Cash

Listening to his response to "were you aware of the playoff implications of a tie" and yikes - this guy thinks he's the smartest man who's ever lived.

I was late to the game, so I missed the first drive and maybe the second as well. Just about every pass I saw was what I'd call bad but catchable. I.e., poorly placed, but close enough that the receiver could still get his hands on it to make a medium-to-hard catch. In normal conditions, I'd fault the receiver at that point. In those conditions, no fault on either end.

Well you obviously weren't at the same bar I was. Pagano is terrible - if you're willing to pass the ball multiple times on that last drive (stopping the clock), then you have to commit to going for it every 4th down. Even if you want to play for the tie, you should be running the ball. We never would've had a chance if Pagano didn't make the exact worst possible combo of decisions.

I don't believe we'll make the playoffs. But I won't give up hope until we're mathematically eliminated.

If Taylor's not healthy, Peterman. If Taylor is healthy, then he should start as long as we're mathematically alive for the playoffs.

I disagree with this. Any NFL OC should be able to excel with "good ingredients". But due to the salary cap, it's nearly impossible to consistently have a high talent level year after year. If you're saying that Rico isn't so amazingly terrible that he should be fired immediately, I guess I agree. But I'd still like to see an upgrade in the offseason. Hitting the bare minimum of NFL coaching ability isn't good enough. And I feel like it's easier to find and retain good coaches than it is good players.

Obviously if the players execute at a very high level, they'll have some success regardless of the coach/scheme. I don't think Dennison is so bad that he can singlehandedly torpedo our offense, but I also don't think (so far) that he's doing anything to help it. Seems like we need high-end talent across the board to have a good offense in this scheme. Whereas Roman's scheme (and Lynn's on-the-fly adaptation of it) had a genuinely positive impact on the run game, especially in terms of using Taylor's mobility to free up space for the RBs. One other point: Part of a coach's job is to scheme, gameplan, call plays, etc. But an equally large (larger?) part of it is coaching players. I.e., getting the players to play well in the scheme. There's a lot to that - teaching, motivation, understanding players' strengths and weaknesses, plus plain old management like in a regular business. When one player isn't executing, that usually means there's something wrong with him (injury, off-field issue, lack of talent) and he needs to go. When all the players aren't executing, that's indicative of a coaching issue. I would be very into that.

Finally, a front office that wants to build a winning organization! Why didn't any of the previous regimes think of that? If it works out, great. But literally every coaching staff in the history of the NFL has tried to build a winning organization and culture. I think the "how" is a pretty important factor. And the only thing McBeane have offered into how it's done - i.e., what "the process" actually is - is that they want to collect guys who fit into a winning culture. Cool. But that's basically just saying, "I want to bring in my guys." Which, again, is what most new coaches/GMs do. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. I'll believe it's working out when it actually happens.

I'm in the 8.3% of people (so far) who said bad move. We'll see - hopefully I'm wrong. For the record, I'm only considering this season/this year's team. It's possible that Peterman is the worst QB since Jeff Tuel and we lose out, but that leads to some franchise savior QB in the draft or whatever. But I choose to hold McDermott accountable to his stated rationale, which is to improve the team now, and I don't think it will. Again, I'll be happy if I'm wrong on this one. Tyrod's play against the Saints was indefensible, and I won't try to defend it. He was terrible. However, I thought he was one of the very few Bills who actually played well against the Jets, and I don't really understand why 2 straight total team collapses seem to be 100% the fault of the QB? Is Peterman going to fix the lack of a pass rush, the inability to stop the run, or the inability of the O-line to run block? Could any QB fix those? Jerry Hughes, Shaq Lawson, Kyle Williams, and Adolphus Washington have been invisible for weeks. If McDermott thinks this team is so much better than 5 wins, where's the accountability for them?

Very good article by Sal. Rico still has the opportunity to prove himself somewhat, but I've generally not liked what I've seen so far. Every week, @yardsperpass tweets gifs of plays from that week's game. Typically he includes at least 1-2 outside zone runs (the staple of Rico's run game) that fail miserably because the weak side of the O-line can't block it effectively. We stink at those, and we have all season and preseason. And it's always for the same reason - the weakside misses their cut blocks and fails to get their defenders on the ground. And yet, we keep going back to them over and over. Cover1.net recently had an article showing how much more predictable the offense has gotten this year compared to the last 2 (we almost always pass out of the shotgun and run under center), which also went into how vanilla the pass game has been. Maybe the lack of NFL-level complexity in our pass plays is a Tyrod Taylor problem, or maybe it's a Dennison problem. But the predictability is 100% on Rico, and it's troubling. That quote regarding the Tolbert low-speed option is particularly damning. It suggests that Rico basically has no idea what's going on. He seems like the type who will keep making the same terrible decisions over and over and be forever stunned that they don't work out. Confidence is great, but at some point it needs to correspond to reality.

Keep in mind that at home, we beat the Jets by 9 in a game that was relatively close most of the time. It's not like the Bills were up 20 most of the game and the Jets just scored a bunch in garbage time - that game wasn't over until pretty late. And teams generally play better at home and worse on the road. If we're 9 points better than the Jets at home, we're probably only 3 points better than them on the road. And that's a very slim margin to count on a win. Having said that, I'm still basically waiting for the other shoe to drop on this season, and losing tonight would be a very classic Bills way to kick that off. This is the first of 3 winnable but not easy games (@NYJ, Saints, @Chargers), followed by 2 "if we win it's a big upset" games (@KC, Patriots). If we don't win at least 2 of the first 3, we'll need to seriously overperform in the harder games to have a shot at the playoffs. But upsets do happen.

Oh no. That's the kiss of death. I am seriously very worried about this game now.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2017-nfl-predictions/ They predict 9.6-6.4. I.e., 10-6 is slightly more likely than 9-7, but those are the two most likely outcomes. Yes, on a game-by-game basis, 538 has us favored in 6 of our 9 remaining games, but favored at these percentages: 59% 54% 55% 80% 70% If those percentages are right, the odds of us winning all 6 of those games would be 9.8%. Of course, if we continue to win games, our rating will go up, and so will the odds of future wins.

I agree that it should. As of a couple of years ago, it didn't for these purposes. Not sure if that's changed. To my knowledge, only the "primary market" is guaranteed the game on local TV, whereas Rochester is considered a "secondary market".

That would be great! I'm very worried about it - much like the Bengals game, this has all the makings of a traditional Billsy loss. I've seen a TON of posters talking up the FO this week by saying we "might start 5-2". Usually the team gets real disappointing right around when the fans start taking wins for granted. (Note: I don't think it's cause and effect, just that the team tends to have short bursts of success just long enough to get fans fired up.) Everyone seems to have forgotten that we were 4-2 last year, 5-2 under Gailey, 5-1 under Jauron... I'll believe we're good when we've won 10 games, not before.

I agree with both of you. Another factor beyond the loss of "mentoring Sammy" may have been simple positional math: the Bills traded away a guy who mostly plays on the outside and stretches the field, and traded for a slot/possession receiver. Boldin's been at the point for a couple years where he can really only play in the slot any more. Once it was clear that the team would need him to play outside or not at all, he probably realized there wasn't much he could do to help the team.

I agree with this. I disagree with this. John Brown is 27 - in his prime, but unlikely to get much better than where he is now. His recent history: 2016: 15 games, 39 catches on 72 targets, 517 yards, 2 TDs, long of 30. 2017: 5 games (out of 7), 13 catches on 32 targets, 174 yards, 2 TDs, long of 31. Last year he struggled heavily in part due to his sickle-cell anemia, which is a genetic disorder that will never go away. I don't think he'll ever again be the guy he was in 2015 (1,003 yards, 7 TDs) or even his rookie year (696 yards, 5 TDs). Add in the expiring contract and I don't think this is a guy who merits more than a 7th-round pick. I'd be much more into trading for Martavis Bryant, who could really move the needle for a team IF he can put it all together and stay on the field.

Given that Banyard has been a healthy scratch in every game, keeping him over Williams still doesn't make much sense to me. Banyard isn't dressing for the games, so he's not exactly helping the special teams. I thought Banyard looked decent as a runner in preseason, but Williams looked a little better in my opinion. Add in two more factors and it becomes very puzzling: 1.) Banyard is 28 and likely getting worse, while Williams is 23 and likely getting better. 2.) Banyard is on a 1-year deal, while Williams was under contract though 2019 at essentially the minimum. If either one broke out, big big advantage to having extra years on the deal. I'm not too worked up about it, but I still don't agree with the decision. I'm with the majority in this thread - Tolbert belongs on the team but just isn't good enough to be the primary backup. If anything happens to Shady, we're pretty well boned. I like the way the team is playing, so credit to McDermott on that, but if we want to be good for real, we need a serious talent infusion at the skill positions next year. Maybe some of that will be Zay Jones turning into a real boy, but that's far from enough. Even if Mathews is re-signed, we'll probably need 1-2 quality receivers. Shady still has it, but he won't last forever, and there's really nothing behind him. And Clay's knee will always make him a question mark.

Based on that description, I had to click on that link, and it didn't disappoint. No need for sound - the look on McDermott's face said enough. They might as well call it "Contractually Obligated Coffee With the Coach". Could we get some Bills-blue full body paint for the game?

I think you probably hit the nail on the head with your line that McDermott "believes in process over talent." And that worries me. Because while I think that's true to some extent, I worry that McDermott thinks that if everyone fully believes in wrestling mats and camo hats, it will turn Ramon Humber into Lavonte David. The wrong culture/leadership can ruin even the most talented team. But even the best possible process needs a certain level of talent to work out. My concern is that, if the team does terribly this year, it will be even harder next year to get guys to "buy in". No one wants to hop on board a sinking ship. On the flip side, if the team looks good this year, it'll be easier to get guys to buy in next year, and success can breed success. The other thing that concerns me is that this roster has basically no young talent to build around. This year's draft picks, sure, but every team has a full draft class right now - that's no advantage for us. Most of our younger players are either terrible, unproven, or in the last year of their contract. I guess our "young core" would be next year's draft, but only if we don't package those picks to move up for a QB. (I hope we don't.) In some ways, it seems to me like we're in Year Zero of a rebuild. I think you probably hit the nail on the head with your line that McDermott "believes in process over talent." And that worries me. Because while I think that's true to some extent, I worry that McDermott thinks that if everyone fully believes in wrestling mats and camo hats, it will turn Ramon Humber into Lavonte David. The wrong culture/leadership can ruin even the most talented team. But even the best possible process needs a certain level of talent to work out.

Totally agree. Surprising that they went with the same (or very similar) call both times. The TD runs looks more like off-tackle, which is where the RB can provide more value IMO. Great job by the Chiefs' D. They clogged the A gaps to prevent the sneak, and then the Patriots just ran directly into the clogged area. Still, you'd expect any O-line to let the RB get to the line of scrimmage and fall forward. Agree with this as well. Beast Mode is about the only guy I can think of who might've picked up those first downs. I think he got one for us in his first ever game, if I recall correctly. Lost his hat on the play.

Honest question: do you think you know what that definitive idea is? If so, what is it? What is the process? Great post! This is by far the most plausible explanation I've seen for what the Bills' plan actually is. Hopefully it works out, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Something like a 42-3 win, with the offense moving the ball and scoring at will, would make me really re-think things. The Jets are really, really bad overall, but I think they'll still have at least a pretty good D this year, even without Sheldon Richardson. And I'm very worried about our O. So if we look like worldbeaters, I'll feel like maybe there's something there, even though it's "just the Jets". Defensively, there is absolutely nothing the Bills can do to raise my expectations. They could stop every play for a loss and/or force a turnover every play and it wouldn't move the needle at all. Now, if the Jets come out and score 20+ or put up like 400 yards of offense, I'll actually get really worried about our D. I expect us to win something like a 13-7 game. Maybe a long Bilal Powell run is the only offensive touchdown.

Companies do typically have a public Vision Statement and Mission Statement, which detail broadly what they want to do and how they want to do it. To me, that's analogous to "the process", except that companies actually write a mission statement. McDermott is essentially telling everyone to trust his mission statement, but he hasn't (to my knowledge) actually written one. The stuff you're referring to would be more analogous to valuable players under contract or gameplans. If McDermott leads us to perennial success, I won't care that he's a pile of nothing, but until I see results, I'll be skeptical.

Good article by Rodak - pretty good to see our disparate moves laid out like that. I don't think the Bills are tanking. But I'm not sure what they are doing. (Side note: a lot of posters and media have said that the Bills have a plan, but no one's ever spelled out what the plan is, especially not the Bills. I still want to know what "the process" actually is.) Usually when a team is rebuilding, they cut expensive older players and bring in a ton of young players. The Bills haven't done that yet. They have the 3rd or 4th oldest team in the NFL (Rodak's article sez 4th oldest starting lineup; I've seen 3rd oldest roster elsewhere) - that usually would suggest a team built to win now without worrying about the future. Most of the players they've recently gotten rid of were 25 or under - these are guys that generally get better in the next couple years. I think some of those (Darby, Ragland) were mostly about scheme fit, but it's still a little odd to see a 32-year-old kicker signed, a 31-year-old center extended (especially after matching an offer sheet for his young backup), etc. Move-by-move, I don't have a lot of problems with what the Bills have done. I think letting Gilmore and Woods walk were both correct decisions. I think the Darby trade was a nice haul for a guy who doesn't really fit your system. I don't really like the Watkins trade, but intellectually I think it was probably the right call. But so far, the individual moves don't really look like part of a greater plan to me. If you know you're going to let 2 talented starters walk in free agency, then maybe wait a year to go splurging on kickers and terrible OGs, so you can get a bonus 3rd and 4th round pick next year. We'll see. Barring a historically embarrassing performance, I do think that Beane/McDermott should be given 4+ years to try to make this work. I'm sick of losing talent because it doesn't fit the scheme, or because a guy "didn't buy in". Give McBeane's vision (if they have one, beyond saying "the process" a lot) time to succeed or fail on its own merit.