much everybody with a big job in the NFL has a resume like McDermott's, and just like McDermott they've succeeded at every level. I've got lots of opinions about the Bills, but I have only a thimbleful of the knowledge and wisdom about the game that McDermott and Beane have. I can argue about it and write about it, but I know this: If I'm in a conversation with Sean McDermott telling him who his starting wideouts should be, he's going to be laughing at me. Not to my face, because he's too much a gentleman to do that, but inside.

I don't agree, but it's certainly an open question. I liked Taylor, and I always thought starting Peterman against the Chargers was the bigger mistake. I think the start against the Ravens was simply because the most important thing to McD at that point was not starting Allen in the opening game of his rookie season. McD would have started me instead of Allen if I'd been on the roster. And he literally had no choice but to keep Peterman on the roster after Baltimore, because if I recall correctly there was no one else. Keeping him on the roster goes back to the QB situation having been mismanaged in the off-season. I do agree with you that McD liked Peterman. He was McD's kind of guy. I doubt that had much impact on his decision to start Peterman against the Ravens or keep him on the roster. McD is tough as nails, and he won't shy away from hard decisions just because he likes a guy. Still, I hear what you're saying. In a perverse way, one of my favorite moments during the ongoing ugliness of past 20 years was Bills at Packers, 2010. Chan Gailey's second game. I happened to be there. Bills got smoked. Bills last possession, Bills on the Packers 25 or so, pure mop up time, fourth down, Trent Edwards gets flushed out of the pocket, scrambles left, runs a few yards past the line of scrimmage and runs out of bounds short of the first down. Favre takes a knee or two, game over. The next day Gailey announces that Fitzpatrick will start. The day after that, the Bills cut Edwards. If the guy can't figure out that on that play he either (1) runs for the first down or (2) throws the ball SOMEWHERE, if the guy can't figure out that he's not supposed to just quit on the play and the series and the game, then Gailey's response was "I don't want him on my team." I don't know, but I would guess that Peterman never runs out of bounds on that play. I would guess that because McD wouldn't have liked him so much if Peterman weren't that kind of competitor.

I have just come back to this thread and haven't read what comes before, but I thought your post was very interesting for a couple of reasons. First, you're correct about entry level positions in the NFL - they pay very little. But that is as it should be. Entry level positions at most places pay very little. That's how the system works. If you're young, you can live on very little, you enter low, work hard, move up. If you're older, you save your money until you have a kitty to live on while you take the pay cut to take an entry level position. No one is entitled to get mid-level pay for entry-level work at any business. If your legislators want to change the minimum wage laws, fine, then we'll all be able to pursue our dream jobs and employers will just have to support us. But that isn't how it works now. Bill Belichick worked for free in his first NFL job. Most star musicians worked for free in their earliest gigs. That's life. Second, Peterman. People keep using Peterman in an effort to prove something about McDermott, something about his competence. I just don't buy. I was one of the most vocal screamers after the disastrous Peterman start in place of Taylor in 2017, because like everyone else, I couldn't see how it was possible that McD could not have seen in practice what we all saw in the game. And I was equally vocal after the season opener in 2018, not so much because Peterman was so bad but because one Allen got in the game he was so obviously better. In terms of personnel decisions and winning football games, which is the point, those were so obviously bad decisions that there can be little argument about them. But taken from a broader perspective, and looking at them in the rear view mirror, they don't bother me so much, for several reasons: (1) McDermott is a young head coach, relatively inexperienced. As in any other big job, he's going to make mistakes. Even when he's experienced he's going to make mistakes, but early in his tenure he's likely to make more. And he's more likely to make them on offense, which is not his area of principal expertise. We haven't seen anything similar in his management of the defense. I have as much confidence in Milano as I did in Peterman, and McD obviously knew what he was doing with MIlano. McD also has a long-term focus. One game isn't as important to him as the long-term building process, at least while he's building a competitive team. So, I can understand benching Taylor for Peterman when that happened. I didn't like it, even before the disaster, but I can understand it. Peterman had the heart, the team focus, and the book-understanding of the offense that McD liked. McD by then had decided that Taylor wasn't his long-term answer, so he decided to give Peterman a try. Maybe Peterman would provide the spark McD said he was looking for. Maybe Peterman would show that he had promise as the long-term answer. Turns out Peterman was neither, but I can understand the reasoning. It doesn't change the fact that McD should have been able to see in practice that Peterman wasn't ready for prime time, but I chalk that up to McD's inexperience. You can be sure that McD has studied that decision in detail to understand where he went wrong and to change his decision making to minimize the likelihood of a similar mistake in the future. As for the second Peterman start, I'm sure that was done to protect Allen. I don't think the Bills wanted any part of Allen starting early in his rookie season. I suspect in June they assumed McCarron would win the starting job and would run the team until Allen really had gotten his feet wet. By late August they had figured out that McCarron wasn't what they needed, and they decided to go with Peterman. Why? Because in camp he had shown progress and they needed SOMEONE to play so they could protect their rookie. Being in that position is a knock on Beane, because he's the one who stayed out of the free agent QB free for all until McCarron was his only choice. And yes, in retrospect, that was a mistake, too, but it was Beane's, not McD's. From the perspective of today, however, McD's handling of Peterman (and Beane's handling of the QBs) is a footnote. Josh Allen is the starter, and the Bills have what looks like a credible backup. So for the first time in who know how many seasons, the focus of the Bills' future is not on the QB position. (And, by the way, if anyone actually wants to put blame on Beane for handling the QBs, he deserves ten times as much praise for the work he did landing Allen. The job is to get results, not to be pretty along the way. The process didn't look pretty, but the result certainly looks good.) So what does the Peterman saga tell us? It tells me that I have reason to have some lingering concern about McD's judgment, because he TWICE made the baffling decision to start Peterman. Still, I like where the Bills are, and I like McD's approach to his job. Would the Bills be in a different place in 2017 if McD hadn't started Peterman against the Chargers? Probably not. The Bills probably would have lost that game anyway, and even if they had won it, all that would have happened is they wouldn't have backed into wild card spot in the playoffs. Would the Bills be in a different place today if McCarron had started against the Ravens in 2018? No. If Allen had started against the Ravens? No. Peterman is not the hook to hang anti-McBeane arguments on. Although I'm not buying it, the argument that cleaning house wasn't necessary, and that McBeane got rid of some really good talent, makes more sense to me.

Like there's a lot of evidence that McD makes decisions based on his pride.

One thing that your are consistently misleading about this point. Offensive guards are supposed to play 100% of the snaps. McDermott intends that his defensive tackles rotate. In an ideal world they'd be 50-50, but if McD has his druthers, he'll never have a DT over 60%. 40% of the snaps, or whatever Star had last season isn''t bad. Isn't consistent with what he got paid, but that's a false metric. The question is whether he did his job, and the ONLY information you have about whether Star did his job on the field is that his snaps were relatively low. That's ALL you have - no coaches' analysis of his play. And you have absolutely no information about Star's off-field presence.

I recall McDermott being asked about Dareus and his history of difficulties since arriving in the NFL. McDermott said every player, including Marcel, starts with a clean slate with him. He essentially said that what you do with McD as the coach is what he will judge you on. And McD kept Marcel around long to see what he brought to the game, purely physically and off the field. What McD saw is what everyone saw - a super talented buy who was an absolute joy when things were going well and who sulked when they weren't. He saw a player who made great plays and then disappeared. I'm sure McD did with Dareus what he does with everyone - he told him what the expectations were, Dareus agreed with those expectations, and then Dareus didn't deliver. McD will not keep anyone who doesn't genuinely work to meet expectations. I think Hughes is a great comparison. Hughes wasn't a sulker, but Hughes was something of a gunslinger at his position. He loved the big play, and from his arrival in Buffalo he demonstrated lousy gap control - he was a free-lancer whose talent allowed him to make some big plays and sometimes to recover from his mistakes. I thought he'd be gone too, but Hughes got the message. McD told him what he expected of Hughes and Hughes delivered. Hughes is still a Bill, with a nice extension. Marcel is off doing his thing. It's quite simple, and it's quite obvious how it works.

There are two different philosophies - the star player philosophy and the coach-driven team orientation philosophy. Belichick is the extreme on the latter, and of course the most successful at it. The star player philosophy can work, too, but it can't be expected to be as effective for long-term excellence, because stars come and go, stars sometimes become disgruntled, stars sometimes lose their competitive advantage for one reason or another. Whaley clearly was in the star-driven camp. The Dareus history, the trade-up for Watkins, the trade for McCoy. And who among us wasn't excited about that path. Those are three enormously talented players. Yeah, there were issues with the approach, and the Bills couldn't land a QB good enough to lead them, but talent like that gives you hope. With the right head coach and the right QB, it's possible the Bills could be really good right now. To take the simplest example, suppose in 2013 the Bills don't hire Doug Marrone and instead land Andy Reid as he left Philadelphia. Play out everything the same in terms of personnel choices (except keep the stars), and in 2017 Reid takes Mahomes instead of trading back. Last season you would have had Andy Reid coaching Mahomes, Watkins, McCoy and Dareus and it's quite possible that would have been a serious winner in the league. But Reid's coaching approach and philosophy is different from Belichick's and from McDermott's. It's all well and good to say that there was another way to go with the team - of course there was. There's always more than one way to go. McBeane took the route that they believe leads to long-term, sustained success. What we're seeing today is what it looks like to be on that route. It's not as great - today - as things MIGHT have been, but it's also better than as bad as things MIGHT have been going the star route (Watkins might still be an underperforming #1, and Dareus might have run off the rails). The principal reason I'm fully on board with where McBeane are and what they're doing is that they TOLD us they were going to do this. They TOLD us it was going to take several years. They TOLD us 2018 likely would be worse than 2017. They TOLD us what kind of players they want on the team. It's not as though they intended to be great in year two and when they weren't great, they changed the story. The story has been the same since the beginning, and it seems their process is going the way it should. To get back to the fundamental argument here, this season is a critical season. If they are succeeding at the process they are following, the Bills will be around .500 or better. If they are 6-10 or worse, there have to be some serious questions asked about whether these men and this process are right for the team.

Excellent point. We just think "he's good; whoops, now he's injured; now he's back and he should be exactly as he was." For athletes at this level, when you're at 100% you can play in the league; when you're at 95% you're out, because it's hard to be better at 95% than other guys at 100%. So when a guy comes back from serious injury, he may come back at 95% and over the course of as much as a year get up to 97% and not get back to 99% until the following year. A lot of guys never get all the way back physically, but some of those learn to adjust their games so that they're still competitive in the league. For many it's a multi-year process. It's silly to expect players to come back, walk onto the field and immediately be the same guy he was. The guys with real heart apply themselves, learn more, sometimes compensate for what they've lost physically with a good mental approach to the game. It isn't so much an injury story, but it's kind of amazing that after so long in the league Lorenzo Alexander grew into an impact player. And, of course, some guys never get back to a point that resembles what they once showed. And some other guys do get back, but back as journeymen, not real impact players. This is probably the year we find out about Trent - impact player, journeyman, or can't get it done.

This is ridiculous. Pure fiction. Inconsistent with the facts. Totally ignorant of who McDermott is and what he is doing. But it's creative. Congratulations on that.

In his book GM, Ernie Accorsi says you can have a winning team with one prima donna, it's very hard with two and impossible with three. McDermott wants none, and its hard to argue with that. It makes no difference how talented Dareus is; he didn't have the attitude to play for McDermott's Bills.

Good for you, fan, and I will say good for tier too. What he says in the post you quoted is fair, reasoned and makes a lot of sense. I think your criticism of that post is right on, too. For me, I don't agree with much of what the negative posters are saying, and I think their arguments regularly change direction rather than respond to the points others make. HOWEVER, their most fundamental point is correct. It is hard to say that the Bill's were a good team in either of the last two years. I'm a firm believer that there usually is very little to no difference between 6-10 and 10-6, and certainly 7-9 and 9-7. So I dont.think tha Bills on field performance over past two seasons can be said to prove anything about McBeane yet. The Bill's haven't won and they haven't looked like winners. I see lots of things I like, and I saw some things on the field last season I liked, so I conclude the Bills are heading in the right direction nicely. But I can agree with the negative crowd that there's been enough lack of real progress on the field to reach a different conclusion.

1964 AFL Championship Super Bowl XXV Cowboys Monday night loss At Atlanta 2017 Freddie's long run beats the Pats

9 sacks is a really good year for anyone. For a rookie it's a dream. Under.

I think this analysis is right on the money. One other way he isn't on the roster is if Singletary is incredible right out of the gate. Not likely.

Thanks for defending me, Thurm. I gave up because its hopeless arguing about it. Even if it WERE true, which it isn't, that no coach has ever been mediocre or worse for four years and then succeeded, it wouldn't prove anything about McDermott. The sample size of previous head coaches who fit the criteria is too small to establish any kind of hard and fast rule. They are literally making up stuff to prove they're correct. Point is, they're arguing a point that can be known only looking backward. McD is not a.success until he is one, but the fact that he may not have succeeded yet doesn't mean he won't succeed. They have an opinion, and you and I can respect that. I won't waste my time on people who can't or won't acknowledge that they are only opinions and are not certainties.

Thurm - I'm excited about having Brown around, and I think the Bills will make good use of him, but I think you're ignoring the obvious. With the same QB in year 3, he gained half as many yards as in year 2. He was a big disappointment after his breakout sophomore season. You can explain away years 4 and 5, or at least try to, but an equally good argument can be made that by his year 3, league had figured him out and he became stoppable. That is, the league may have a book on him now, and he just can't be expected to be a difference maker. I think it's a bit of both - the circumstances, and the fact that he isn't a natural Pro Bowl caliber players. I'm hopeful about him because I think that the game is more about coaching and scheme than talent. I expect some decent production from Brown because (1) he has speed, (2) Daboll is going to put him in situations that will take advantage of it, (3) Allen will have better protection than last season, allowing him to wait and (4) Allen will know where to find him. You know what got me excited about the passing game? Someone has a thread with video of Foster's catches last season, and one thing stood out to me: Defensive backs can't keep up with Foster running across the field. When you watch Brown clips, you see the same thing. And as I think about it, when you see Beasley clips, he often hurts people in similar patterns across the defense. I think we're going to see the Bills challenging defenses on those plays over and over, and I think Foster and Brown have the potential to really do some damage there. And for those who remember I said I'm done, what I meant is that I'm done with responding to certain posters, not that I'm done with the conversation.

I feel the same about Shady as you seem, especially the bolded part. But I don't necessarily agree it's his last season. If he goes for 1000 yards, I think there's a good chance he will re-sign with Buffalo, for a couple of reasons. 1. McBeane LOVE veteran leadership. They LOVE it. That's why they got Gore. And they love McCoy for his leadership. McBeane will keep quality veteran leaders around for as long as they can. 2. McCoy, I think, LOVES Buffalo. He loves it because he has a coach and GM who appreciates him. He has fans who appreciate him. And he can see that this team is going places. I don't think McCoy is going to be anxious to move someplace for a year or two, hoping he can capture a Lombardi. He didn't like leaving Philly, because it was home and it was comfortable. He won't like leaving Buffalo, either. And I doubt he'll go chasing the top dollar. No one will give him a long-term deal: best he can get is a rich one-year deal. I'm guessing that even if the Bills won't match the best he can get elsewhere, they will get close enough that the non-monetary issues will keep him in Buffalo.

This simply makes no sense whatsoever. First, watching him last season it was obvious he CAN make those "Shady" cuts. He just needs some room to make them. But more importantly, it's fool hardy to expect any guy in the NFL to be an effective player in the league by abandoning what made him effective or better and still be effective doing something else. Shady is NEVER going to be the north-south runner Gore became - he doesn't have the body and it isn't his style. If Shady can't be the old Shady, he isn't going to see a lot of snaps. The Bills obviously think he still is the old Shady.