Shaw66

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.

I haven't seen anything about Darby in OTAs, and I doubt there was much of anything definitive out there. Still, I'll take you at your word, as well as the other comment about Darby regressing. Still, my view about Darby is this: (1) He has great quickness and can stay tight with receivers. (2) He learned to find the ball and make a play on it pretty well. He couldn't do it in the beginning of his rookie season, but was much better by the end. (3) It's a new defense that will play more zone, apparently. That may waste some of his best skills. I don't know much about Poyer. Williams had a good season but never was a star - I'm confident Hyde will be as good as Williams. As for the defensive backfield situation in general, it's all about the quality of the coaching - do they have a coverage scheme that works and can they get their players to play it. Especially in a zone, it's much less about special physical skills and more about knowing your job and doing it. I have no idea whether the defense will actually be good. My point really is that I'm not worried about whether there's enough talent back there. The Bills' talent is as good as most teams in the league, with White, Seymour and Darby, Hyde and whoever. And I sort of agree with this. It is a .500 roster, but it's only .500 because the QB position is so important. With a certifiably good QB, it's better than .500. It's about coaching. The good news is that it won't be hard for the coaches to be better than Rex. The bad news is it's a rookie HC and the schemes are changing. Which also suggests to me that .500 is what to expect. As for the schedule, I spent 0 time thinking about the schedule. EVERY game is hard, EVERY season. And it's more or less impossible to determine of the strength of the schedule. Every year some teams surprise you, and there's no way to know which ones will be surprises. And I mean surprisingly good OR surprisingly bad. Panthers, Broncos, Bengals, Chiefs, Saints, Dolphins, Colts, Bucs, Chargers all have the potential to be good or bad in 2017. That's ten games on the Bills schedule, and add two Jets games. So that's 12 winnable games, and that doesn't account for the possibility that the Bills themselves might be good, in which case Pats, Raiders, Falcons are winnable also. There are probably only four or five teams that we can say with a certainty will be bad in 2017.

I think they have a top 10 corner in Darby, and the pair of corners the Bills have may be better than the pair three years ago. Everyone says the Bills are in trouble in safety, and I really don't get that. Micah Hyde is a seriously good player, and Poyer has nice experience. Bills' safeties weren't all that great back then - Aaron Williams and who? Plus, as the OP points out, the strength of the team is the line, and the defensive line is now going to go back to it's strength - playing aggressively and getting into the backfield. Williams may be old, and we'll see what he has left. Dareus and Hughes should thrive, and now we'll get to see what Lawson has. Bottom line, it's easy to see this as a top 10 defense, if the defensive coaching measures up.

I agree with the OP, and I guess you do too. There's a big difference between 5 wins, which I agree it seems many people here think is the best the Bills could do, and 7 wins, your prediction. I'm a big believer that there's pretty much no difference between most of the teams between 10-6 and 6-10. A couple of bad bounces or calls, a couple of key injuries, a couple of mistakes at the wrong time easily make the difference between 10-6 and 6-10. Those are essentially .500 teams. But when you win 5 or fewer, you're bad. I have trouble seeing the Bills as bad this season, unless they get hit with a ton of injuries or the coaches are as bad or worse than last season. As I look back at Rex's two seasons in Buffalo, I've concluded that he's a worse a coach than I thought when the Bills hired him. When he's hired, I was unhappy, but I still believed in his defensive magic touch and in his enthusiasm, thinking those two things might make the Bills truly competitive. Instead, he demonstrated that there is no magic touch, that his teams seriously lacked discipline and technical excellence, and the players didn't relate to his shtick. In short, I think the Bills had coaching that was WAY below average, and the Bills talent got them into .500 territory. Although it's possible, I think it's unlikely the Bills' coaching could be worse this season, which is what would be necessary to drop to 5 wins. The probability is that the coaching will be better, so I'm looking for another season in the .500 range. What would hold them back would be if McDermott makes more than his share of rookie mistakes. If he catches on fast to the head coaching game, the Bills will be fine.

That IS why we loved him. He was us out there, an ordinary guy (except for that Harvard thing) trying to play with the pros and damn near making it. And I agree about Houston. In just the right circumstance, Fitz could have won.

In earlier discussion in this thread I agreed with others that CHOKER is not the right characterization. Choking means he gets anxious in the moment and his anxiety keeps him from performing well. That isn't what happens to Fitz. He's a lousy decision maker in critical points in the game. He does what you say - throws into coverage, tries to make throws his arm can't, etc. Unless it's fourth down or the last play of the game, those decisions are bad because there's always another play, which is another opportunity for your team to make a play or the opponent to make a mistake. Fitzy is a gunslinger, like Favre and Big Ben, but without the arm to back it up. In the old west, being a gunslinger and a lousy shot was a bad combination. Fitz is the football equivalent.

Yes, I agree. His problem always has been that he's asked his body to do things that it can't do, and that's bad decision making. That's mental. I agree that when the game is on the line, you have to take more chances, but you have to be smart about the chances you take. Fitz was not smart about that. Down 4 points with 30 seconds to go, 3rd and 8, Fitz will take a chance and test his arm. That's a mistake. In that situation he has to play within himself, and if necessary, throw it away, because the smart play is to give up on the play and try again on fourth down. Fitz is like the basketball player who never saw a shot he didn't like. And, to change the subject from the end of the game, I don't think I'll ever forget being in Met Life a few years ago when Fitz underthrew the same pass to Stevie up the left sideline, both for interceptions, the second to more or less end the game. Same play, same throw, same result. That's not good quarterbacking.

Fitz played in Buffalo with Lee Evans and Terrell Owens one season, with Lee Evans and Stevie Johnson a second season. Fitz played with Brandon Marshall and Eric Decker. Don't try to make us believe that Taylor had better receivers. Fitz had ONE season, ONE, where his passer rating was better than Taylor's career average passer rating.

They left out Taylor, who's in the first wave. Amazing how little respect he gets.

No way in the world Taylor and Fitz are equal in quality. No way. Compare whatever stats you want, or simply think about this: Taylor can throw deep, Ftiz can't. Taylor is a SERIOUS running threat. Fitz isn't. Taylor doesn't throw INTs. Fitz does. The only thing Fitz does better than Taylor is grow hair on his face.

If Taylor finishes in the top 10 and the Bills go to the playoffs in 2017, having redone Taylor's deal in March is going to cost the Bills $25 million.

Who's to say? We aren't psychologists and he isn't telling us what he thinking. But I don't agree it's mental. I think he knows exactly what he's doing The fundamental problem, as others have said, his that he has a below-caliber arm. He just can't make some of the throws the game requires. That puts him at a disadvantage. I also think the guy loves to play and he hates to lose, so he's always trying to make the play to win the game. It's just his nature. In that way I think he's very much like Favre. Favre made some horrible end-of-game decisions because he loved to play, he wanted to win and he thought he could do anything. Favre would have been better if he'd played more under control. The difference between Favre and Fitz was that Favre's arm bailed him out of more of his mistakes than Fitzy arm could save Fitzy. And that difference translated into this difference: the Packers didn't like Favre's decision making but tolerated it because it worked out well often enough that they were willing to live with the times bad decisions hurt them. Fitzy's teams suffer from his bad decision making because his arm isn't able to overcome enough of his bad decisions.