Shaw66

But from what we've read about Dennison, he isn't picking a scheme to fit Taylor. This is Dennison's scheme, and he thinks Taylor can run it.

As for running the ball when at the line of scrimmage. I think the running game relies a lot on stretch plays. Don't some QBs run the read option off the stretch play and take the ball outside when the linebacker crashes? If so, this an offense where Tyrod running will make a difference. That's what it sounds like to me. The tough part is getting into the right play at the line. After that, it's take the snap and do one prescribed thing with the ball. He probably has one post-snap read; if he sees a key one way he throws to his primary. If he sees the key the other way, he throws to his secondary. That's what it sounds like.

I think you guys need to listen more carefully to what Dennison said. He said the QB in his offense has to make pre-snap reads to get the team into the right play. He doesn't have to make a lot of post-snap reads. The play and the matchups that are apparent at the line of scrimmage determines where the ball is going. It doesn't have anything to do with Tyrod seeing the field scanning the defense as the play evolves, etc. It's come to the line, see what the defense is, take the snap, throw the ball. It's how KC and a lot of teams play. He said he knows Tyrod can do it. How does he know? Well, he didn't say, but he had him in Baltimore and he's worked with him for a couple of months. He's probably watched Taylor work out. He knows Tyrod CAN do it; it's just a question of whether he WILL do it. So discussion about whether this is coachable, which Dennison answered, really isn't relevant. Obviously it's teachable - take the ball and throw it to THAT guy. The QB just has to get the team into the right play. Although at first in response to the question about whether this is a competition, he said everyone competes, late in the interview he admitted that one of their objectives will be to get Tyrod a lot of reps. Tyrod is the guy. We'll see if he can do what Dennison wants.

All you can do is evaluate the Pegulas on what they did with the opportunities that they were presented with. You talk like the Pegulas have been failures in 2017 because they haven't won a Super Bowl. Well, winning a Super Bowl, winning the division, making the playoffs all are things they couldn't do anything about in the first five months of 2017. What they were presented with was a dysfunctional coach and they fired him. What more could they do? Check that box. They had a field of head coach candidates to look at. They hired, from the perspective of the spring of 2017, the best candidate. He didn't go someplace else, like Chip Kelly a few years ago. There was, on paper, no better candidate. Will he succeed? We don't know. It isn't knowable at this time. So what more could the Pegula's do? Check that box. They had a decision to make about Whaley. For a variety of reasons that aren't really known to us, they fired him. Most people thought that was the right thing to. At least from the perspective of what Whaley had accomplished in his tenure, it wasn't obviously a bad move to fire him. Check that box. They hired one of the top candidates to be a GM, acknowledged around the league as a guy who would be a GM someday. He has experience. He has a working relationship with McDermott, which is a plus and a change, apparently, from life under Whaley and the previous head coaches. Check THAT box. They hired guys to work for Beane, ALL of whom are highly respected around the league and are potential GM candidates. One of them spent several years working for the Patriots, which is a plus. Based on the field they had to choose from, they couldn't have gotten more qualified people. Check THAT box. What is that you think the Pegulas could have done in the last four months that would have made their performance as owners better than what they did?

It happens all the time? I don't know what you're talking about. Can you cite some examples of guys who rewrote their existing contracts to take less money. I can't think of any, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There are free agents whose teams tell them to take what's offered or move on to some team that will pay him more, but that's different. Who does that? A much more plausible explanation is that you sign the best guy available to you and keep looking. That's what you do at EVERY position, and AB is no different. The Bills are in no hurry to turn the team over to Peterman. You play the best player you have until you find a better one, doing that always with the knowledge that the best player you have may improve or drop off. What you don't do is decide today that the guy who is your starter next year has to go. That's not how you think about any personnel decision, unless you have a criminal or total non-performer who HAS to go.

Nice job by Sully. At least he's recognizing that he's always negative. Here's something he said that bothers me, not so much about Sully but about everyone who comments on the Bills, including us here: "I'm a little confused about the structure," I said. "McDermott and Beane both answer to Pegula, but the new Sabres coach will answer to Botterill. Can't the Pegulas pick a model and stick with it? They make it up as they go along." That's just a lot of BS. We all seem to think we're qualified to criticize every aspect of the Bills organization. Look, teams organize themselves in all different ways. Most of the teams don't win the Super Bowl. Teams that DO win the Super Bowl are organized in different ways. Sully, and others who question this kind of stuff, never coached a football team, never was a GM, never owned a team, never did ANYTHING that would make his opinion about the management structure meaningful. It's just BS. Listen to the Peter King interview on the John Murphy show. For about five minutes he stumbles around talking about whether the McDermott/Beane combination will result in breaking the playoff drought. He struggles to say something meaningful and all he says is "how the hell do I know?" He says different combinations have worked or not worked in different settings. No one knows. He likes that McD and Beane worked together, but that doesn't mean anything in terms of wins when the season starts. McD was a great hire or a bad one, Beane was a great hire or a bad one, the reporting structure is a great one or a bad one. No one knows.

I don't completely agree with what you say, but I do agree that it's a reasonable way to look at it. I doubt that's how the Bills are looking at him. It's only another opinion, but Peter King said on the John Murphy show that he expects the Bills are using this season to decide whether Taylor is the long-term answer. That's what I think is happening.

I didn't say TT is the long-term answer, although I think he might be. Have to wait and see. And I think Bills' management agrees with that view or they would have dumped TT and moved aggressively on the QB search. They didn't do that. Instead, they traded down from 10, which they could have used to get a serious candidate for the long-term position. Trading down hedged their bets, giving them a chance to see Taylor under the new system and putting them in position to move on a QB next year if necessary. That's smart management (give the credit to Whaley and/or McDermott). That's what teams do all the time. If you have a good player who's not all you need at the position, you invest in him to see whether he can take a step or two to a higher level. If you cut guys because they aren't performing this year, you see a lot of those guys performing well someplace else in a year or two. Taylor is clearly in that category.

You may be right that no one rebuilds in that way any more. One thing that makes it hard to do it is the restriction on trading players for draft choices. It's much harder to stockpile draft choices now. You may be right about the cascading effect, but that effect will only take the franchise in a different direction than Whaley would have taken the Bills. Either GM would have been replacing players at a substantial rate - that's what teams do, especially teams that aren't winning. So I still don't think it makes sense to talk about rebuilding - every team is rebuilding almost every year.

Right. I think there are occasional rebuilds, where the team has a fire sale on players. Trades a few, cuts a lot, trying to build cap room. Also acquiring a lot of picks. That's where you consciously empty to roster to start with a clean slate. And you're right about QBs. When you have the right one, the concept of building is easier, because you're looking for players who fit your QB. The right oline, the right receivers, etc. When you don't have a QB, you're trying to get good players, whatever they look like. There's no anchor, as you say. I'm hoping Taylor emerges as really good, because I'm ready to build around someone. If it isn't Taylor, we're waiting at least another season before we have that anchor, maybe more.

That's NOT a rebuild. Almost EVERY roster in the NFL is rebuilt over three years. Lots of guys come and go from the roster over three years. For example, the New England Patriots, who won two Super Bowls in the period from 2013 to 2016: how many guys from 2013 were still on the roster in 2016? Out of 53 roster spots, 16 guys were on both teams. And Blount left and came back. 70% of their roster turned over in three years. Every team is constantly turning over its roster. If you call that rebuilding, then every team is rebuilding all the time, and the word is meaningless.

Good comments. Thanks. I agree with all of it. I have really incomplete memory of historic rosters and I didn't look back. But you got the point, which is that the Bills' roster was weaker back then and rebuilding was necessary. As for how much talent the Bills have, there was one article last year and I believe more than one, that ranked the Bills roster near the top of the AFC. What those articles said is that the Bills have a huge question at quarterback, but comparing the other 21 spots across the conference it was hard to find teams that compared favorably. Now, in hindsight, it looks a little different. Oakland and Miami, for example probably were viewed by those writers before the season as weaker but probably weren't viewed that way at the end of the season. My point is only that I didn't make up that idea about the Bills' 2016 roster; it was in the national press. Finally, where you say "overall mixed," I agree that was and is the right conclusion. But when you're comparing rosters across the conference or league, we all tend to forget that there are very few teams, if any, that can say anything better than "overall mixed." In the modern era, the only way you can be strong across all 22 positions is if you've had incredible success with recent drafts and undrafted free agents. They only way you can be strong across both sides of the ball is if you've gotten a lot really good players cheap. That happened to Seattle. If you look around the league, I think there always are one or two teams like that, where everything has fallen just right. However, those teams can't stay together, because free agency and the cap causes them to lose some their of talent and weak spots start showing up. So the fact that the Bills had some weak areas in their lineup last season is not inconsistent with the notion that they had one of the better lineups. That's because just about all teams have weak spots. This is interesting. The roster isn't being rebuilt, but the football office is being rebuilt. I think whether Gilmore is a major loss is really an open question. Tre'Davious COULD be the answer, but I think the change in defensive backfield philosophy changes the skill set you need back there. Gilmore would have been less valuable in the zone that McDermott seems to like to play than in a defense that is playing a lot of tight man coverage. That is, if Gilmore had stayed, I think a lot of people would have thought he was having a bad year, because he wouldn't have been making plays that made him stand out. Plus, it doesn't take long to make a splash in the league at corner. Darby was really quite good as a rookie, and White seems to have a similar skill set. So I'm taking a wait and see approach at corner. Frankly, I'm more worried that going away from man coverage will hurt. Certainly against the Pats. Brady kills zones.

I'm really surprised by the negativity about the Bills. Here's why: The Bills had, in my opinion, some of the worst coaching in the NFL for the past two seasons. I mean, really. The penalties two years ago, the horrible defense giving up 200 yard rushing games last season, the ugly game plans, or lack of game plays. I mean, it was horrible. Still, the Bills were essentially a .500 teams. NOBODY is saying that the Bills had a horrible roster and the only thing that saved the season was the brilliant coaching job. I know that changing coaches and changing to new systems and all of that takes some getting used to, often a full season. But if McDermott can be a quality head coach, even his first season can be better than the job Rex was doing. The question is whether McDermott can do it. I have no idea whether he can. However, I do know that even an average coaching job from McDermott will me much better than what we saw from Rex, so the chances of McD going .500 during his first season are better than many of you seem to think. Most years they're accurate for most teams. That's what Las Vegas wants. But that doesn't mean than any particular line is accurate for a particular team that season.

Which means you think the vote of the general wagering public is evidence of the actual quality of teams. You think because half the bettors are over six and half under six, that six must be an accurate representation of how good the Bills are. You didn't pay attention to what I said. The 6 isn't determined by a vote. The 6 is determined by Las Vegas to get to the point where half bet over and half bet under. In a sense, it bears NO relationship to how good or how bad the team is. Suppose I'm a Las Vegas oddsmaker and I know what no one else knows; that Tom Brady has a serious illness and will not play any of the 2017 season. Do I lower the over under by two or three games because I know the Pats won't win as many as they would have with Brady playing? No, I don't. Why? Because if I lower the over under by two or three games, EVERYONE will take the over, and that's bad for Las Vegas. That means Las Vegas has to cover all those over bets, and Las Vegas doesn't want that risk. . So there's an example that demonstrates why the over under is NOT a measure of how good a team is - it's a measure of what bettors without good information think.

No. That's just reality in the NFL. Average NFL career is 3.5 years or so. That means on average, the entire roster turns over every 3.5 years. So in 2019, having 5 guys left over from 2016 is more or less average. Now, averages are misleading, because there are a lot of 1s and 2s that bring the average down. But it seems like almost every year when talking about successful teams, the commentators talk about how much the rosters have turned over. Ordinary roster turnover is not rebuilding. Defensively there will be four new faces starting - a corner, two safeties and a linebacker. That's not a rebuild; that's ordinary turnover on modern NFL teams.

King like others doesn't have enough to write about and he wants to write about every team. This is a down week so it was a good time to cover the Bills. The Q and A was easy as you say. But it was informative. The point about Beane is interesting. Thing is that in the new NFL where the GMs role us smaller than the old days you dont need a truly entrpreneurial guy. He may be fine.

I don't either. It was a nice article, made me feel good, but there is nothing that matters, nothing at all except wins. And there is nothing we can see or be told this month that will give me any more confidence about how many wins we'll see in the fall. Well, not nothing. If the Bills traded Dareus for Aaron Rodgers, I guess I'd get excited about that. That's why I said it doesn't matter unless they can actually do the job. We won't know how they do their jobs for a year or two. this is a really good point. it's not like the Panthers have been some world beaters and McDermott and Beane were the heart and soul of multiple trips to the Super Bowl. i know it's heresy, but I'm not sure Newton is all that much better than Taylor. Not saying Taylor is great; just saying that I've never been sold on Newton.

Not getting enough behind elsewhere?

Actually, I thought it was MUCH better than what we got at Beane's press conference. Reading it you get a nice feel for how close these guys are, how comfortable they are working together. That's a very good thing. Doesn't matter if they don't have the chops to get the job done - coaching and personnel management, but if they do, that kind of relationship is a huge benefit. Also, it clarified the QB situation for those who were reading too much into earlier comments. TT is the starter unless and until (1) someone takes the job from him or (2) he's bad enough that they have to move on.

A couple of things about this. First, I didn't say anything about how many games the Bills are going to win. All I said was that this isn't a rebuild situation. When Kelsay and Stevie were the best players on the team, that's a rebuild situation. But when you have legitimately good players like McCoy, Watkins, Incognito, Wood, Glenn, Dareus, Williams, Alexander and essentially three first round picks (Lawson, Ragland, White) and a guy who's likely to become your #2 receiver in the second, it's not a rebuild situation. It's a situation where you find the best players to fill the other spots and go to work. If the coaching is good, there's more than enough talent on the team to go 8-8 or better. People don't understand what odds makers do. The fact that the Bills are 6 does NOT mean that Vegas thinks the Bills will win 6. It means that 6 is the number that Vegas thinks will get half the betters to pick the over and the other half to pick the under. Buffalo's over under is ALWAYS low, because fans around the country think the Bills are worse than they are. If Vegas set the line at 8, most bettors would flock to the under, and that leaves Vegas exposed. For example, in 2014, the line was 6.5 because no one believed the Bills were going anywhere with Marrone. In 2015 and 16 the line was 8 because the fans across the country believed Rex would build a defense. In each case the line was set to reflect what fans thought, not what Las Vegas thought.

You have to listen in context. McD clearly was saying that no one is guaranteed a job and no one is guaranteed a starting slot. You have to earn it. And QB is no different. He also was saying that competition is good and everyone will be competing for his job all the time. But that doesn't mean that there are presumptive starters. When OTAs start, there has to be a first group, second group, third group. And the presumptive starters will be in the first group. Other guys, as they earn it, will work their way into first group reps. If they're good enough, they could take jobs from presumptive starters. So Beane didn't say something that contradicted McDermott. Beane was talking about who would line up at QB until someone took his job. McDermott was saying everyone would compete for jobs. That's true.

You're right. You have to think back to your high school sports experience, if you have one. I have several. What did the coach do in tryouts? First, he put his presumptive starters on the field or court and ran some plays, then a second group, then a third group. And he watched. Base on his observations, some guys moved up, some guys moved down. Eventually he made cuts. Then it continued in practice. If the presumed starters are doing their jobs well, they keep they're jobs. If a guy isn't doing his job well enough, or if his backup is lighting up, the backup starts getting some reps, and the coach watches. I can't imagine ti will be different for Taylor. It isn't good for the development of players to have a true open competition, sharing reps and all that. It's a new offense, Taylor's the presumed starter, he'll need all the reps he can get. If Yates, Jones or Peterman are really lighting it up through the spring and summer, sure, McDermott should look at the guy as a starter. But on day one, Taylor will be the starter and he'll continue to be the starter unless he can't execute or someone is looking really special.

I read a bit of this thread. I think it's a building year, not a rebuilding year. For rebuilding to make sense as a word, it has to mean taking apart and reconstructing. That isn't what's happening with the Bills. The Bills are in a normal building, ideally continuous improvement, process. It was generally agreed last season that the Bills had one of the better rosters in the conference, and they still do. They're way ahead of the game simply because they have Watkins and McCoy. They have a serviceable quarterback. They have some good offensive linemen. They have Dareus and Hughes plus two quality rookies, essentially, in Ragland and Lawson. They have what should be a good pair of corners. They have veteran safeties. This isn't a rebuilding situation. This is all about continuing to get better. Maybe Watkins leaves, maybe he doesn't, maybe Taylor leaves, maybe he doesn't. They're important parts of the team, but they are by no means all of it. What this year is about is whether McDermott is the right guy, and if he is, how quickly he can get the team headed in the right direction. It might take a season. It might take six games. It might take less.

Transplant - That's true? When you say a winning team, you mean a team with a record over .500, he has ZERO comeback wins? o-35?

Trimming the playbook and simplifying the offense are NOT what Lynn said. Those phrases you're quoting were in Robyn Mundy's report about Lynn's appearance on the John Murphy show. Lynn didn't use those phrases; Robyn did. You can hear what Lynn said here: http://www.buffalobills.com/video/audio/Anthony-Lynn-We-have-got-to-stay-on-the-field/72f7ccf3-3494-44f4-b413-57ec43c4d356 Although you can argue about what Lynn meant by what he said, my take is that he said the Bills were going into games with too many plays on the playlist. He said something about Tyrod may not be able to handle the volume, but it seemed to mean again that the volume on the playlist was too great to manage, not the scale of the playbook. He also said something about simplifying reads, but it wasn't clear if he was talking about Taylor or the entire offense. In general, it sounded like he was saying the offense was too complicated, not that Taylor was unable to handle a normal sized offensive playbook. Recall that in 2015 Incognito said it was the most complicated offense he ever had played in.