Shaw66

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.

People don't understand the locker room presence point about Shady. They confuse his occasional off field issues with what kind of a teammate he is. From what I see, he works his butt off and he doesn't complain. My sense is McBeane love him and will keep him. What they should be doing is fixing the line and the offensive scheme to maximize his talents. In 2019 he likely will be the most talented non-qb on the offense, more talented than any receiver, so the Bills need to do a much better job taking advantage of those talents.

I don't know if third down back is the right characterizatuon, but a different role in the offense might make sense. Making McCoy more of a primary target in the offense, using more west coast principles, probably stresses the defense significantly. This ties in with the notion that Allen needs to go with the shorter option more often, to boost his completion percentage (also a west coast idea).

Its interesting that you follow that stuff. McDermott knows who is friendly with whom for sure, because he believes it's important. . These guys get graded on leadership, and you're correct that we really cant see a lot of what the coaches see. That's why I think a lot of the discussion here misses the point. If Clay is committed to the process 100%, then he is much more valuable to McD than we can know by evaluating film. I said the same thing in the thread about whether Star is overpaid. I think Kyle was the leader in the d line room and Star was brought in to succeed Kyle. We cant see that, but I'm pretty sure that's why Star is in Buffalo. And whether Clay is McBeane's ideal tight end on the field, he may be the best tight end for 2019 off the field.

I don't know if Clay is gone, but I think your analysis is largely correct. What is missing is that McBeane say they want veteran leadership in every room. That isn't Croom or a rookie, and they may not find the right free agent. They may decide that they want Clay at least for one more season. Clay has been in the system for two years and may be important to groom his replacement.

Absolutely. But I don't think McBeane will go after a tight end with a lot of miles on him. They'll go with youth. Only exception would be if Tyler is a really high character guy and the Bills think that he can be a positive addition to the team for the next 2-3 years.

I agree he isn't a part of the long-term plan. Definitely not. And if you can find someone in 2019 who will be better than Clay is in 2020, yeah, I agree, you get that guy and you give him the job in 2019. But what if free agency and the draft fall some other way, and the TE of the future isn't on the team in 2019? What if they draft and sign offensive linemen and defensive linemen and receivers and by the time they get to tight end, all they have is Logan and Croom and some rookies who can't beat them out? That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, if they've strengthened a lot of other positions. If that happens, even though they're overpaying Clay, why wouldn't you want Clay to be your tight end? If he's the best player at the position, who cares how much he's getting paid? His pay and his play are two different things. The Bills can afford his pay in 2019; if he's the best they have at the position, why wouldn't you want him?

I think they're two different things. Are the Bills overpaying Clay for the production he's delivering? Absolutely. He's turned out to have been a bad investment. They could have had the same production for less. Will they be overpaying him in 2019? Yes, unless he turns things around. And turning them around may only mean more time with Allen and a more effective passing attack. But whether you cut him is a different question, and it doesn't really have much to do with what you're paying him. As I understand, he's going to be a cap hit whether you keep him or cut him. So the decision turns on whether the team will be better with him or without him. That is, how good will the guy be who replaces him? If the replacement isn't any good, then you're better off keeping Clay, even though he's overpaid. Now, obviously you can't run a team effectively if you're overpaying too many people, but the Bills aren't in that situation. Clay's one of the few guys who is clearly overpaic, and every team has at least a few. .So I don't see Clay as being a problem for McBeane. THey keep him if they want him, they cut him if they don't. It doesn't have anything to do with money.

I try to avoid this "for what he's making" approach. FOr a couple of reasons. First, it's really hard to know exactly what someone's value is. In theory you could figure out the value of every player on the roster relative to all the other players on the team and in the league and do some sophisticated math to figure values, but that's in theory only. More importantly, though is that what you're paying him is just a value that was put on him at the point in time when he signed. Even then, there were a lot of things that went into the determination, but whatever went into it, it's just history now. You have him on the team, and the important question is not whether he's worth it but whether he makes your team better. I suppose you can consider whether he's worth it in terms of whether you could get the same production for less money, or get better production for the same money. The answer to that question is pretty much impossible to figure out, because there aren't a lot of tight ends on the market. The rookies you can get certainly will be less money, but they are less likely, on an individual basis, to produce better than Clay, even given his meagre numbers last season. You're not likely to get a rookie with equal production who blocks better, for example. Maybe, but not likely. The Bills have Clay. Can they do better? In the short-term, maybe not. In the long term, I certainly hope so, but that will take a few years to develop someone.

I think Clay will have a future depending on McBeanes character issues. Veteran players have to buy into the system and be leaders. If Clay is a leader he will stay. If he's just the best player at the position, his age will doom him. McBeane want young guys and they want them now.