Shaw66

Exactly. Or the picks you throw in to move up to get an Edmunds. To your point, people lose track of the numbers. 53 players on the roster, average player career is five years. That means every year you have to add 10 players to your roster. Include practice squad and guys you pick up during the season, it means you need a dozen or more players every season. Even if you hit on 100% of your picks, most of your players would be coming from later round picks and undrafted free agents. To be successful in the draft and undrafted free agency, you need to (1) not miss on picks in the first three rounds and (2) find some good players in the later rounds. Having extra picks in the later rounds increases your chances of getting guys who contribute to your team.

Buddy - In the first place, how are the Bills going to have a mailing list for the entire fan base? The only addresses they have, residence, business or email, are only for the season ticket holders and a few other people who bought tickets or wrote them a letter. In the second place, the Bills, like any business, are going to try to treat their customers specially. You want special treatment, be a season ticket holder. In the third place, there's nothing in this letter that hasn't been said before or that isn't completely obvious. If you send me your address, I'll pull my copy of Beane's letter out of the trash and mail it to you. Having said that, I do want to thank you for having provided an excellent example of the 21st Century American it's-all-about-me attitude.

I don't know why it is that everyone misperceives the AFC East. The Jets and Dolphins were .500 teams against the rest of the league over the past 15 seasons, putting aside their games against the Pats. All three teams have been regularly in the middle of the pack in the league. So the Bills didn't fatten their record against the Jets and phins.

Pure speculation, but as good as any other wild-ass guess. I think your take on he Bills has a good chance of being right on the money. I think their defense is going to terrorize the league for years.

I'm not going to sit here and argue that the Bills Jets and Dolphins were good competition for the Patriots - those three teams haven't put many competitive teams on the field. But you have to understand that what you just said sounds great, but it isn't. When you have the Pats in you division, it means you effectively start the season 0-2, because almost ANY TEAM in the league will go 0-2 against the Pats if they have to play them twice. I don't think any of the three has beaten the Pats twice in a season, and all three usually get swept. Since you start 0-2, it means to get 10 wins you have to go 10-4 against the rest of the league, and that's really hard to do. So it isn't surprising that the AFCE hasn't had many teams other than the Pats winning 10 games. It's true, as someone said, that the Bills Dolphins and Jets haven't acquired good QBs for a decade. But it's also true they haven't had good continuity in the front office and the HC position. Why? A lot of reasons, but one of them is that it's hard to win 10 games if you're in the Pats' division, and if you can't win 10 games, you don't keep your GM or HC job very long. It's very much a chicken or the egg thing. Only one McVay has come along in the last 10 years, and he happened not to take a job in the AFCE. Almost every other new coach in the league over the last 10 years wouldn't have done any better playing the Pats twice a season. The Pats beat EVERYBODY, and it's a huge disadvantage to play them twice a year.

It's not so much that the three teams have been crummy - it's that they've been pretty consistently mediocre. Over the Pats' reign, and excluding their games against the Pats, all three teams are just under .500, and they haven't had prolonged stretches of really, really inept play like the Browns did. Over the past 20 years it's reasonable to assume that one of those teams would have had a stretch where they were good. Jets have been the best, winning 10 or 11 five times in the new centuries. But they didn't put together a prolonged run. 2008-2011 wasn't bad, 9, 9 , 11 and 8 wins. That's pretty good, given that they had to play the Pats twice each season. 2000 to 2003 Dolphins won 11, 11, 9 and 10, but that was just at the beginning of the Pats' run. Since then they've been regularly mediocre. It's true the AFCE east didn't put together another premier team over the period of Pats dominance, but the Steelers only had the Ravens occasionally and the Bengals to worry about. The Colts had more or less no one. The fact is that the Pats, Colts and Steelers are the only AFC teams who were more or less consistent winners. Chiefs and Chargers rarely were horrible, but they generally haven't been scaring anyone. So, yeah, although it's true the three AFCE teams didn't mount much of a threat to the Pats, that's not very surprising. I'll say it again - the Pats' success is about the Pats.

I understand that. That means that of ten games outside the division, two are against playoff teams from the season before that the Jets, phins and Bill's don't have to play. So 20% of their schedule is tougher, and they win more against that schedule than they win against the AFCE.

Here are some facts for you to consider: Since about 2002, the Patriots have a BETTER record against the rest of the league than against the AFC east teams. Put another way, the Bills, Jets and Dolphins beat the Pats MORE than the rest of the league. And because the Pats win the AFCE every year, it means they play some of the best teams in the league in the regular season. What the Pats have done is about the Pats, not about the AFCE.

Thurm, thanks for the kind words. The feeling is mutual. I'll give you three pieces of evidence as to why I think I'm correct about this. And, of course, we can't ever know, because we won't ever see Brady play for other teams. 1. We've seen through the Pats' run of excellence that ordinary players play better for the Pats. Bruschi and Vrabel to name a couple, just weren't all that good, but they made big plays consistently for the Pats. It's true about their DBs year after year. And players who look like stars never look so good when they leave New England. Players play better in New England, and that's coaching. It makes sense that his QBs play better, too. And, in fact, Cassel did. 2. I heard a guy a year or two ago on the radio. He was a retired player, had played for several teams, including the Pats. I missed the introduction, so I never heard who it was. He said that every week the Pats coaches would give him three or four or five keys to watch for against particular players who would line up across for him, keys that would provide valuable information about what play was coming. Sometimes just run or pass or inside or outside, but valuable information. He said the information was always correct, and that no coaches on any other team that for him. 3. There was a time about 6 or 7 years ago when Brady started the first seven or eight games of the season completely mediocre. He was, truly, at the Fitzpatrick level. Then about the beginning of November, he caught fire and all through November he became the GOAT Brady again. I heard him interviewed about it. Someone asked him how he turned it around. He said something like this: "It's simple. Bill and I have a routine. Every Wednesday after practice we spend two hours watching film, talking about the game plan, talking about what I need to do in this or that situation. As you know, this year we had a lot of young, new guys on defense, and our defense needed a lot of work. Bill didn't have time to meet with me, because he needed to spend time on the defense. So by about the end of October, the defense was in better shape, and Bill and I started meeting again." He was completely clear that in order to play like the Brady we know, he needed his weekly download from Belichick. As I said, Brady is the only great quarterback who has no great physical skills. Except his short-range accuracy, which I think is amazing, but even that was learned as a Patriot. What makes Brady great is his brain. But I think what's great about Brady is that he's smart enough and disciplined enough to absorb Belichick's brilliance and reflect it on the field. And, as you've said, I agree that they needed each other. Belichick would never have won like this without Brady, because Brady is perfect for him. But as I said, I think if they hadn't found each other, Belichick would still be in the Hall, and Brady wouldn't.

I agree you may be correct and that I may be guilty as charged. However I think they really valued Murphy and Star for their intensity and leadership. I'd guess they would tell you they got what they paid for. I think people haven't paid attention when McBeane talk about what they are doing. Their free agents are character and leadership guys. They're signing those guys to teach the youngsters. Pretty sure it was Mcdermott's first season. surprised me when he said it. But he was serious about it. I think he thinks strong faith is an indicator of the kind of commitment he wants from players.

McDermott has talked about this. He values people with strong faith. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm saying that's what McDermott said.

Actually, I think the first step in becoming good is beating the teams you should beat, so, yes, I'll be happy when the Bills go 11-5 with 5 losses to playoff teams. Gotta get there before you become the team that beats good teams.

Read much? I didn't say they are requiring people to be religious. I'm saying that IF they're religious, McBeane like them to be serious about it. They've said that.

You're right, they want what you might call blue collar players. They have a very clear set of criteria in mind. And I get that you may disagree, as do a lot of fans. My point is that with this GM and coach, the things the article talks about are largely irrelevant. Players for whom those things are important are not the guys McBeane want. Maybe that means that the Bills won't succeed, because maybe their view of the world can't produce winners. All I'm saying is that the Bills currently are at no competitive disadvantage in free agency currently, because the things that create the "disadvantage" are not important to the players that McBeane want.

Apologies to all who've posted here. I haven't read any posts; just read the article. When Logic posts, I have to listen, and he's right on the money, so to speak, with this article. In many respects I think what's said in this article is irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. I'll get to that in a minute. First, Nix's comments are interesting. We've heard about the taxes before, but the article makes it very clear. The agents are doing these calculations, and I would guess that there are times in the past when the Bills have had to raise an offer simply to cover the tax differential with the team they're competing with to get a player. Second, Nix's point about the players making decisions based on things that seem trivial. I'm sure that happens. Third, wives definitely can have an impact. Here's why I think the article is largely irrelevant: McBeane have made it very clear that they only want players who are buying what they are selling. They are selling a team concept that is ALL IN - truly ALL IN - with team, competition, hard work, continuous improvement. They are looking for guys who are maniacal about contributing to a team that wins football games. So when you read what Jared Cook says in the article, about how the city has to be interesting, what that tells you is that Jared Cook isn't going to be a Buffalo Bill. For McDermott only two two or three things are important: (1) Are you the kind of player who is looking for this team environment, (2) Is family the only other thing you care about as deeply as winning in a team environment and (3), if you're religious, is your religion up there with 1 and 2? That's it. The minute McDermott understands that local entertainment options is a consideration for a player, that player is off the list. The only thing that's relevant about the city of Buffalo, so far as McDermott is concerned, is that it is a city whose fans are as passionate as they could possibly be about the team. The guys McBeane want are guys who view fan passion as a plus. Those guys don't care how many malls there are, how many night clubs there are, but they are in love with the idea that the fans are over the top. Look at the Patriots. I like Boston, but it's kind of an acquired taste. Young football players who are looking for nightlife can find plenty of activity in Boston, but the whole vibe is intellectual. It isn't about partying. Does New England have trouble signing free agents? I'm sure there are some free agents who say they don't want to live in Boston (which, by the way, has some of the same tax problems New York does). Yes, for that reason, and because Belichick simply will not pay top dollar for the big names, the Pats have trouble signing free agents. But guess what - Belichick, like McBeane, doesn't want guys who make their decisions about where to play based on money or night life. Bottom line is that the pool from which McBeane select free agents doesn't include guys who find Buffalo unattractive, for tax reasons or lifestyle reasons. The minute those guys say they need more money because the city is a problem, McBeane stop wasting their time on them. They don't want guys who think differences in the money are important, and they don't want guys who think the city is important. Don't want them. Al of that works for McBeane, of course, only if they're winning, because the guys they want only want to commit to a process that gets results. So it's a bit of chicken or the egg. That's why, as the article points out, Josh Allen is important. Allen makes McBeane more credible when they say this team will win.

Wow! Bart Starr! Gotta say you're right in the comparison insofar as a QB executing his coach's genius. But the game was so simple then that it isn't easy to compare. Hard to know whether Lombardi coulooks game plan with Belichick and whether Starr could execute it. Plus, Lombardi stockpiled talent in Green Bay in a way that no one can do now. As you say, it makes sense to talk only about the modern era. One other thing about Brady. If it were legal to hit QBs the way Kelly and his era got hit, we wouldnt be having this discussion. Brady would be working on Wall Street today.

I was right with you until this post. Belichick was going to be a Hall of Fame coach with or without Brady. Brady just made him better, because Brady was a perfect fit for Belichick - really smart, maniacal hard worker, intensely competitive. Exactly, by the way, what McBeane say they're looking for in their players. But Brady needed a Hall of Fame coach to make it in the league. He can't win games with any physical skills. He cant throw like Brees or Peyton or Favre. He cant run like Wilson or Elway or some others. He can beat you only with his brain processing a complex offense that precisely targets weaknesses in the defense. Brady succeeded because Belichick always figures out how to attack a defense, Belichick always adjusts the offense to attack successfully, and Brady understands both the theory and the execution. Belichick would have won with Ryan Fitzpatrick - not as much as with Brady because Brady is more accurate - but he would have won. A young Brady in Buffalo wouldnt have been as good as Fitzpatrick was. Brady and Sean Payton maybe. Brady and Andy Reid maybe. Brady would have been a journeyman with most other coaches.

Yeah, there's been a serious QB drought in the AFCE. That's true. But if the Pats were just NORMAL and had been just DECENT, they would have won 5 AFCE titles instead of twelve or whatever they won, and some other AFCE teams would at least have gone to the playoffs, bad QBs or not. As good as the Pats are, it's almost impossible for another AFCE team to make it to the playoffs, because you're always playing for the wildcard, and you start the season 0-2.

The league will never improve to his level. He's unique. And it has nothing to do with his division. I checked the history a couple of weeks ago. I think I checked 2002 through 2018. Over that period, the other three teams in the AFC were just under .500 against all the other teams in the league. That's what you'd expect of any three teams over that period - they'll be around .500. More importantly, the Patriots' record against all of the other teams in the league is BETTER than their record against the AFC East. Over 16 or 17 seasons, the Jets, Dolphins and Bills beat the Patriots MORE than all the other teams. And remember, over just about all of that period, the Patriots were playing a tough schedule out of the division, playing teams that won their divisions the previous season. The Pats AFC East record is all about Belichick, not about the other three teams. You're right. Apparently most people expected Belichick to be fired before the season ended. He failed in Cleveland, had a really bad season his first in NE, and his second season had begun poorly, too. Than Bledsoe got hurt and the Patriots won the Super Bowl.

oops - Walsh and Montana are clearly second. I think Belichick is a football genius, and I agree that he could have succeeded with a lot of QBs. In Brady, however, he found perhaps the perfect guy. I'm reading a biography of Belichick. The author suggests that although Belichick certainly didn't wish for Bledsoe to get injured, the injury did for Belichick what he couldn't do himself. Apparently Belichick had already decided he wanted to start Brady, but Kraft had recently extended Bledsoe with a big contract (as we all know!) and given his record, Belichick didn't have the clout to bench Bledsoe. Although all of the rest of us were surprised when Brady succeeded from day one, It sounds like Belichick wasn't. Bringing it back to the Bills, I have thought for some time that McDermott is trying to model himself and his team after Belichick. That's admirable, and he may be able to organize things like Bill, but to date I haven't seen the evidence that McDermott has anything approaching Belichick's football IQ. Belichick studied football his whole life, and I think McDermott has, too. But McDermott could have studied physics for his whole life and he still wouldn't have developed the theory of relativity. I think we've been watching a football genius at work, and there won't be true parity in the NFL until he retires.

I'd suggest you edit your post and delete "Probably." No other pair is close. Shula and Marino might be second, but they never did the things that B and B are doing.

This is true. Brady is the worst thrower, by far, of all the elite QBs (except maybe Kelly). Peyton, Favre, Rodgers, Brees, Elway, Aikman - all much better throwers than Brady. But Brady is one of the smartest QBs of all time, and he had the good fortune to play for a football genius. Belichick taught Brady things that most other QBs never would have learned, and Brady LEARNED more things from Belichick than any other QB (except maybe Manning) would have learned. They were perfect for each other. The one QB I can think of who would have won more for Belichick than Brady did is Roger Staubach. Smart as a whip, highly disciplined, and physically better than Brady.

I had a different thought. In the second half of the season I'd see that 4-6 yard run and think, fleetingly, "maybe the run game is getting going." Then the next three carries would be into an impenetrable mass of lockers and defenders. I think people also misunderstand how Shady runs. It's actually a little bit like LeVeon Bell, in that he's patient. He waits to see what the best opportunity is and then he goes. Last season he'd wait and often there was NOTHING, so he'd just push in behind the blockers and take what he could. I don't think he was "dancing" (as some people call it) any more last season than in previous years; he just had no place to go. Every once in a while we'd see the flash from earlier seasons, but it didn't seem to me that he was for a moment regaining something he'd lost. Shady needs space to be effective. He needs enough space to give himself options. When he has options is when he hurts defenses. Ivory ran better Shady last season because he's more of a power back - he'd get the same little hole that Shady had and he'd power into it. There was only one way to go and he'd take it. He was strong enough to break an arm tackle here and there and turn a two-yard gain into an occasional five or seven-yard gain. Shady doesn't have the same power, so he'd get stopped for the two. When Shady is effective is when the hole is big enough that he has two options to beat the defender who is coming in to plug the gap. With two options, he can make the man miss. With one option, he can't overpower the tackler like Ivory does occasionally. I'm not talking about huge holes - Shady's in and out of the hole pretty quickly, but he needs a decent sized hole. He got those holes in Philadelphia and in Buffalo before last season. In 2018, they just weren't there. Which is why we're talking about using him in the passing game. Shady needs the ball in enough space to have options, and if they aren't in the line, then the offense should be designed to get him options through the passing game.

I think we have to remember how bad it actually was. My recollection is that it was a rare event to see a BIlls running back get to the second level without having to break a tackle. The running GAME, not the running BACKS, was abysmal. The Bills finished 9th in the league in rushing, which is remarkable, given how bad the run game was. But they were 9th only because Allen got all those yards, and Allen's rushing yards were really inflated because he's a quarterback. I'd guess that almost half his yards came when he was running completely free on plays where he broke from the pocket and, because the defense was in man and not looking at the QB, he had huge chunks of open field. If you take away all those free yards, the Bills were more like 20th or 25th. Now, I know those are real yards, and every yard counts however you get them, but those yards are NOT evidence that the Bills running game was good. You know all you need to know when McBeane, who are careful not to criticize in public, were very clear that the offensive line play in 2018 was inadequate, wouldn't say that the lineman are good players with futures in Buffalo, and fired the offensive line coach. What they said and what they did in the first week after the season ended was a measure of how bad they thought that aspect of the team was. It's not a secret, I know; we all saw it. It's just that we tend to forget after the season ends. So - keep in mind how bad the offensive line was, keep in mind that the people running the team have by word and deed demonstrated they thought the offensive line was bad, keep in mind how few holes Shady actually had in 2018 as compared to previous years, and keep in mind McBeane's post-season comments about Shady. Put it all together, and I'd say it's about 95% certain that Shady's 2018 lack of production was about something other Shady having lost a step.

I think what you say is correct, certainly about Allen. That's what I saw on his short balls. I think it's a concentration issue. And recognition. But you describe the problem well. As for Shady, I didn't think he looked different in 2018. I really think he had very few opportunities. People keep talking about how Belichick uses his backs, and Shady is still better than those backs the Pat's use. Its more about scheme. I think that is on Daboll. And that has to do with whether Daboll can create some kind of passing offense generally.