This is not a rebuild, folks...

[JohnC]

Sure... But that "fill the hole" philosophy that contributed to Whaleys failure is exactly what McDermott just did in the draft with his first few picks....

You are making a generalization off of one draft. Isn't that judgment not only a bit premature but also presumptuous? Other than my preference for selecting a qb in the first round I can fairly say that the first three picks were more than reasonable picks. If the same three picks fill holes, then so what? What is the complaint? In this draft there was a trade down to acquire more picks. That in itself was a change. I'm also aware that there was also a trade up but if if was for a player they liked a lot I can't condemn them for acting on a strong conviction..

 

Is anyone going to disagree with our football operation has been completely overhauled? Is anyone going to disagree that there is a greater coherency between the front office and coaching staff? I'm not jumping to the conclusion that this organization is now in a state of nirvana. But from what I do see is an organization that is more coherent and in sync. Only time will tell whether those changes will be reflected by better play on the field. In general, I'm more encouraged than not.

[Shaw66]

 

Firing Rex was hardly a bold move........it was unanimous that he had to go and that he was an awful hire who made Pegula look like a complete idiot by agreeing to hire the largest staff in the league and THEN take on Rob Ryan after it was already clear that Rex himself was lax in his duties. Who hires a slacking employees brother to help him slack more?

 

And what has "bright young" McDermott accomplished in a decade of coordinating defenses?

 

Like I said.......once fired, once lost a Super Bowl. Not sure how the distinguishes him from Greggo other than Greggo hadn't been fired.

 

If you feel the need to fluff the situation that's fine........but it is as I say..........owner acted like a douche.......then hired and gave a great deal of authority to a nobody coach who hired some cronies to help him do battle in division with the greatest coach of all-time......slow clap.......very impressive Terry P.

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?

[Guest NeckBeard]

Sure... But that "fill the hole" philosophy that contributed to Whaleys failure is exactly what McDermott just did in the draft with his first few picks....

 

We shall see. This org structure is something new for a change, and I embrace it. Maybe it will work. Maybe it won't. Plus, one has to assume that every system is going to require specific new talent via the draft. We have no idea if these picks were to augment existing talent, and to fill holes for what will end up on the field, or if it's yet another lost draft. The draft made sense to me in and of itself, but you can't create a benchmark for success until they start playing real games, right?

 

After the failed HC Greggg and Donahoe experiment, this orig made "meh" decisions for years, and then it totally shot itself in the foot when it hired Rex, and probably also when it retained DW for that long (and I actually was more in the pro DW lot than not), you had to wonder what the master plan for this organization and team would be. The next 2 to 3 years are going to be very interesting. I am sure of that, win or lose.

Edited May 19, 2017 by NeckBeard

[BringBackOrton]

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?

Are you arguing the Pegulas didn't hire that dysfunctional coach and orchestrate their own fate?

 

Maybe they rectified it. Maybe they didn't. But you know what the best thing to do about mistakes is? Don't make them.

[Guest NeckBeard]

Are you arguing the Pegulas didn't hire that dysfunctional coach and orchestrate their own fate?

 

Maybe they rectified it. Maybe they didn't. But you know what the best thing to do about mistakes is? Don't make them.

 

So by your scale, nobody ever makes mistakes? Think of a time when you'd thought something was a great idea, until it turned out to be the exact opposite. No matter how much I'd hated the idea of Rex coaching the Bills, I suspect that was the case. If you go to a doctor who's rooster sure about curing your cancer, you buy into that message, because you want to believe that you will be cured; but if it doesn't work out, you have to take a step back.

[Thurman#1]

t

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.

 

"Rewrote." You mean like Tyrod came to the Bills and said, "Listen, I know you're thrilled to pay the $30.5 mill guarantee if I'm on the roster in March 2017 and the $40 mill guarantee if I'm on the roster in March 2018, I know you guys are champing at the bit to pay that, but I've re-written my contract as I just feel you'd be paying me too much." Like that?

 

He didn't re-write his contract, he re-negotiated with the Bills.

 

The Bills went to him, nobody says differently. And a ton of people re-negotiate their salary down in that kind of situation, especially if there isn't an obvious better option.

 

Who took a pay cut? Off the top of my head, Kyle Williams. This year. He agreed to take money that was already on his contract and turn it into incentives for snaps. He didn’t do that because it was his most ardent desire. He did it because the Bills wanted it and likely insisted.

 

https://www.profootballrumors.com/2016/03/bills-kyle-williams-takes-pay-cut

 

As I just cruise through google, I find Shane Vereen taking a pay cut and getting incentives instead. Brent Celek. Brian Robison, Justin Bethel.

 

Lessee, Peyton Manning took a pay cut in 2015, was reported to be “irked” but accepted it, apparently negotiating for some or all of that to be able to be made up in incentives.

 

Amendola’s accepting a cut from around $6 mill in 2017 to around $1.6 mill. And that’s after the huge pay cut he took last year.

 

Connor Barwin said he’d be willing to take a pay cut to stay in Philly. Ended up being cut instead, apparently because he and the Eagles disagreed on how large the cut should be.

 

I could go on.

 

 

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?

 

That's not different. That's what happened. Now, Tyrod's guys may have negotiated for a few things in exchange for taking that big pay cut and the big cut in guarantee, and the way the Bills now have an extremely easy way to cut him after the 2017 season where it would have been massively difficult to do so in the original deal.

 

That happens all the time that the team gives a little something back, incentives or whatever. May well have happened here. And Tyrod's side may have asked for a shorter term. Most likely the Bills would rather have kept him on the hook for the later non-guaranteed part of the contract to maintain control and more flexibility, but giving the later years of the contract up probably wasn't a major problem for the Bills at all.

 

 

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.

 

 

Sure, sign the guy - if he agrees to reasonable payment terms - and keep looking. Agreed.

 

A bridge QB, in other words.

 

And sure, with every bridge QB, you hope he improves, even if you know it's very unlikely. Hell, you hope every guy on your team becomes All-Pro but you don't expect it.

 

But no, you certainly do decide your starter this year has to go if he won't accept reasonable compensation. Most likely it happened in SF with Kaepernick. He's probably the best QB they've had on that team since Alex Smith, but his contract was insane for the performance he gives. Adrian Peterson would be the best RB on the Vikings this year but he's not there because of the money. Mangold's the best center the Jets have but he wasn't worth $9 mill so he's gone. The Bills clearly thought Jairus Byrd was their best option at safety, as they offered him around $8 mill per year to stay. But they didn't think he was worth what he wanted so even though he was the best guy they had he was gone.

 

Like guys taking pay cuts when their other option is being cut, this happens all the time, that teams cut guys who are their starter when they aren't worth the money they're going to get. Unless that guy accepts a salary cut, of course.

Edited May 19, 2017 by Thurman#1

[reddogblitz]

These hires are getting praised around the NFL. I'm sure Pegula is paying them well. Looks better than any FO this past century.

It's called marketing.

 

I hope these guys are great. We'll know if they are when the wins start rolling in. If they don't, then these boys aren't so good after all.

[jumbalaya]

This roster is overrated. The defense of 2014 is dead and buried. It ain't coming back with McDermott in 2017.

Overrated? This roster sucks how can it be overrated?

[kota]

its a rebuild anytime you change coaches.

[BringBackOrton]

Overrated? This roster sucks how can it be overrated?

I guess it depends on who you ask.

[BADOLBILZ]

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?

 

If you really seek an answer to that last question then refer back to my earlier posts in this thread. Self explanatory.

 

And btw, Rex wasn't presented to them........they HIRED him. Seriously people, y'all are shameless with the bullsh*t.

 

Like I said, if it makes you feel better to lie to yourselves about the dysfunction then by all means do........just don't argue against the more sensible conclusions with nonsense and lies of omission and expect me to view it from your fantasy realm.

 

It's just not that important to me that I need to lie about it.

 

Terry P has been a lousy steward of the on-field/on-ice product.......it's not debatable.......but we can only hope that he either gets a lot better or hands over the reigns to someone more skilled and steps aside.

[JM2009]

It's what most fans here do every offseason.

 

And then the ones who argue against their flawed logic get flamed... And of course the ones being flamed turn out to be right when the actual games are played.

Pretty much, but I like the new hirings.

[JohnC]

 

If you really seek an answer to that last question then refer back to my earlier posts in this thread. Self explanatory.

 

And btw, Rex wasn't presented to them........they HIRED him. Seriously people, y'all are shameless with the bullsh*t.

 

Like I said, if it makes you feel better to lie to yourselves about the dysfunction then by all means do........just don't argue against the more sensible conclusions with nonsense and lies of omission and expect me to view it from your fantasy realm.

 

It's just not that important to me that I need to lie about it.

 

Terry P has been a lousy steward of the on-field/on-ice product.......it's not debatable.......but we can only hope that he either gets a lot better or hands over the reigns to someone more skilled and steps aside.

With respect to the highlighted segment who is debating otherwise. The owners didn't end the dysfunction in the organization after they took over, they increased it, especially with their peculiar Rex hire. It was chaos wrapped over with more chaos. Now you are proclaiming that house fire is a house on fire and making it out as if it is an original discovery. It' not. It's known to all who aren't indoctrinated zealots.

 

Shaw66's list of post Rex moves are all sensible. The coaching and front office hires all fall in the category of being good hires.

they all fall comfortably within the range of being conventional transactions. What is there to criticize? Do you want the owners to wear the Scarlet Letter on their chest for the rest of their lives because of their gross ineptitude when they first took over as owners?

 

Pointing out the missteps that the Pegulas have made is not a challenging task because most of us are already aware of them. It's seems that any current transaction that is made by them is now referenced and re-framed by you by their bumbling history. That not only makes no sense but also adds nothing new to the discussion.

 

I'm not a fawning fan of this organization. Contrary to most desperate optimists I believe that it is going to take at a minimum three years to untangle the mess that has accrued during the not so long takeover by the new owners. I still have qualms over empowering the wrestling coach with so much authority so soom. But what I am not going to do is to judge everything that is now being done and let it be colored by what has gone on in the past. That not only makes no sense and is unfair but it is also unadulterated foolishness.

[hondo in seattle]

It's what most fans here do every offseason.

 

And then the ones who argue against their flawed logic get flamed... And of course the ones being flamed turn out to be right when the actual games are played.

 

 

The pessimists have been basking - if pessimists can bask - in their being right for so long.

 

This is the Sully rule: criticize everything the Bills do and you''re likely to be proven right. Never mind that the reasons why the Bills lose more than win are not the ones you've identified.

 

When it comes to the Bills, optimists traditionally look foolish and pessimist appear to be realists.

 

As an optimist, I believe we're going to break with that tradition.

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

The pessimists have been basking - if pessimists can bask - in their being right for so long.

 

This is the Sully rule: criticize everything the Bills do and you''re likely to be proven right. Never mind that the reasons why the Bills lose more than win are not the ones you've identified.

 

When it comes to the Bills, optimists traditionally look foolish and pessimist appear to be realists.

 

As an optimist, I believe we're going to break with that tradition.

Good Post! The devil is in the details. Some on here think they are right because they predict death for everyone eventually.

[teef]

 

 

The pessimists have been basking - if pessimists can bask - in their being right for so long.

 

This is the Sully rule: criticize everything the Bills do and you''re likely to be proven right. Never mind that the reasons why the Bills lose more than win are not the ones you've identified.

 

When it comes to the Bills, optimists traditionally look foolish and pessimist appear to be realists.

 

As an optimist, I believe we're going to break with that tradition.

this is exactly what it is. people are already trying to show how right they are if this season/staff fails. in reality, i'm pretty sure most on here don't expect the playoffs, but are excited about the change because it hopefully means something new.

 

i have zero problem with someone being very down on this team...it's well deserved. i do have a problem if it completely disallows someone from having a reasonable conversation because 17 years. it's just lazy.

[JohnC]

 

 

The pessimists have been basking - if pessimists can bask - in their being right for so long.

 

This is the Sully rule: criticize everything the Bills do and you''re likely to be proven right. Never mind that the reasons why the Bills lose more than win are not the ones you've identified.

 

When it comes to the Bills, optimists traditionally look foolish and pessimist appear to be realists.

 

As an optimist, I believe we're going to break with that tradition.

Creating a paradigm of optimists vs pessimists is not only foolish, it is childish. Pointing out bad coaching hires is not being pessimistic, it is pointing out the obvious. Pointing out bad picks or bad contracts is not being pessimistic it is pointing out the facts. The Bills have been bad for more than a generation. Your response is to blame the critical observers. That's not only childish but it is simply weird. You criticize Sullivan for not accurately getting the reasons right why this woebegone franchise continues to lose year after year, and then act as if not being precise in one's criticism is a justification for historical failure. That not only makes no sense but it is odd reasoning. Losing is losing. Especially when it rises to historical failure why be bothered by the precision of the complaints when the problems are so pervasive.

 

The blame the fans mentality for such institutional failure is simply dumb. It makes no sense. It's like blaming the owners of a burglarized house because their locks were inadequate. Let's get real here!

[teef]

Creating a paradigm of optimists vs pessimists is not only foolish, it is childish. Pointing out bad coaching hires is not being pessimistic, it is pointing out the obvious. Pointing out bad picks or bad contracts is not being pessimistic it is pointing out the facts. The Bills have been bad for more than a generation. Your response is to blame the critical observers. That's not only childish but it is simply weird. You criticize Sullivan for not accurately getting the reasons right why this woebegone franchise continues to lose year after year, and then act as if not being precise in one's criticism is a justification for historical failure. That not only makes no sense but it is odd reasoning. Losing is losing. Especially when it rises to historical failure why be bothered by the precision of the complaints when the problems are so pervasive.

 

The blame the fans mentality for such institutional failure is simply dumb. It makes no sense. It's like blaming the owners of a burglarized house because their locks were inadequate. Let's get real here!

how does someone know a coaching hire or a pick is bad right when it happens?

[JohnC]

how does someone know a coaching hire or a pick is bad right when it happens?

When you hire an undisciplined fool coach like Rex who was just fired from his last job where the team he departed from was in shambles it becomes clear that it was not only a bad hire but it was a weird hire. This was an incompetent coach who in his short stint sent this franchise back by years. This was a predictable mistake.

[teef]

When you hire an undisciplined fool coach like Rex who was just fired from his last job where the team he departed from was in shambles it becomes clear that it was not only a bad hire but it was a weird hire. This was an incompetent coach who in his short stint sent this franchise back by years. This was a predictable mistake.

ah. i just thought you meant in general. when referring to rex, i can't argue with that.