Shaw66

Thanks. Leaving the door open suggests they're done talking for now. That almost always results in the guy signing elsewhere. Bolden probably is looking for a relatively big final payday. Maclin and now Bolden suggests the new regime has a serious discipline about spending, which would be consistent with building through the draft. Bills could afford Bolden, but it seems they just won't overpay.

Sorry, maybe it's in here somewhere. Did Bolden actually leave Buffalo? If he doesn't sign somewhere in the next day or two, I suspect he sits out until a good team has an injury to a key receiver, either in preseason or early in the regular s

Does he have other visits scheduled? This seems to me to be one of those situations where both sides already have negotiated the deal and today is a kick the tires meeting before he signs.

This is what you said at post #188: .yet he cannot be a consistently be an offense bailout due to overall offense ineptitude unless you want to get the kid killed.....what team fears the anemic passing "attack (COUGH)"?.....shut down the run and contain TT and then what?..........white flag of surrender? So if your "Offense ineptitude" wasn't referring to the Bills of the last year or two, what was it referring to? Some imaginary offense that ran the ball well and the offense still was inept? Well, I don't care to talk about some imaginary offense. The Bills' offense was NOT INEPT last season. It was quite good. If you want to say it could be and should be better, I won't argue with you. But to suggest that it was inept is completely and totally contrary to the facts. The facts are that the offense scored well and moved the ball well. Better than most teams in the league. So are we talking the actual Buffalo Bills or some imaginary offense so that you can score debating points? So what? People seem to be enjoying what they're talking about. If it's so disappointing to you that there's no Bridgewater discussion going on, go find a Vikings forum.

You didn't defend your statement - absurd statement in my mind - that the Bills offense was inept in 2016. If you can pass and can't run, your offense sputters when you struggle in the passing game. Just the same as you seem to think the Bills offense struggles when the run game is in trouble. Practically no offense is perfect. But imperfection doesn't make it inept.

I guess I missed this "overall offense ineptitude." Since does 16th in yards and 10th in scoring equate to ineptitude? Maybe you mean the passing game was anemic. But if that's what you mean, then you're saying the only kind of offense that is any good is passing offense. That's wrong. If my team is first in yards and first in scoring, I don't care how they got there. They could lead the league in penalties called against the opponent. Works for me, if it translates into yards and points. Everyone knows that if the defense (19th in yards and 16th in scoring) had been 16th and 10th, like the offense, the Bills would have made the playoffs.

Playoffs. Now, there are a few non-playoff scenarios that I guess I would call successful. Like going 11-5 and somehow not making the playoffs on the tie-breaker rules. And there can be season that are good to build on, that make me hopeful for the future, etc., but I don't think I'd call that successful. It's like this: Football is about winning. End of the day, nothing else matters. Stats are for losers. The primary measure of winning is making the playoffs. If you aren't winning enough to make the playoffs, you aren't relevant. Make the playoffs. It's the first step toward winning it all.

Makes Taylor a good QB, just like Newton. Newton's been asked to pass more than Taylor has - and when he passes he isn't as effective as Taylor. Taylor's career passer rating is 92; Newton's is 86. Why the difference? Taylor's TD/INT ratio is nearly 3 to 1, Newton's is less than 2 to 1.

It isn't meaningless. How can you possibly say that someone's football skill is meaningless to his evaluation as a player? Is jumping ability meaningless to a pass receiver? Is catching ability meaningless to a running back? Cam Newton is a TOTALLY average quarterback without his running ability. His running ability "props him up" into the near-elite category. As for losing vs making the playoffs, well, more teams have losing records than make the playoffs, so EVERYTHING is more associated with losing than making the playoffs. What you're saying is just stupid. Better that you just recognize it than continue to try to defend something that's stupid.

you are literally wrong. If five of the top 10 rushing and had losing records that means exactly half of them were associated with losing and the other five were not. It makes no sense that the stat is meaningless AND it's associated more with losing. The second concept gives meaning to the stat. And if you believe Russell Wilson and Cam Newton running had nothing to do with their teams winning then there's truly no point in listening to your opinions.

Thanks for the post. It's a great discussion of the technique differences. Nicely done. Others have said it, and I saw it somewhere - the Bills ran a lot of outside zone last season, so this isn't a big change. Plus, to expect the Bills rushing attack to be BETTER than last season is expecting a lot. Last season it was about as dominant as a we could expect a running attack to be.

Good. That post left me speechless.

Really, I'm not even sure of that. You'd think it will be better because it was pretty bad last season, but who knows? No one has ever seen McDermott prepare a team for a game, and no one has ever seen him making sideline decisions. I don't think we can assume anything about what's coming. The guy could be a total bust and his team could go 4-12. I don't think that's who he is, but really, who knows?

I think your prediction is low. I'd say 8 wins. I think your evaluation of Tyrod is wrong. He's better than you say. But I think the title to the thread is absolutely correct. We don't how McDermott will perform, we don't how his staff will perform, there are plenty of questions about Tyrod, about the receivers, about the defensive line, the linebackers, the defensive backfield. There are questions everywhere. We simply won't know what we have until November.

I didn't read the article but skimmed through the posts. Interesting thread with a lot of quality posts. Most of you are right, but I think everyone is missing the bigger point, which is true across the culture, not just in football. Yes, winning is about culture. It's about details. It's about talent on the field. It's about Xs and Os. It's about consistency. It's about teamwork. It's about family. But the bigger point is this: It's about ALL of that and more. It's complicated. Look under the hood of your car. It isn't like the old days. Your car is efficient, reliable, doesn't break down, doesn't rust, gets better mileage than ever. You can't look at your car today and say it's a good car because of the carburetor, or the distributor, or the frame, or whatever. Your car is a good car because it's complicated. It has systems that do all kinds of things, and most of us have no idea how they work. No single element of the car makes it good; consistent excellence, engineering, planning and manufacturing makes it that way. As much as we like to think we understand pro football, we don't. We don't because it's complicated. These past few months are a perfect example. McDermott has been doing a lot of things that look like the right things. They are a part, a small part, of all of the things that have to be done to create a winning organization. His attention to detail is nice. His upbeat, positive motivational style seems nice. His methodical approach seems nice. Do his assistants know what they're doing? None of us knows. Do the assistants believe in McDermott? Who knows. Will the players buy in? Who knows. Is it the right talent? Are these coaches good at Xs and Os, from season to season, from game to game and from play to play? Who knows? It takes a lot to be excellent, whether you're building cell phones or football teams. I'm as big a Belichick booster as anyone, but let's not overstate it. Belichick IS very good at knowing what he needs at positions on his team, but he's the same as most coaches in terms of finding the talent. He doesn't miss on a few players; he misses on a lot. They draft lots of guys who never fit in, and the sign free agents who don't fit in. The Pats are successful, so there's a lot of coverage of them, and the coverage often focuses on the new talent they've acquired. But that happens because they were successful the year before and a lot of the guys who were there the year before are gone, so the media focuses on the replacements. So our FOCUS is on those new role players. Every team does the same thing. Every season the Bills have guys who show up and fit into important roles, guys like Gillislee and Brown and Alexander and Incognito. Belichick doesn't have better talent than anyone else. He simply insists on all of his players knowing their jobs and doing their jobs. He doesn't keep guys who don't do that.

thanks, JM

Frankly, I'd rather be the Bills. I'm not a big Stafford fan, and I think that Taylor may surprise a lot of people this year. But put that aside. Take it as a given that Lions have a better QB. PFF apparently ranks their roster in the bottom five in the league. I put little stock in those rankings, but if PFF thinks they're in the bottom five, it's a good better the roster is at least in the bottom half. I think the Bills roster is average or a little above average, but in any case it isn't any worse than the Lions. Then you look at coaches. Caldwell isn't dynamic and hasn't won much, despite having Peyton Manning as his QB for two of the six years he's been a head coach and Matt Stafford for three more. Got badly outplayed by the Saints in the Super Bowl and lost in the first round of the playoffs three times. Bills have a dynamic head coach who's clearly a good salesman, and veteran offensive and defensive coordinators. I think I'd consider the Bills to be the better opportunity. Not by a lot, and likely to be winning the Super Bowl, but better.

I think you're exactly correct about this. I'd guess that how like a team is to compete for the Lombardi is NOT what's on his mind. These guys spend most of their lives, from 12 year old on, working to make it the NFL. They do it for the love the competition, but as they get to college they also do it for the money. They recognize that this is the only opportunity they're likely ever going have to make some significant money, if not to support them for the rest of lives, at least to give themselves a significant cushion. In Orr's case, I'd guess the money is at least as important as the competition. He's going to take the deal that gives him the most guaranteed money, because he has to recognize that his injury may recur; in other words, this contract may be his last NFL contract. The quality of the team will be a concern only if the team really appears to be dysfunctional, like the Browns. McDermott, Frazier and Beane do not at all give the impression that they are dysfunctional. I think he'll go to the team that's willing to make the biggest bet on him.

we never did finish that jeans discussion. Anyway, I don't anything about the guy but will take at face value the praise that others have given him. Obviously, you look at his medical situation carefully, but if you think there's a relatively high probability that he can play even a year or two, I think you go after him. Bills have the cap room, and this (like Maclin) is the unusual case where a pretty talented player has unexpectedly shown up as a free agent. There won't be many more opportunities like this to get a good player, so it won't hurt to make a serious investment in him. If the Bills got two good seasons out of him and then he had a medical problem prompting his real retirement, it would have been worth. If they got four good seasons out of him, he would have been a steal. As someone said, he'll be looking to make some money, so throwing some short-term money (money the Bills can afford) makes some sense. This is a case where you want to front-load the cap hit, so you don't hamstring yourself with dead cap space in later years. These situation are always gambles, and I think they're always worth taking. Percy Harvin was a good gamble. Special talent, you know he might bust, but if he doesn't, you've only lost some money. You have to compare Harvin to the guy who would have made the roster if the Bills hadn't signed him. That guy would have been the sixth receiver on the team and almost certainly never would have become a significant contributor. Possible, but quite unlikely. So you haven't hurt yourself by not signing that guy, and you've given yourself a chance to have a significant competitor on the team. That's why you go after a Maclin or an Orr when they show up magically. Maclin would have been an immediate starter, and it sounds like Orr would have, too. Is there a risk? Sure, but there's a potential reward that you get with Orr that just isn't there with the guy you will keep if you don't sign Orr. Pats did it with Moss - it worked for a little bit and then it didn't. They did it with Haynesworth. It's smart to make bets on players with high-end NFL talent. As for Ragland, I think he's too good a football player not to contribute, if he's healthy. He may not be a perfect fit for the defense, but good football players make plays. People here are complaining that Gilmore's gone, but HE wasn't a perfect fit for this defense, either. My view on both Gilmore and Ragland is the same: may not be a perfect fit, but you never hurt yourself by putting good football players on the field. When Ragland's rookie deal is up, the Bills may not keep him because he isn't a perfect fit and some other team will pay him more (just like Gilmore), but in the meantime I'm sure McDermott wants Ragland (and Orr).

You're right about pretty much all of this. I was referring to time holding the ball. I don't think there are stats about time staying the pocket, and I don't think there are stats about leaving clean pockets too early. That's ALL conjecture. But the fact that he holds the ball longer than most QBs supports what I've always observed, which is that he's always looking downfield to throw. Carucci is suggesting that he gives up on pass plays too quickly, and that isn't true. Yes it's possible that the new offense could cause problems. It's equally true that it could be better for Taylor, for a couple of reasons: the decision making is apparently easier. And since the offense runs the ball wide more often, the offense will tend to spread the defense more, which should help Taylor running. As for his poor showing during the off-season, I'd really like to know where that is coming from. I've seen NO quotes or comments attributed to anyone who actually saw the off-season workouts saying anything at all like that. Plus, even if it's true, the fact that he didn't perform well in most of the off-season could be attributed to his learning the offense. That doesn't necessarily mean that he'll struggle in the regular season. And, yes, it IS Vic's opinion. And others, like you and I, are free to express how we agree and disagree with that opinion. None of those opinions is worth anything, but none of us has seen the practices, has been in the meeting, has had frank conversations with Taylor or McDermott. Vic's bull **** smells just as bad as mine.

He was saying that in his opinion what Carucci said was true. There's nothing wrong about having an opinion about whether something is true. For example, if I say OJ killed his ex-wife, you probably have an opinion about whether that statement is true or not. You don't know, but you have an opinion.

The idea that Taylor's off-season contract negotiation will affect his play is ridiculous. The press often says stuff like this,and it's rarely or ever true. These guys are young athletes. They play as hard as they can every day, and they are focused on the game, not their contracts, when the game is being played. Taylor too quick to run? That's totally wrong. Taylor is first or second in the league in time spent in the pocket. The complaint about Taylor is that he's indecisive and holds the ball too long, not that he's too quick to take off running. Does Vic even watch the games? And I've been saying all off-season. That notion that Taylor was forced into a contract renegotiation is wrong. The Bills weren't going to cut Taylor. A year from now Taylor will have a better contract than the one he had BEFORE he renegotiated. It'll be with the Bills or with someone else.

Right, pretty good. Not great. And it shouldn't be hard to be that good again.

He was a great ball carrier. Didn't play enough in the NFL to establish himself as an all-time great, but only he and Jim Brown combined speed and power in that era. I DID see that in my lifetime.

Ahhh. Those days were fun. What a defense. In the 1966 season, the Chiefs beat the Bills in Buffalo to win the AFL championship and go to the first Super Bowl.