PBF81

Thanks! Having said all that, I guess that the eternal optimists always have the possibility that we'll just get one of those "lucky seasons" that propels us to a championship, like LA a little in '21. But if rather rely on talent and good coaching, which we're short on. What's strange is how some teams, like ours, don't consider making similar changes in their coaching ranks like they do for the roster/depth chart. It's a business, nothing should be off the table, and unless you've achieved perfection, and we haven't come close, then there's always room for improvement.

Thank you! 🙄😂🤣😂

Agreed, but at the same time I'm not penciling is in for 13 wins again either, I think that the holes in our Defense are going to cost us this season. Also, I'm thinking that the Jets & Fins are both going to improve and they were already competitive this season.

Great read! If those are the only two options, pursuing option 2 doesn't seem as if it would be particularly productive. For that one to be productive, both short and more importantly longer term, it would require good drafting, something that Beane has done anything but proven a propensity for. Even in free-agency he's hit-n-miss on "proven" players. Either way, I wouldn't put a lot of money on the notion that we win the division this coming season, which is disappointing as most of us had assumed that we'd be winning the division for years to come as was I. Oh well ... I'm also not in the camp that prefers to have a weak division so that we can win it, like the Pats for 20 years. I prefer some competition, although I wouldn't want to be in the same division with both Cinci and KC for example, but having the Fins, Jets, and meh, maybe even the Pats be competitive IMO is a good thing and helps come playoff time.

Whatever they choose to do, it requires someone that knows how to put cheap (aka drafted) talent into place. This crew hasn't even sniffed being able to do that in five seasons. Now they're on the cusp of lapping themselves in the cap hell situation, and we're in it for round two, .... I guess. Doesn't sound all that inspiring to me. If history holds, we'll draft our players, be told how going against conventional wisdom in one or more ways will net us a big improvement in whatever facet they put forth. The media will applaud us for having an A- Draft, and how couldn't it be with all of the holes we have, none of our rookies will make any kind of impact this season, we'll be having the same conversation next year, and over time we'll see that all of our day 1 & 2 picks aren't holding their draft status as to where they were selected, and one or two of our day 3 players we'll get rid of claiming that they're not needed while they go and do more than any of our other draft picks except elsewhere. That's the established pattern here. To wish upon a star for something different, well ... LOL

So give away all of our biggest picks for later round picks, most of whom we'd have to cut anyway for lack of roster space, then assess which ones are good, like Teller and Hodgins, send them packing, and keep the ones that are of backup caliber yet will end up starting? That seems to be Beane's strength. And when it gets to a point where a team has to work around the normal facets of the draft to attempt to overcome the weaknesses of the architect of the Draft, isn't that kind of a signal for something? Just sayin' ...

BTW, part of my point was that when the HC is hired first and allowed to select his own GM, the process is flawed. That situation shouldn't exist unless the coach is someone with decades of winning experience, which obviously McD did not have. We knew that the GM, whomever it was going to be, was coming from Carolina. There's something wrong with that process.

Gettleman was the GM in Carolina and was responsible for their drafts there, but I looked when we hired Beane, I didn't see any kind of significant draft picks for the two seasons prior that he was "Asst. GM," whatever that means, besides McCaffrey, who was a no-brainer, if they hadn't grabbed him at 8th overall he'd have gone in the next several picks. In fact, his drafts otherwise very much resemble his drafts here, a lotta nothing, a lotta B/C players and not getting value he should from the spots where he selects guys. That's why I didn't care for the pick back then. HIs best pick not in the top-10 was Vernon Butler, no wonder he ended up here in the Carolina to Buffalo express like so many others. Anyone can give anyone credit for a good draft pick, if they had one besides McCaffrey on his watch, but at the end of the day everyone can't take credit and we have no idea what the impetus for that particular pick was. Given his performance here it wouldn't see as if it was his, but we really don't know. He was GM mystery meat. We hear of "up and coming candidates" all the time that never end up doing anything, so that's all fluff. Point taken nonetheless. My point was implying that we could have I'm sure gotten a more proven GM, but the fact that McD, the coach, was in on the process, that pretty much hamstrung us and predicted our short-list of choices to have been someone from Carolina, which of course it was. It's also a safe thing to suggest that he wasn't the best candidate out there. There's a lot of room for disagreement here, but my focus is on where things stand today. Five seasons in and he hasn't proven that he was the best choice.

BTW, we had many teams on the cusp over that "Last 20 Years" stretch. I count 9 seasons during that stretch where we were 7-9 to 9-7. What if Ryan's 8-8 or 7-9 teams had had Allen instead of Taylor, I'm pretty sure we'd have made the playoffs. Would that then have made Ryan the coach to take us to the Super Bowl and win a championship? Hardly, but he wouldn't have been fired more than likely, ... because he "made the playoffs." Or Marrone's last 9-7 season, if instead of Orton he'd had Allen. Don't you think we'd have won at least one more game and "made the playoffs?" I do. IMO we'd have won several more. Doesn't meant that I think that Marrone was a good HC, he wasn't, never was, and still isn't. Just sayin' ... Agreed, and without seeing his contract, which we'll never see, we'll likely never know the details. But it's obvious when a Head Coach gets to choose his own GM, and that HC selects a guy that really wouldn't qualify anywhere else and who was also on his former team, and as a result that new GM owes everything to his HC. Common sense.

Thanks! Appreciate it! Allow me to comment on this part of your comments in particular, as well as answer your question ... To start, we had an incredible amount of luck getting into the playoffs in 2017, so let's not credit McD entirely for that. Beane's influence wasn't even a factor then since he wasn't involved in the 2017 Draft other than as a spectator. After that and otherwise, it's only been four straight playoff appearances, not six. But point taken. But I would turn that into how have we performed in those playoffs. Apart from the Miami game with Skylar "Who's He" Thompson leading the Fins a month ago, we've allowed an average of 410 yards in the 7 playoff games prior to that in those four seasons. Is that good? Hardly. I would also argue that we lost to the Texans in the 2019 Playoffs, to the Chiefs in 2021, and to the Bengals this season, all games that we should have won. The Allen pick was not only the major reason for it, I think that it's quite safe to say that it's the only reason for it. Which other picks by Beane have contributed to a significant extent to it? I don't see one. His free agents helped, feeding into my original argument, but no draft picks otherwise. So if Allen was the reason for it, and since all of our other coaches and GMs have "sucked," which generally they have, and I don't think that any of them would have taken us to the promised land either, even with Allen, but wouldn't a fair way to look at this then be how would those coaches and GMs have been viewed had the unique Allen come along on their watch? I'll say firmly right now, that strip off Allen, and IMO many of the teams over that "Last 20 Years" stretch were better apart from the QB position. Our OLs alone in most of those years were notably better than the one we have now. We definitely had better RBs, and while we didn't have a Diggs, we did have Jackson, Henry, Lynch, McCoy, Moulds, Johnson, Evans, Price, Riemersma, Chandler on offense, and on defense we had Schobel, Kyle Williams, Whitner, Kelsay, Fletcher, Clements, Milloy, McGee, Byrd, McKelvin, Aaron Williams, Hughes, etc. Now imagine if Allen had been on those teams. "The Last 20 Years" wouldn't even be a thing, and any number of those coaches and GMs would have been getting the fanfare that McBeane are. On the flip side, take Allen off this team and IMO we're looking at the worst single era of football under McBeane than we've seen since the pre-Levy days. (coach that is, not GM Levy) This team does not have a lot of talent on it, and what it does have is largely bought talent of known players, not anything having to do with Beane's prowess as a talent evaluator from the NCAA ranks. As I essentially said up top. So it's really a matter of perspective. So in answering your question ... ... the answer to that is wholly dependent upon the perspective. I would ask a "success" predicated upon what? If the simple criteria is "making the playoffs," then the fact answers the question. But the moment a "why?" is introduced, everything changes. If the criteria is, as you cited, "a joy to watch the games," "a playoff run," a few plays in isolation, ... sure, I guess it's a success by that standard. But I would first define what "success" in this case is, and for me it's different. I've noticed that many of the posters here are older guys that went thru that Super Bowl stretch (and we haven't even sniffed a Super Bowl yet) and have been there, done that regarding "making the playoffs." I was at every one of our home playoff games back then, like many here (other than the comeback game for me, LOL), experienced that level of excitement. I could go into details but let's just say it was just as exciting back then. I've also noticed a number of poster having said that they'd even be fine with the team moving if we'd win a Super Bowl first, myself among them. So for those whose standard is a Championship, no, we wouldn't call it a success. But I would go even further. I've always maintained that I'm good with whatever outcomes occur as long as we do the best that we can with the resources that we have, both on the field as well as drafting, offseason, etc. Do you think that we've done the most we could with the resources we've had on their watch? You've already answered that and said no, so that's clear. And I apply the same to myself personally, I've always said that if I get beat on a field/court, but I played my best and did everything that I could to win, I'm good with it. That's all one can do. But what we have here is the opposite. McBeane are "succeeding" despite themselves and their decisions, because the bar is not a championship, or even building a complete team even if we don't win a championship. We have anything but a complete team. We have tons of holes despite Beane now having had 5 seasons to work his magic, and on-field performance that leaves much to be desired after six seasons of McD's "Process." In fact, we have a worse cap situation now than when Beane inherited the team. That hardly spells that he's doing a great job given the fact that he doesn't even have a solid overall roster as the reason for the cap issues. If you ask me, had Allen been here instead of Bledsoe, Fitzpatrick, or those transitionary QBs in between, we're not even having this conversation. So perspective really is the lion's share of one's perspective on this. But at the end of the day, both Beane's and McD's efforts have not only fallen short given what they've had to work with, but the reason is because of them, their methodologies. I mean who's to blame for "13 Seconds" and not having the team prepared for the Skylar-Led Miami and Cinci this season? McD is, clearly. Who's responsible for having B & C level talent across our roster and depth chart other than for Allen and a few players that predated Beane, coupled with a significant salary-cap issue caused by an overreliance on expensive free agents? Beane is, clearly. I realize that you agree with that, but I'm saying at some point you have to fish or cut bait, and I see absolutely nothing on the table here that tells me that either McD's process or Beane's team building methodologies are for some entirely unbeknownst much less entirely unsubstantiated reason are going to bring home the hardware. Sure, if we move on then we may not find a coach or GM that can, but that then becomes the job of Pegula, Reccuia, or someone else in the organization to find them that can. But I find it incredibly difficult to believe that just about any coach or GM that we would replace them with would do worse as long as Allen's here. The job that they've done, while "having made the playoffs," is all but entirely attributable to Allen, particularly since our D goes on vacation once the regular season ends, and if Allen's here, any coaching would do similarly I don't see how it's possible to do a much worse job than Beane's done having stocked the team with no A-List players beside Allen, who we both acknowledge was another enormously risky decision, from our drafts. Again, Dawkins and Milano don't count for Beane. Which brings up a point, we can argue that we did better in the drafts without Beane that one season. That was by far and away one of our best drafts and arguably our best draft since our 2001 Draft which produced Clements, Schobel, and Henry. It's all about perspective, but it's a terminal mistake to say that McBeane have done better than their predecessors since 2000 or so without considering what those teams would have been like if A, Allen had been on them and McBeane had had what those GMs/HCs had for QBs, and B, comparing how the rosters of those teams stacked up to our current roster apart from Allen. I don't see a lot of anger, I see a lot of dissatisfaction. There's a difference.

Well, exactly, so why does he have so much support then. I realize it's a rhetorical question, but a serious question nonetheless.

I would argue that this isn't exactly "thinking out of the box," it's what good GMs regularly do.

Here's the thing, and let's start with the premise of this thread, ... ... that sounds wonderful, and we have the 27th, so what, trade up for the 20th? But then couldn't the same thing be said, and move up to the 12th? Then couldn't the same thing be said and move up to the 5th? ... then to the 1st overall at exorbitant expense? Sure it could. All that tells me is that Beane needs to be in a position to make a "no-brainer" pick to "succeed." But he's getting paid to think and do much more, finding value at lower picks, not merely pluck the fruit that everyone's eyes are on. But the two highest draft picks we've had besides Allen, and one involved in a significant trade-up as such, were the 9th (Oliver) and 16th (Edmunds), neither of which we got the draft-spot value for. Trading up only makes sense, in fact any draft pick is optimized, only when the appropriate value or better is obtained from that particular draft spot. Beane has hardly shown, much less proven a propensity for being able to do that. Same for trading away picks for proven players, like when we made that trade of our 1st (et al) for Diggs, everyone said it was the same thing. But was it, is it? For Diggs we paid an average of $24M/season out of the gate. Mid-1st-Round picks get an average of $4-5M/season. So it's clearly not the same. Going the free-agent route always costs more, which makes sense. But this is what GMs get paid to do, and to be able to avoid cap issues. Beane got some lattitude for "inheriting a cap mess," which was overstated. Yes, it wasn't good but it was also hardly the nightmare that many made it out to be. Either way he's had five years now to straighten that out, which is three years more than necessary and to install his own program, which under good management would not see a rehash of the same thing. But we do have the same thing, yet worse. This is largely because of Beane's overreliance upon free agency, ... because his Drafts haven't been good enough to offset the need for going to free-agency. We're not getting nearly enough impact from our "cheap labor" draft picks. Most of Beane's biggest free agents also haven't produced to standards in that way. Lotulolei was an enormous waste of money and he provided very little for that money. That's on Beane. Vernon Butler and Mario Addison were brought on, not crazy expensive, but also not cheaply, but neither really added much that JAG could have for much less. They were among our highest paid players those seasons. That's on Beane. Trent Murphy and John Brown were also among our highest paid players and same there, we didn't get much out of them that a much less expensive JAG could have gotten. That's on Beane. Quinton Jefferson and Ty Nsecke while not crazy expensive were among our most expensive OL-men. Did they perform to that standard? Hardly. That's on Beane. Von Miller was an enormous risk, high-risk high-reward kinda thing. Well, we've reaped the high-risk side of that relegating that decision to similar to the above. At 34 next year and recovering from an injury that typically takes a good year for a younger healthier person to recover from, is hardly an odds-on proposition going forward. That's also on Beane. He swung for the fences, great! But he also missed, and that shouldn't be overlooked either. And let's not overlook the reason for having had to take such a risk, it was because his drafts have come up empty as such despite putting an enormous amount of draft resources into our DL/F7. Our best players with only the exceptions of Allen, Dawkins (not Beane), and Milano (not Beane) were not drafted. That's on Beane. In short he has one good draft pick, Allen, who's carrying both his and McD's water. We'd be more of the same of "The Last 20 Years" if not worse without Allen. OK, so here we are today, arguably with a worse cap mess than Beane inherited. So why is there any discussion that he's done a great job? A "great job" as a GM is A, not allowing yourself to get to this point, B, drafting well so that you don't have to overcome your poor drafts with far more expensive free agents, and C., doing this so as to stock an entire team, not merely a flashy position or two or three. Being able to spot talent, and more particularly, hopefully find talent available when your pick is up that should have gone higher. Beane does the opposite. He makes risky picks and generally gets value of notably lower rounds from those picks, if those players even see the field at all. You've seen the posts here about how many of our draft picks are starting, but that's not a good thing, because we typically don't have above-average play at most positions. So yeah, they're starting, typically our Day 3 picks, but that's only because Beane's priciest free agents and Day 1 & 2 draft picks haven't worked out to the level of their picks or the free-agent prices of their contracts, ... per above. So now we've come full circle, we've got another cap situation, but this one is entirely of Beane's own making. So why is anyone defending him? I don't get it. He's had five seasons now to get us out of the [nominal] cap situation we were in and do his thing, and prevent us from repeating that. Not only has he failed, but apart from Allen, it's actually worse than it was. And let's be honest if we can here, the only reason why we're not discussing "The Last 25 Years" right now, is entirely because Allen's on our team and for no other reason. We wouldn't have won a single division title without him much less challenged for anything in the playoffs. This team would be below-average without Allen. No need to get into McD's contributions to this current situation, but he's hardly free of responsibility in the matter either.

Most people tend to look at the draft in a vacuum, as a bunch of individual players/positions, not as a unit in a big picture mentality. This leads to the thinking that if "oh, if we could only get [this] player who would put up huge stats we'd be great." But it's much more of a zero-sum game and if you're going to build a great TEAM, then a big-picture approach is necessary. ... despite Beane not even hitting on most of his picks for where they were taken. (i.e. Oliver's good, but hardly 9th overall good) So far we haven't seen that under McBeane. One simple example is that for every defensive player you draft, you can't draft an offensive one. Common sense but seemingly overlooked by McBeane. And again, a mere one example in a list that runs on. But it seems that Beane lacks simple understanding of the Draft in that way. Without having landed Allen, McD likely wouldn't have been extended and Beane likely wouldn't be here anymore, and we'd be talking about "The last 25 Years." The reason why we're as good as we are, after Allen, and we're no better than what we were over "The last 20 Years" without him, had more to do with free agents, not or draftees. You're much better off with a team full of above-average players at all positions and no superstars, than you are with two or three superstars and a bunch of mediocre and fair players otherwise.

I hear ya, but I don't see any way to not at least have gotten rid of Frasier by now

My biggest thing about McD is talking a good game but doing nothing in the accountability department to correct why the D plays lights out during the regular season but like ***** in the postseason. That cannot be ignored and it really doesn't have anything to do with gameday coaching experience. As to their draft picks playing, that may be true, but not one of our draft picks from Day 1 besides Allen have produced to the level of their pick while numerous players selected afterwards obviously have.

This prompted a thought as well about creating your own luck. I remember going into that last SB we were in vs. Dallas up 13-6. Obviously they came out and shellacked us 24-0 in the 2nd half. That was partially us generating our own [bad] luck with them creating their own [good] luck. After the half the Cowboys came running out of the tunnel, helmets on, fist-pumping. Our guys came out walking, helmets in hand many of them, led by Bruce who had his helmet in his hand, walking, looking down at the grass as if he was walking out to his car rather than walking out to the bench to finish the game. They asked the reporters covering the lockerrooms at the half what each coach did/said. They said that Jimmy Johnson was swearing up an experts-only expletive filled tirade and throwing chairs. Levy was apparently reading Hemmingway quotes to our players. Of the two teams, which one created positive luck and positive energy going back out onto the field. The answer is obvious, but coaching feeds into that as well. Our current coach is much like Levy in that manner, he doesn't have what it takes to compete with his peers at that level to create the kind of [luck] required to overcome his shortcomings. The same can be said for the offseason/firings. Preach accountability, but when things fail, take no action, essentially sending the message that none of it is actually your fault or the fault of those that you hired. That stuff gets noticed, by media, fans, and players alike whether they mention it or not.

Completely agree. Having the #2 ranked defense, #1 last season, then going into the playoffs as if you had the 30th-ranked defense is hardly a lack of luck, ... to your point. Not squibbing a kickoff with 13-seconds left, then not at all covering two of the most prolific players in the game today, AT ALL, is hardly a lack of luck, it more falls into the negligence, incompetence, (or idiocy, pick one's poison) category. THAT is called creating your own [bad] luck. What is luck is making the playoffs because another team not competing for the playoffs beat another team that was competing to make the playoffs, hit a 4th-and-12 for a 49-yard TD, which then paved the way for a coach being overrated. On the drafting side, we could also mention that instead of Oliver we could have had Montez Sweat or any number of other players that have performed to premier levels. Beane's day 1 & 2 drafting has hardly created luck for us.

We've had our share of breaks too. Making the playoffs in McD's first season was among them. We got in having absolutely nothing to do with our play and on the unlikeliest play of the season. We got some breaks in the "13-Seconds" game too. But when your own coaching overcomes those breaks to lose you games ... As they say, sometimes you make your own luck too. Good or bad. We seem to be masters at creating our own ***** luck. They didn't look particularly prepared in that Miami playoff game either.

Been wondering that myself, there's no way that they make that traffic situation palatable. That's gotta impact (remove) 20% or so of the total normal parking availability, possibly more. Good question, but given that the 50 YL Flag is smack in the middle of Lot 4, and given that the current stadium takes up the footprint of approximately Lot 4, I'd say that Lot 4 will be entirely unavailable. I would imagine that they can "tidy up" on Fridays before gamedays and consolidate all of the equipment in an area, but still ...

I wouldn't pay a PSL on plain principle, I don't care what the ticket is for. As it is I haven't had seasons in years and I've already transitioned to secondary market as an out-of-stater now 7-8 hours away. There's something to be said for simply overpaying for the one or two games that you really want to go to, and keep flexible in case your schedule changes for some unforeseeable reason. The proposed new prices though are higher than what the secondary market was pricing them at this past season though. As someone pointed out, that's with Allen. What happens when Allen's no longer around. People still going to pay that, particularly if we enter another "Last 20 Years" phase. Indeed. They also have a population base about 20 times what Erie County's is, split between two NFL teams, nevertheless.

Wow, that's pretty sad. Interesting that you mention groups too, while living several states south of NYS, I also organized a group of 30 to go up and see them. And to your point, there are Bills Backers groups throughout the country because the Bills diaspora has been so great because of everyone leaving NYS. You'd think that it would be a factor given that so many travel back for the games so regularly. I've read about fans on here that buy some really damn expensive seats that fly i for most if not all games. While I can't do that it's impressive and not uncommon for Bills fans. The diminishing level of support is unfortunate. It's probably because they're so popular now because of Allen, but I'm under no delusions that whenever he's done playing, whether it's in a few years due to wear-n-tear, or 10 more years, that we'll ever have a top QB again. Could happen, but it doubtfully would be Allen caliber and we all know how long it took us to go from Kelly to Allen.

We couldn't beat Cinci either, nor Miami with a 3rd-string QB. This is more than us simply beating KC during the playoffs. Good luck to us under our current circumstances.

Yeah, great point, and he's a nice guy, but I wouldn't be heartbroken if he never showed up in Buffalo again. He took us for a grand ride.

Yeah, unfortunately tucked away in the background is the battle between The Bills/Buffalo and the NFL. Then of course no one truly knows the motives of the owners. Not to start any argument over the Pegulas over what kind of owners that they are, but on one hand they (Terry) say that they'll do anything to keep the team in Buffalo, and OTOH they (Kim) says openly that they don't have money for a stadium because they have a lifestyle to maintain, then in the midst of stadium negotiations they buy a brand new yacht for nearly $100M with annual operating costs averaging more than the Community Bargaining Agreement was. So which is it. Then we have the NFL which if it had its way would price the majority of current Bills STHs out buying them, and their hoity toity standards for stadiums. So do Kim & Terry differ on it? Are they being pulled by the NFL, or are they aligned with the League? Then of course there's the fan base, many of us that attended the "90's era games" are older now and don't particularly want to sit in the cold weather every time, been there done that. But being all warm, cozy, with lots of amenities comes with a price, a dome an even bigger price. It can't be easy trying to navigate the whole thing, they'll never make everyone happy, not even close, but IMO the key is to not price people out of going and that's a significant issue in Buffalo. While we may be the second-smallest market in the league from a population perspective, we are easily the smallest in the league from a business/financial aspect. So we'll never be like those stadiums that you mention, unfortunately. As for me, I just buy tix to the game(s) I want to go to now. Sure, they cost more on the secondary market, but there's also no risk and I enjoy sitting in different places. For the Miami regular season game, 30 YL lower bowl, it was great. Last game I went to prior to that up in the club level. And LOL, it was in the high 30s temp wise, but they had the heaters on and we were roasting, we were in T-shirts and perfectly comfy. I only bought those tix because someone we were connected to was selling them at face value, otherwise we wouldn't have minded being out in the elements for that one. Anyway, my point was that there are obviously lot dynamics involved, the least of which is not the economic status of the region.