Cash

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.

I do think that there's cases of outright incompetence - Matt Millen comes to mind - but once your scouts/GM hit a certain level of quality, I wonder if it basically just tops out? The analytics on this are far from perfect, but the ones I've seen suggest that maybe no one really has a long-term scouting advantage, and "great drafters" are a combination of luck and having a lot of high picks. I wonder if there's just X% uncertainty in player scouting, and the best you can get is 100-X% sure of anyone? Is it actually possible to know before the draft whether Sammy Watkins or Odell Beckham will be better, or can you just guess right? Anecdotal evidence: Donahoe and Modrak had amazing drafts in Pittsburgh for while, then the quality fell off once Modrak left. Must be that Modrak was the great talent evaluator. But Donahoe's first draft with the Bills was by far his best, and they sharply fell off once Modrak joined him in Buffalo the following year. Did Modrak lose his ability to scout, or was it that Donahoe/Modrak got lucky with a few drafts and unlucky with a few others?

Any idea why the Bills dropped from 3.7 to 3.5 in the "current stadium" list? Could be that Barnwell messed up, I think. Or maybe he's counting some of the renovations as a "new stadium"? Anyway, pretty interesting read - thanks for posting!

Same here. Plus, $8mil/year for a C in his 30s seems like a lot - does anyone think he would've gotten that much as a FA? I think there's 2 main possibilities for what the Bills are doing: 1.) They're acting haphazardly with no real plan 2.) They're trying to sell tickets/keep the team "competitive" in the short term, even though they are mostly building for the long term. Still doesn't explain why you'd give market value contracts to guys like Hauschka and Wood, but does explain why you'd trade Watkins and Darby. They presumably think that Watkins isn't worth the money he'll get in the market, so they're getting something for him rather than letting him walk for nothing. Darby doesn't seem like a fit for the scheme, so not part of the long-term team building vision. Best to get something of value for him while you can. I'm leaning more towards #1 so far, but my mind isn't made up. I also don't understand why you bring back Tyrod only to put him in an offense that downplays all of his strengths and emphasizes all of his weaknesses. There are much cheaper ways to get terrible QB play.

I agree with all of this, to an extent. (Given that McDermott and Beane worked together in Carolina, and there were tons of reports that Beane would be the guy to replace Whaley, I think they're probably more in sync than most of the GM/HC combos we've had.) I firmly believe that the Bills won't cut enough qualifying free agents to earn any comp picks next year. But if they do, then yes - clearly Beane's hire had an impact on the FO's overall thinking.

That is true. But I've read about a dozen articles following Beane's hiring about how in lockstep Beane/McDermott/the whole FO is, and how the Bills as an organization finally have a common vision that everyone is working towards. So if the argument is, "nothing that happened pre-Beane can be held against the current FO", I'm not buying it.

Fair point - it's possible that the FO has decided to take a different tack. But if so, it's still concerning that they went through the entire FA period with a "win now with lots of budget veterans" mindset before pivoting. Even at the time, it made no sense. You probably couldn't trade our entire free agent class for a 3rd and 4th round pick, and certainly couldn't get either of those for combined haul of Ducasse, Davis, Holmes, and Hauschka. Thus far, only Hauschka looks like a decent signing, but I don't see how that helps us. If the FO is throwing in the towel on this season, do we really want a reliable kicker? Isn't it better for the "process" to lose that 13-10 game instead of win it? I'm not really sure what McDermott's "process" is, but I won't be on board with it until it leads to wins.

Philly Brown Andre Holmes Zay Jones Jordan Matthews Brandon Tate Walt Powell Yikes.

I'll take that bet. If they really were forward-thinking enough to care about comp picks, why would they sign Hauschka? He's 32 now. Are we planning on him being our kicker in 3 years when the team is actually rebuilt?

I voted for one of the yes options, but I don't have a ton of confidence. I guess it depends on how you define "the future". If it means will they both still be here through the 2019 season, I say yes with confidence. 2021? Maybe, but I can't be so sure any more. I'm not convinced that they will right the ship, although I do think they should get a fair (4 years maybe?) chance to try. A lot of fans and media are praising them currently, saying the Bills finally have a clear plan. We're not accustomed as fans to seeing a plan from the Bills' front office, so that would be great if it's true. And maybe it is, but I'm still not convinced. If you're building for the future and looking to accumulate picks, I don't see why you bring back TT on essentially a 1-year deal. I don't see why you sign a bunch of middling free agents to nullify potential 3rd and 4th round comp picks. And I especially don't see why one of those free agents is a 32-year-old kicker. If we're focused on the future and rebuilding, who cares if we lose a couple games due to missed FGs? Do we think the kicker needs a year or two to "gel" with the team before he can be good? Now, if those free agents turn out to be great signings, then great! That's worth forgoing the comp picks for. But from all the camp reports I've read, Ducasse is as bad as most of us thought, and Andre Holmes has been one of the worst WRs in camp. And I don't care if Hauschka makes every kick this year - I'd rather have a 3rd round pick in 2018 and a random kicker. And DiMarco is a fullback - probably the least impactful position in the modern NFL.

Who on the Bills' current roster do you see as likely being a quality starter for the Bills in 2019 or 2020? There's certainly more that could be, but here's the ones I think are likely (current age in parentheses): DT Marcell Dareus (27) FB Patrick DiMarco (28) OT Cordy Glenn (27) S Micah Hyde (26) DE Shaq Lawson (23) CB Tre'Davious White (22) Honorable mention: Zay Jones, whom I see as about a 50/50 prospect. I'm not sure where I'm going with this. Just got to thinking about it after we traded away 2 players that would've been on the list 6 months ago. (Once we declined Sammy's option, it became much less likely he'd still be on the team in 2019.) I guess if I have a takeaway, it's that maybe they should use all those high picks next year to add more foundational players, rather than spend them trading up for a QB.

Precisely. What reason have they given me to trust them? So no, I don't trust them. I also don't actively distrust them - yet.

Why would you sign a 32-year-old kicker to a big $$ deal if you're tanking?!?!?! And why would you redo Taylor's contract instead of just cutting him before the extension kicked in? I don't know if this team is bad at tanking, or so bad at trying to win that it just looks like they're tanking. Having said that, I do think they got good value in the Darby trade. Mathews doesn't suck, and neither does a 3rd round pick.