Shaw66

10 cent hamburgers at McDonald's on Niagara Falls Blvd. when I was 14, baby. Classic fast food! I really object when people who think staying with McBeane is the right decision are derided by suggestions that we're willing to settle for the participation trophy. I suppose there are some who feel that way, but most of us want to win just as much as you do. We just believe McBeane are most likely to get the Bills there the soonest.

Thanks for this conversation. I think we see it exactly the same way, and that's comforting, because a lot of people here seem to think I'm crazy!

I agree completely. To give credit where credit is due, however, what others say is, in fact, a legitimate question: Are Beane and McDermott the right people to get the team there? It is certainly possible that they just aren't good enough. I'm not in that camp. I think they're committed to winning big, and they're committed to change in order to get there. Not everyone agrees.

Exactly, again. I wouldn't say what @LeGOATski said - I don't have a lot of personal goals, and winning a Super Bowl isn't really goal, it's a hope or a wish. But other than health and success of my family, there isn't much on my wish list ahead of a Lombardi. So, my "wish" is exactly the same as the team's goal. But your points are correct, about how hard it is to win a Super Bowl and about how much fun it is to be the fan of a team that truly is in the hunt to win it all year after year. During the drought, which team did I envy? Well, in terms of excellence, of course it was the Patriots. What they did was phenomenal, but it's sort of unreasonable to expect any team to do that again. I mean, the NFL might not see another dynasty like that for 50 years. So, no, I didn't envy the Patriots. What I hoped for was to be like the Steelers: a team with a shot every season, a team that had a hard-nosed QB who was one of the best in league, a team with stable ownership and a commitment to quality through continuity, a team that kept going about the work of being a success in the NFL year after year. Amazingly, I got what I hoped for. The Bills have become the kind of franchise I wanted to be a fan of. Will the Bills win a Super Bowl before I die? I don't know, but that's much more up to me and my longevity than is the Bills, because I expect they will win one before Allen retires, I'd guess more than one.

But we already knew that.

Of course not. I'm just trying to describe my emotional reaction to it. I have supreme confidence in my opinions. It's just the way I'm wired.

That's an interesting question. I mean, certainly on a Constitutional level, I'm okay. Everyone's free to think what he wants. My nature, which I'm not necessarily proud of, causes me to be offended when people have really bad ideas about something I care about. I feel like I should say, "How could you possibly think that!" But I also realize that they and I are not inside the organization, and inside the organization, certain things are very clear. Either way. I mean, if I were the owner of the Bills and I was privy to all that the Pegulas know, I might conclude that (contrary to everything I've been saying here) McDermott is fatally flawed and will have to leave as soon as a viable alternative is available. I know that's possible. I just think it's unlikely - I think that McDermott is succeeding at a very high level and he's more likely than any candidate available to build a a truly big winner. The next dynasty. But, as I often say, "What do I know?"

Absolutely. But some people get a lot of enjoyment, or get to vent, or whatever, by pretending they now what the right thing to do is.

Well, first, unless something goes wrong, Josh is in. They're letting a lot of guys in the HOF now, and by the end of his career, Josh is going to have pretty amazing numbers, where he ever wins a Super Bowl. A lot of TDs, a lot of yards passing and a lot of yards rushing. He's already 8th on the career rushing list, and it's not a stretch for him to get into Vick/Newton territory. And his passing number will blow those guys away. The real problem is the MVP. It's just a weird popularity contest. I don't know who votes, but what's happened the last few years is about November the broadcasters all start speculating about who the MVP might be, naming a top 5, and somehow over the next month they drop names off the list, so that by the end of the season the announcers have built a consensus for one guy or another. As we saw this season, the announcers anointed Lamar before Josh and the Bills had a late season run - by early December they all were saying Lamar is the consensus choice. How can that make sense - it's a 17 game season, and a bunch of announcers decide who's going to be the MVP after 12 games. Plus, of course, the MVP is a regular season award and not a playoff award.

I voted for "Never make a change as long as the team is competive and makes or amlost makes the playoffs every year." I might not have spelled it that way, but that's okay. The answer is a bit misleading, and I think the poll asks the wrong question. The question is when would make a change? And the offered answers are specific periods of time. The real answer is that I don't make a change if I have confidence that the leadership I have can do the job. And I would not decide whether they can do the job based on the fact that they haven't won the Super Bowl yet. So, yes, if the team is competitive every year, I'm keeping my leadership team UNLESS they've shown me things that make me believe they can't do it. Shown me actual, real things, like they have trouble keeping assistants because they're such hardasses and won't change. Not just, well, they haven't won the Super Bowl yet. If four years from now, the Bills have won the AFC East four times, had the #1 seed once, gone to one Super Bowl and lost, am I replacing Beane and McDermott? I'd think about it, but probably not.

I think you and Sooner are both correct. The guys in the locker room see the whole thing, and different guys in the locker room will have different opinions about it. Some will think that they want to have a career with the Bills, and they'll want younger, healthier blood to make a run with. Others will think he's the heart and soul of the team because, well, he mentored them, or he says the feel of the defense is different with White on the field, or some other reason. What they'll know is that it's what the Bills management wants and what Tre and his family want. Tre and his family will work it with the Bills, one way or another, and Tre and his family will stay or will go. All the players understand that's what happening. And if some players are upset about Tre leaving, they'll understand and get over it because they know it's how the business works. They've seen it before. And if it works out, one way or another, that Tre stays, the players will be all in on it and in September they'll be ready to go to battle with Tre (even if he's a backup). And I don't see any way at all that a player in Tre's position DOESN'T talk to his wife about what to do. These are major decisions about their life. How much does the money matter? Has total career earnings are $65 million. After taxes, even if he's spent a lot, he has $20 million minimum left, possible less if he was really stupid about it, probably more like $30 million. By almost anyone's standards, that's enough money to live more or less any way you want. But that's just one person's perspective. Maybe Tre wants every last nickel, maybe he doesn't. And if his wife wants every last nickel, you know they're having some serious conversations about it. And the other half of that question is where will we be living in six months? Are we retiring and going home? Retiring and staying here? Where's home? If we're playing but not in Buffalo, where are we going? Are there places we don't want to go? Tre is not just going to come home one night without ever having discussed any of that with her and say, "I've decided I'm done here. I'm signing with the Vikings." Maybe their discussions are very brief - "Honey, you say we have enough to live on for the rest of our lives, and I trust you with that. And I want you to have the football career you want, so I'm ready to go wherever you want, whatever you're getting paid." Even if that's what she said, along the way he's still giving her a chance to help decide, by telling her he thinks he likes the Vikings, and they're offering a good contract. She may still say she trusts him and will go wherever. But he is not just flat out deciding without her input. Not in this day and age.

There are a lot of interesting things in this post. Not sure I agree completely, but it's interesting. As for the video, Brady is definitely not considering running there, Mahomes will be thinking about it. But Josh is a better runner, and I don't know that I'd fault him for making that decision. I like your discussion repeatable plays, and you do get it by throwing on schedule. I believe you're correct about this point - Mahomes is excellent throwing on schedule AND creating off it when he has to. Allen improved a lot this season, and I think he's close. The other thing about this issue, however, is the quality of the offensive scheme and the play calling. Allen was pretty good at staying on schedule this season, but the scheduled throws often weren't there. That happens to Mahomes much less frequently, and that's a function of Reid's scheme and playcalling. It's also amusing - valid but amusing - to say that he doesn't do it like Brady or Mahomes. That's sort of like saying Lebron is good, but he doesn't do it like Bird or Magic. Allen is remarkably good right now, and I'm confident that he's now entering a period of several seasons where he is going to be every bit as dominant as Mahomes. He's gotten better every year, his judgment is better, his leadership is better, he's more confident, and on top of all that, sometimes he simply wills his way to a big play. Amazing player.

Yes, you said "consistent" but you said juggernaut. There are no successful juggernauts. Haven't been any since the Bills and Cowboys in the 90s. Even the Chiefs have slipped dramatically. A "real traits alpha guy who can stretch the field" is a pipe dream. When is the last time one of those guys won a Super Bowl? Tyreek Hill, and the Chiefs have won two Super Bowls since letting him go. And before Hill? We've all seen dozens or articles explaining how all the defenses around the league are stopping the deep ball and forcing even the best offenses to work underneath the deep protection, be patient, etc., etc. Joe Burrow had two of those alpha guys and lost the Super Bowl. A good #1 has to be able to get deep, but in the current NFL, the most important skills for a good number have to do with being deadly on a whole variety of shorter throws. Look at the Rams, the Lions, the 49ers, the Chiefs. They're hurting people consistently with excellent receivers who hurt people underneath, not with the glitzy 6'4" burners who can slam-dunk 35-foot alley-oop passes on the basketball court. I agree. There still are a few steps forward that Allen needs to make to be a truly great one, and those steps have to do with the intangibles that we all see in Mahomes. I think he made big strides in that area in 2023, and I don't think he has far to go. I so want Joe Brady to be the guy. If Brady has the right offense and gets into Josh's head the right way, we'll begin to see the complete package, and it will be a thing to behold.

As I've said, I think the offense has enough skill players to win, assuming Diggs is back and Brady does his job. And as I just said, I absolutely do not think the answer is top-shelf receiver. I don't know whether the Bills have drafted a lot more defense than offense in the first couple of rounds. A lot of people seem to think so, and for the sake of argument I'll agree with that thought (although Kincaid, Torrence, Cook, and of course Josh are good arguments to the contrary). History is irrelevant. I don't care if the Bills have drafted 20 defensive players to five offensive players, the question is, "what does the team need going forward from here?" The answer to that question is defense. And the answer definitely is not CeeDee Lamb or the equivalent.

Well, I absolutely agree that coaching probably is part of the problem. The Bills' linebacker woes notwithstanding, there was something of a defensive meltdown against the Chiefs, and I think you have to look to the coaching and preparation for that game as part of the problem. But I disagree about this notion of an offensive juggernaut. I think fans, including me, love to think of their team having this explosive team that just rolls over opponents, over and over. Big wins, high scores, etc. The problem is that although our eyes can imagine that kind of team, it is rare for that team actually to exist in December and January in the NFL. The Lions faltered, the Dolphins faltered, and finally the 49ers falter. With only a few exceptions, and usually only in the wild-card rounds, are games decided by some team scoring 30+ points and putting the game away in the 4th quarter. The defenses are too good, and they're getting better. So, I'm all in having the 2024 focus be on making the defense better. Defense is what failed the Bills late this season, and defense is what wins in the playoffs. High-flying offenses get stopped, and offenses that have effective, creative QBs who can grind it out are what wins. The Bills have that offense, but it needs to be a little better. It's instructive to see the Chiefs winning after letting Tyreek Hill walk, and the Dolphins continue to falter. The devastating one-on-one deep threat pass receivers is fun to watch, but he's not the key to winning championships.

I agree with all of this. Good stuff. Particularly, I'm with you on the "several new weapons." I think it's much more on Joe Brady and Josh's continued growth as a field general. The oline is good enough (although I wouldn't be surprised to see a new face there in 2024), and Cook-Diggs-Kincaid-Shakir-Knox plus whomever are good enough for a good coordinator to have an effective, multi-faceted offense. Plus, if Hines comes back, he's another dimension. The Bills simply do not need anything resembling an overhaul of their offensive skill position players. The only serious question for me is whether Diggs will be sound, physically and emotionally, in 2024. Something happened late in 2023, and I don't know that anyone outside the organization knows what it is/was. Assuming he's back at 100%, the man on the spot is Brady. I have high expectations for Brady (but I had high expectations for Dorsey, and we know how that went).

I agree. First, as others have said, looking at these obscure collections of data is interesting but really not very useful. We live an age where there's practically an infinite amount of data, and it can be sliced, diced, and presented in multiple ways. The result is that there's always some collection of data that makes my guy look like a winner. Now, if Josh actually is having all these clutch 4th quarter drives AND the Bills are losing a lot of these games, there are only two conclusions: Either (1) the defense isn't holding up or (2) the defense is holding up but on a later possession, the offense or special teams fail (give away, blocked punt, 3 and out, whatever). I haven't seen that data, but my gut feeling is that this past season it was more often 1 and occasionally 2. Either way, I'd say this data supports an argument for more and better defense. If your quarterback and your offense are making clutch plays at the rate this data suggests, it would seem that all you need for the team to succeed in close games is for the defense to perform average or better. I suppose the real question is this: Can we see the same chart for how well the defense performed in the same game situations? One further note: I was clicking around to see the original of this chart, who compiled, etc., and I discovered that although the OP links to to this guy Kurt Benkert's tweet from yesterday, the chart first appears in a tweet from @waddlehouse17 on December 23. He notes that the data is only through week 12, so this chart doesn't include however good or bad Josh was in the final weeks of the season.

I agree about all of this. My only quibble is that they need a decent sized #2 with decent speed, good hands, good route running, good blocking. They might actually come back to Davis, if his price doesn't get too high. I know people will react strongly to that, but I'm not sure the Bills are done with him. Personally, I think he's not as mobile, as shifty, as the Bills need. In any case, I think the need at #2 is manageable. Of course, if a can't miss receiver falls to the Bills in the first round, I wouldn't be disappointed. A guy who can be the #2 and the replacement for Diggs at #1 when the time comes. Timing of that fits right. But it's the defense that needs more immediate help, as you point out. A defensive rookie who can a starting job in training camp would be ideal. I think about the impact Bernard made this past season. I know he wasn't a rookie, but he came out of nowhere, solidified the defense, and made plays. Imagine a defensive lineman who did that - a real playmaker. I haven't studied the draft - either the players available or the Bills' situation, but I've heard here that the Bills have plenty of picks, and they're in line for a comp pick (or two? I don't know). Maybe there's a trade where they pick up another. Assuming the Bills have a good stockpile of picks, it would not surprise me to see Beane trade up to get that playmaker. Again, it might be a wideout who can be the successor to Diggs, but I think the Bills would get the most impact from a defensive guy - a stud defender who starts as a rookie and anchors the defense for the next ten years. Soon enough, we'll be in discussions about BPA vs need. Beane always has been clear that the first couple of rounds are for BPA, and in the later rounds he's more BPA-at-a-position-of-need. But he fudges that rule almost every year, it seems, by trading up when he sees a BPA who meets a need. I expect we'll see the trade up this year, and for the Bills that pick will be critical.

The Bills are not in salary cap hell. The salary cap is a collection of rules that GMs have learned to manage in ways that preserve their ability to sign new talent every year. The rules require certain accountings, and depending on the time of year that we look at the accounting, some teams look like they're in better position than others. However, if the GM of your team knows what he's doing, he always has the room he needs to make the kind of moves he needs to make. Beane knows what he's doing. Now, in some years will a team have more cap room than others? Sure, but the cap properly managed, every year there's enough room to manage the roster properly. Beane has been clear that he will not mortgage the future, because his objective is to be good every season, not to overspend on talent because he thinks the Bills are in a window.

Excuse me. This is both wrong and inappropriate. The fact that a word has a definition - like the definition of window above, does not prove that windows exist or are a viable roster strategy. Flat Earth is the concept that the earth is shaped like a disk, but the fact that there is a term for the concept doesn't prove the existence of that concept, either. The windows that you're talking about naturally occurring. They occur by design of the GM, who tries to make their team succeed by acquiring a lot of talent, all arriving at the franchise at more or less the same time. Modern NFL GMs rarely operate their team that way these days, because the draft and the salary cap work so well that it's essentially impossible to out-talent the rest of the league. Baseball teams sometimes have tried to do it intentionally by tanking to accumulate multiple years of high first round picks, unloading talented veterans for more picks or just to stockpile money, then race to the top on the backs of young talent that the team won't re-sign to monster contracts. It just isn't an effective model in the NFL. One place where it happens occasionally is when the team hits on a rookie QB who is so good so young that the team has a window with a lot of cap room. But that doesn't happen very often. The Bills signing Von Miller was not window behavior, because Von Miller was signed to a long-term contract that was designed to give the Bills a great edge for at least three years and as much as six. That's building a team, not loading up on talent for the short-run. Beyond that, the notion of "window behavior" is bogus. What you're talking about is behavior like the Rams acquiring Miller the year before or signing OBJ. That doesn't mean the Rams had a strategy based on windows and rebuilds. The Rams expect to be good year after year. All those signing represented was something that Beane says he would do, too, which is that if the team is having a good regular season run and looks like it could win it all, then he'll do whatever he can to get additional talent on the team. So, for example, when the Bills were 6-6, Beane was not going to run out and get a special player on a one-year (or less) rental. If they're 10-2 next season, he might. The Bills have been built, intentionally, to compete for championships every year, year after year, and to reload talent in such a way that the team doesn't have peaks and valleys with talent. That is exactly what McBeane described when they first got to Buffalo. What's worse than the fact that you were wrong, however, is your attitude and the tone with which you address the rest of us. We are not "brainless" (far from it) and we are not "dumbasses."

This has bothered me a lot since that game. KC just took big plays all game long. It certainly looked like they knew exactly what would work when they saw certain defenses. Clearly, the players weren't prepared for what KC was doing. I think that has to be a problem with the Bills' self-scouting. If Reid and his coaches could see all of these opportunities and knew which routes to run to take advantage, the Bills' self-scouting operation failed, because the Bills coaches should have been able to see those opportunities. Now, maybe Reid is just so creative he sees things others don't, but the frequency of their success getting guys open suggests that it just wasn't very hard for the Chiefs to know when and how to attack for chunk plays. I haven't looked back at the game to look with any greater care, but it's also possible Reid's success related largely to attacking the linebackers. The absence of Milano and Bernard probably made life easier for Reid.

Yeah, it's the doom and gloom that drives this kind of talk. People need to remember the doom and gloom around here six months ago, as preseason was ending. Remember the crisis the Bills had a middle linebacker. There was no one to play the position, Beane hadn't drafted anyone, and he also was doing nothing in the free agent market. The bottom line was that this board didn't know what it was talking about, collectively. So, now it's the "window," because there is some roster change coming. I can 100% guarantee you that McDermott and Beane are not sitting around One Bills Drive talking about the closing of the last window and how long it's going to take to open the next window, just like they weren't sitting around talking about who's going to play middle linebacker. They're working on building the 2024 roster just like a year ago when they were working on the 2023 roster. At this time last season, the Bills didn't have McGovern, Torrence, Harty, Kincaid, Douglas, Rapp, or Floyd. No one was saying the Bills "window" was closed. Every team's roster changes, every season.

There are no windows. There just are seasons. Every season is an opportunity to win the Super Bowl when you have a great QB. Before we talk any more about windows, I invite someone to analyze the seasons when Tom Brady was the QB for the Patriots and explain when their first window opened and closed, their second window opened and closed, etc. Belichick went 5-11 in his first season there; after that, he didn't have a losing season with Brady, and he had only one season when he didn't have double-digit wins. Their window was always open. How about the Chiefs? They've had plenty of roster turnover. When was the window closed?

Thanks. Excellent points. Excellent. I wasn't really talking about some kind of statistical improvement. I agree, in a physical sense, Josh elevates the performance of his teammates. I was thinking more about his ability to instill confidence in his players, to have a such a complete understanding of what's happening on the field that he raises THEIR level of understanding of their job. That's the magic that Kelce and Mahomes have - they are literally playing the game at a level higher everyone else. Allen and Diggs were close to that but haven't gotten there. Allen and Kincaid showed some flashes last season and may be special. And it's not just the receivers. Mahomes is thinking along with the center, and through the center with the oline. I think it's one reason Creed transitioned so easily - Mahomes raised Creed's level of understanding. What we see in Mahomes is total package - arm, athleticism, brains, leadership. That's where I think Allen has to go, and I think he's well on his way.

Agreed. I think he made real progress this season, starting out almost forcing the checkdown. But by the end of the season, he seemed really comfortable, making solid decisions, good throws, and still having the freedom and smarts to run when it was time to run. I think we'll see an even better Josh next season.