[Vague Title]You don't know squat

[Thurman#1]

10 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I agree.  

 

What goes on is so much more complicated than we understand, and what they evaluate is so much beyond what we do that what we think is just interesting opinions.   Uninformed opinions, compared to what the pro front office people actually do.  

 

Here's a point I've discussed nowhere, at least not recently.  (I've been away from the board for a day, so maybe it's somewhere).   Do you know how much dead cap space the Bills have?  $35 million, twice as much as the second worst dead cap space.  All the important components of that total are Dareus, Taylor and Glenn.  I find that fact interesting.

 

It means this really is a total rebuild.  McCoy, Hughes, Williams, Incognito is about all that are left.  A total rebuild takes time.  And it's done through the draft.   

 

What does that mean?   It means Beane's not going to be in a hurry to package a lot of picks to move up, because picks is all he has to rebuild with.   He can't sign anyone else in free agency without cutting or trading more of his core of players.   He COULD trade up, but that means that he's building in free agency next year.   He's said repeatedly he likes building through the draft, not free agency.  

 

And, of course, one has to ask whether, given the dead cap problem, it made sense to dump Dareus.  I'm sure their answer would be that they'd seen enough of Dareus to conclude that he probably never would conform to their program.   

 

McCarron?  I don't think McCarron has a future, but what do I know?   I don't know anything that Saban told Daboll about McCarron.  I don't know what the Bills' film review tells them about McCarron.   I just don't know.

 

I loved the title on a thread today, something about this being a good QB year because of the NUMBER of prospects, not because any are clearly great.   I don't know what the Bills think about these guys.   

 

So for me to get upset about the Bills trading up further or not trading up, etc. etc. doesn't make any sense to me.   All we can do and wait and see what the people who know a lot more that we know decide to do.  

 

 

 

 

It's not a total rebuild. I wish it were and that it had happened last year, but it's not.

 

If it were, they'd cut/trade McCoy. They wouldn't have re-signed Kyle Williams. They'd cut/trade Incognito. Total rebuilds essentially mean an acceptance that you're going to suck for an absolute minimum of two years and probably three. You dump ALL your guys over 29 or 30 because by the time you're any good they'll be too old.

 

This isn't a total rebuild. It just isn't. If they had been going to do that, they'd have done it last year and got a high pick this year in the QB-rich draft.

 

But yeah, it's a partial rebuild. One that started last year. 

 

And this in no way means they aren't going to trade up. A lot of the point of rebuilds - most especially total rebuilds but really all rebuilds - is to get to a place where you can get your franchise QB. Yes, they're going to rebuild primarily though not entirely through the draft, not because it's a rebuild but because they've said from minute one that that's their philosophy. But trading up for a QB absolutely is building through the draft. The most important part of building through the draft if you haven't got a franchise QB on the roster. 

 

Yeah, any GM hates to lose picks. But getting a franchise QB would allay that pain.

 

 

[Shaw66]

3 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

It's not a total rebuild. I wish it were and that it had happened last year, but it's not.

 

If it were, they'd cut/trade McCoy. They wouldn't have re-signed Kyle Williams. They'd cut/trade Incognito. Total rebuilds essentially mean an acceptance that you're going to suck for an absolute minimum of two years and probably three. You dump ALL your guys over 29 or 30 because by the time you're any good they'll be too old.

 

This isn't a total rebuild. It just isn't. If they had been going to do that, they'd have done it last year and got a high pick this year in the QB-rich draft.

 

But yeah, it's a partial rebuild. One that started last year. 

 

And this in no way means they aren't going to trade up. A lot of the point of rebuilds - most especially total rebuilds but really all rebuilds - is to get to a place where you can get your franchise QB. Yes, they're going to rebuild primarily though not entirely through the draft, not because it's a rebuild but because they've said from minute one that that's their philosophy. But trading up for a QB absolutely is building through the draft. The most important part of building through the draft if you haven't got a franchise QB on the roster. 

 

Yeah, any GM hates to lose picks. But getting a franchise QB would allay that pain.

 

 

I think you and I get into these semantic discussions from time to time.   We see it the same way but talk about what the words mean.

 

There's no pro football dictionary that I'm aware of that defines total rebuild.   You're taking it literally - if it's total EVERY veteran/star must go.   I'd guess that if you look back over the years at situations where the press called a team's transformation a total rebuild you'd fine that in every case, some of the veterans remained.  That is, total doesn't really mean total.   

 

In this case, a year after the new regime arrived, the entired defensive backfield, essentially all the linebackers and all but three of the defensive linemen are gone (with questions remaining about two of those).   Three of five offensive linemen, all the wideouts and the QB are gone.   Point is, that I'd think this is about as close to a total rebuild as actually happens in the NFL.

 

The one exception that you raise that maybe makes it not total is Kyle.   McD loves Kyle and he had a need at tackle.   I might agree with you that in a total rebuild, there's no room for that sentimentality.   

 

Between the salary cap and the draft, there rarely is enough draft capital to do a total rebuild in one year.    If you dumped EVERYONE who was any good at all for the old the regime, you'd have too little talent left to compete the following year.   You'd have what I guess would be a total rebuild and a tank simultaneously.   

[Shaw66]

Interesting to read Peter King's comments about the Bills.  In his interview with King, Beane made it clear that one objective, maybe his primary objective, was cleaning out the high salaries and getting cap management under control.   I've always wondered about this, and he says that attacking the salaries was always part of his plan.   I'd guess that means when he interviewed with the Bills he told them he was going to do some major surgery.   And he says he wanted to take as much of the pain as he could this year.   

 

That's what we've seen.  The Bills dead cap money is at $36 million, and Beane says when he's done he expects it'll be $45 million (Shady, Jerry, are you listening?).  

 

Remember a few weeks ago when McDermott said "we're not as close as some people think," meaning don't get too carried away because we made the playoffs?   Well, hearing Beane say what he says about the salary cap is confirmation.   These guys are taking the train off one track and putting it on another, and what they're telling us is not to expect the train to go anywhere until we get it on the new track.  

 

What does that tell us about QB?  Not much.  I think all we know is what we've always known, which is that Beane will NOT overspend.   He's all about maintaining discipline and trusting the process. 

 

I like this.  

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

It's not a total rebuild. I wish it were and that it had happened last year, but it's not.

 

If it were, they'd cut/trade McCoy. They wouldn't have re-signed Kyle Williams. They'd cut/trade Incognito. Total rebuilds essentially mean an acceptance that you're going to suck for an absolute minimum of two years and probably three. You dump ALL your guys over 29 or 30 because by the time you're any good they'll be too old.

 

It is as close to one as we will see.    A total revamp of all the weaknesses in mental and physical play.   

His kind of guys 

[Wsam4031]

we all need to relax a little bit. Qb is a glaring need for this team, we all see it so do McDermott and Beane. They will address the situation with the best possible way for this franchise. If they feel like giving up a bunch of draft picks for someone they love then so be it. If they feel like they can get their guy by staying at 12 then so be it. No need ot overreact now. Once the draft is over there will be plenty of that but not now. The draft hasn't happened yet so we all have no clue what's going to happen. Btw when I saw the Jets trade for 3 I chugged a green beer!  Once I thought about it a little the colts had to have called the bills to leverage the jets offer against us, it was the smart play on their part. Beane passed which leads me to believe he has something in the works.

[FappyTheClown]

Bo knows squat. Lots of it!

[Thurman#1]

 

6 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Interesting to read Peter King's comments about the Bills.  In his interview with King, Beane made it clear that one objective, maybe his primary objective, was cleaning out the high salaries and getting cap management under control.   I've always wondered about this, and he says that attacking the salaries was always part of his plan.   I'd guess that means when he interviewed with the Bills he told them he was going to do some major surgery.   And he says he wanted to take as much of the pain as he could this year.   

 

That's what we've seen.  The Bills dead cap money is at $36 million, and Beane says when he's done he expects it'll be $45 million (Shady, Jerry, are you listening?).  

 

Remember a few weeks ago when McDermott said "we're not as close as some people think," meaning don't get too carried away because we made the playoffs?   Well, hearing Beane say what he says about the salary cap is confirmation.   These guys are taking the train off one track and putting it on another, and what they're telling us is not to expect the train to go anywhere until we get it on the new track.  

 

What does that tell us about QB?  Not much.  I think all we know is what we've always known, which is that Beane will NOT overspend.   He's all about maintaining discipline and trusting the process. 

 

I like this.  

 

 

 

He was saying $45 mill because they can't count Wood's dead money yet, until he officially retires.

 

Wood's dead cap hit will be $10.3 mill, $2 or $3 mill of which can be delayed till next year.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Thurman#1

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

23 hours ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

You don’t know squat but she does.  

 

 

...where do I sign up as a spotter and PRAY she loses her balance?.....hell, even Party City doesn't have balloons like that...I know, I checked....SEVERAL times.............

[Lfod]

I came in with an intention to roast a little. Then I read the OP and it wasn't what my impression of it was going to be.

 

I just get a little annoyed by people say opinion as fact. Especially when it's a sentence. 

 

Honestly and truthfully I take people more seriously when they come off that high horse. Even if I disagree with a person I will take it into consideration more then anybody giving me one sentence stated as absolutely fact.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

that picture is better "enlarged" 

 

12 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

...where do I sign up as a spotter and PRAY she loses her balance?.....hell, even Party City doesn't have balloons like that...I know, I checked....SEVERAL times.............

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

2 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

that picture is better "enlarged" 

 

 

...OMG, I'm sweating profusely..........and feeling a "twinge"......

[Shaw66]

2 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

...OMG, I'm sweating profusely..........and feeling a "twinge"......

Can't you guys concentrate on football?

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

9 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Can't you guys concentrate on football?

no

[Thurman#1]

6 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I think you and I get into these semantic discussions from time to time.   We see it the same way but talk about what the words mean.

 

There's no pro football dictionary that I'm aware of that defines total rebuild.   You're taking it literally - if it's total EVERY veteran/star must go.   I'd guess that if you look back over the years at situations where the press called a team's transformation a total rebuild you'd fine that in every case, some of the veterans remained.  That is, total doesn't really mean total.   

 

In this case, a year after the new regime arrived, the entired defensive backfield, essentially all the linebackers and all but three of the defensive linemen are gone (with questions remaining about two of those).   Three of five offensive linemen, all the wideouts and the QB are gone.   Point is, that I'd think this is about as close to a total rebuild as actually happens in the NFL.

 

The one exception that you raise that maybe makes it not total is Kyle.   McD loves Kyle and he had a need at tackle.   I might agree with you that in a total rebuild, there's no room for that sentimentality.   

 

Between the salary cap and the draft, there rarely is enough draft capital to do a total rebuild in one year.    If you dumped EVERYONE who was any good at all for the old the regime, you'd have too little talent left to compete the following year.   You'd have what I guess would be a total rebuild and a tank simultaneously.   

 

 

Shaw, this isn't a semantic discussion. It's cut and dried. Yeah, "rebuild" has a million levels and variations and extents. "Total," on the other hand, is a very unambiguous word. There's no way to look at it that does NOT have it mean "absolute," "complete," and "unequivocal." That's what the word means.

 

It doesn't mean dump everyone good, though. It means dump everyone good and getting older. Most particularly if they're expensive. The general rule is 29 or 30 or so, especially at positions where guys don't last. Particularly the athletic positions like CB, RB, WR, speed LBs, etc. Your team will suck for a while. In probably 80% or more of cases it will be three years or more. Guys getting older will be just old enough to be jettisoned when the good years get here.

 

Less than total is partial. And that's what this is, a partial rebuild. Again, if it weren't, you just wouldn't keep Shady. He'll get you a win or two, he'll cost a lot of money and he'll be gone by the time the team will have a chance to win. Keeping him has no upside in a total rebuild. You trade him for picks. Absolutely Incognito too. He'll be used up three years from now, and you don't re-sign Kyle Williams. He's good, and he's old and reasonably expensive.

 

You also don't do a total rebuild in your second year as GM. You do it going in. It's too painful and too long-lasting. You don't want your owner thinking after your fourth year, "Gee, he hasn't gotten things together yet." And even the patient owners think that after four years these days. You do it coming in.

 

And yeah, total rebuilds are rare. But the Cleveland case is a very recent one that makes it clear that this happens. One win in two years. Immensely painful for the fanbase. But potentially extremely lucrative. So painful that the owner couldn't stay the course with that GM. That's the reason you don't do it in  your second year as GM. Even owners who say they understand it will be painful and long-lasting often run out of patience.

[nedboy7]

I heading out to the store. Want me to pick up a Frencheyes qb on my way home!?  

[Bills Pimpin']

Just now, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Shaw, this isn't a semantic discussion. It's cut and dried. Yeah, "rebuild" has a million levels and variations and extents. "Total," on the other hand, is a very unambiguous word. There's no way to look at it that does NOT have it mean "absolute," "complete," and "unequivocal." That's what the word means.

 

It doesn't mean dump everyone good, though. It means dump everyone good and getting older. Most particularly if they're expensive. The general rule is 29 or 30 or so, especially at positions where guys don't last. Particularly the athletic positions like CB, RB, WR, speed LBs, etc. Your team will suck for a while. In probably 80% or more of cases it will be three years or more. Guys getting older will be just old enough to be jettisoned when the good years get here.

 

Less than total is partial. And that's what this is, a partial rebuild. Again, if it weren't, you just wouldn't keep Shady. He'll get you a win or two, he'll cost a lot of money and he'll be gone by the time the team will have a chance to win. Keeping him has no upside in a total rebuild. You trade him for picks. Absolutely Incognito too. He'll be used up three years from now, and you don't re-sign Kyle Williams. He's good, and he's old and reasonably expensive.

 

You also don't do a total rebuild in your second year as GM. You do it going in. It's too painful and too long-lasting. You don't want your owner thinking after your fourth year, "Gee, he hasn't gotten things together yet." And even the patient owners think that after four years these days. You do it coming in.

 

And yeah, total rebuilds are rare. But the Cleveland case is a very recent one that makes it clear that this happens. One win in two years. Immensely painful for the fanbase. But potentially extremely lucrative. So painful that the owner couldn't stay the course with that GM. That's the reason you don't do it in  your second year as GM. Even owners who say they understand it will be painful and long-lasting often run out of patience.

It's completely semantics. The only reason some don't consider it a "total" rebuild is because McD kept around a handful of vets to help the culture rebuild portion of the total rebuild, a 9-7 record which shocked everyone and a playoff birth. If the Bills finished with a 3-13 or 4-12 record everyone would consider it a total rebuild. They have changed every starting position on the football team other than about 5 and they are rotational. You can't judge a rebuild by record only by actions. The fact the Bills stayed competitive with so many new players as well as gaining draft capital is a testament to the quality of the job of the rebuild. But IMO it was and is continuing to be a total rebuild. 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Bills Pimpin'

[Shaw66]

38 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

I heading out to the store. Want me to pick up a Frencheyes qb on my way home!?  

Got one of those. 

 

How about a pants sized qb?  

28 minutes ago, Bills Pimpin' said:

It's completely semantics. The only reason some don't consider it a "total" rebuild is because McD kept around a handful of vets to help the culture rebuild portion of the total rebuild, a 9-7 record which shocked everyone and a playoff birth. If the Bills finished with a 3-13 or 4-12 record everyone would consider it a total rebuild. They have changed every starting position on the football team other than about 5 and they are rotational. You can't judge a rebuild by record only by actions. The fact the Bills stayed competitive with so many new players as well as gaining draft capital is a testament to the quality of the job of the rebuild. But IMO it was and is continuing to be a total rebuild. 

Right. 

 

And by the way, Beane said to Peter King that he told the owners that getting the payroll under control was a two-year project.   So after this year,  Williams almost certainly will retire, and the only holdover big contracts (McCoy and Clay) can both be terminated with minimal cap consequence.   

 

It's a total rebuild.  

[Thurman#1]

9 hours ago, Bills Pimpin' said:

It's completely semantics. The only reason some don't consider it a "total" rebuild is because McD kept around a handful of vets to help the culture rebuild portion of the total rebuild, a 9-7 record which shocked everyone and a playoff birth. If the Bills finished with a 3-13 or 4-12 record everyone would consider it a total rebuild. They have changed every starting position on the football team other than about 5 and they are rotational. You can't judge a rebuild by record only by actions. The fact the Bills stayed competitive with so many new players as well as gaining draft capital is a testament to the quality of the job of the rebuild. But IMO it was and is continuing to be a total rebuild. 

 

 

"Total." Period. It means "absolute." 100%. There's no room for semantics here. Total means total.

 

The minute you say, "the only reason it's not considered total" you're destroying your own point, admitting there is in fact a reason. Yes, they kept a bunch of vets. Expensive, old vets, exactly the kind who would go in a total rebuild. That means it's not total.

 

It's a partial rebuild. And there's nothing wrong with a partial rebuild.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Bills Pimpin']

4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

"Total." Period. It means "absolute." 100%. There's no room for semantics here. Total means total.

 

The minute you say, "the only reason it's not considered total" you're destroying your own point, admitting there is in fact a reason. Yes, they kept a bunch of vets. Expensive, old vets, exactly the kind who would go in a total rebuild. That means it's not total.

 

It's a partial rebuild. And there's nothing wrong with a partial rebuild.

Then there has never been a "total" rebuild in the history of the NFL. Which I suppose you could say is true but then again it comes down to semantics. What we agree on is that the Bills are in the midst of a high level rebuild of some kind and it has included the GM, practically every coaching position and starting position and in the process made the playoffs which is very impressive. Impressive enough that you assume they will make the right decisions this spring especially since we don't know squat. ?

[oldmanfan]

34 minutes ago, Bills Pimpin' said:

Then there has never been a "total" rebuild in the history of the NFL. Which I suppose you could say is true but then again it comes down to semantics. What we agree on is that the Bills are in the midst of a high level rebuild of some kind and it has included the GM, practically every coaching position and starting position and in the process made the playoffs which is very impressive. Impressive enough that you assume they will make the right decisions this spring especially since we don't know squat. ?

Of course it's semantics.  Just that the poster seems to want to provide his version of an English lesson.

 

Beane and McD and the rest of the front office have a plan, they know what they want to do, they know what kinds of players they need to make the team what they want it to be.

 

They know.  We don't.  Which was the point of my starting this thread. 

[BadLandsMeanie]

I am looking at it this way.

 

Last year McDermott came in and a few months later he picked the draft himself and he Pwoned them. 

 

(Pwned is a young people's spelling, which by now probably means middle aged people , of the word "Owned" but with an emphasis and a subversive flavor).

 

They will probably do ok this year.

[Shaw66]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

 

They know.  We don't.  

I've been saying this for years.   

 

I'd love to be on the inside to see and hear what these guys are thinking about.   In GM, about the Giants' GM Ernie Accorsi, they recount his scouting trip to Happy Valley.  Watching the game, Accorsi commented about how well coached Posluzny was, noting that his first step, either right or left, forward or back, always was with the correct leg in the correct direction.   I mean, really, who on this board watches that stuff?  Tiny details, observed and collected.   People don't believe it when Beane says he really hasn't begun his evaluation of the QBs in the draft, but I do.   If they're collecting that kind of data about prospects, it's completely believable that (1) they haven't completed collecting and assimilating the data and (2) Beane hasn't had time yet to begin studying it.   As the Bills continue to sign free agents over the past day or two, it's clear that his focus is still elsewhere.  

 

Listening to McBeane, it's clear they've learned a process with the Panthers (and the Eagles, in McD's case), and they follow the process.  They have to consider pros and cons, compare apples and oranges, collect information from agents, other GMs, other coaches, wondering all the time how reliable that information is.  Precision is necessary to get it right, and almost all aspects of the process are imprecise.   

 

The Kevin Costner film Draft Day is typical Hollywood fare, but it captures the uncertainty and the tension as Costner decides what to do about HIS quarterback situation.   

7 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

I am looking at it this way.

 

Last year McDermott came in and a few months later he picked the draft himself and he Pwoned them. 

 

(Pwned is a young people's spelling, which by now probably means middle aged people , of the word "Owned" but with an emphasis and a subversive flavor).

 

They will probably do ok this year.

Since they'e arrived, I've been impressed.   They're not going to get 'em all correct, but they sure seem to be on the right path.   Watching the draft will be fun.  

[BadLandsMeanie]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

I've been saying this for years.   

 

I'd love to be on the inside to see and hear what these guys are thinking about.   In GM, about the Giants' GM Ernie Accorsi, they recount his scouting trip to Happy Valley.  Watching the game, Accorsi commented about how well coached Posluzny was, noting that his first step, either right or left, forward or back, always was with the correct leg in the correct direction.   I mean, really, who on this board watches that stuff?  Tiny details, observed and collected.   People don't believe it when Beane says he really hasn't begun his evaluation of the QBs in the draft, but I do.   If they're collecting that kind of data about prospects, it's completely believable that (1) they haven't completed collecting and assimilating the data and (2) Beane hasn't had time yet to begin studying it.   As the Bills continue to sign free agents over the past day or two, it's clear that his focus is still elsewhere.  

 

Listening to McBeane, it's clear they've learned a process with the Panthers (and the Eagles, in McD's case), and they follow the process.  They have to consider pros and cons, compare apples and oranges, collect information from agents, other GMs, other coaches, wondering all the time how reliable that information is.  Precision is necessary to get it right, and almost all aspects of the process are imprecise.   

 

The Kevin Costner film Draft Day is typical Hollywood fare, but it captures the uncertainty and the tension as Costner decides what to do about HIS quarterback situation.   

Since they'e arrived, I've been impressed.   They're not going to get 'em all correct, but they sure seem to be on the right path.   Watching the draft will be fun.  

Very interesting detail there about how close they look. I get a glimpse of that when I go to camp with Billsfann. He sees that kind of stuff.

But he can still be wrong he liked I forget the name but a superb physically, washout mentally and maturity wise wideout who got cut and went to the colts. I would have cut the guy at the first chance. (Just in case you read this Billsfann  )

 

Anyway so yeah. But the QBs aren't linebackers and they have been scrutinizing them closely for a long time. But I think Beane means he has not evaluated them himself, personally, in as much detail as he wants. And  he should because it is his head on the chopping block for a pick like that. However I think the organization as a whole has a definite set of opinions already.

Edited March 20, 2018 by BadLandsMeanie

[Foxx]

4 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Of course it's semantics.  Just that the poster seems to want to provide his version of an English lesson.

 

Beane and McD and the rest of the front office have a plan, they know what they want to do, they know what kinds of players they need to make the team what they want it to be.

 

They know.  We don't.  Which was the point of my starting this thread. 

words have meaning. whether one chooses to fit that meaning into their own narrative by implying that that meaning is not really what that word means is another matter entirely. some might call this having rose colored glasses.

[oldmanfan]

4 minutes ago, Foxx said:

words have meaning. whether one chooses to fit that meaning into their own narrative by implying that that meaning is not really what that word means is another matter entirely. some might call this having rose colored glasses.

Words have meaning, yes.  Whether that meaning actually has meaning, maybe not.  The discussion centered around complete vs. partial rebuild, and given there's no way to really quantify that it becomes a semantic use of words.  Everyone understands the new regime is building the kind of team they want. Whether it's a complete or partial rebuild, based on whether they keep a few players or not, is semantics.  It's just people thinking they're smarter than the other guy at that point.

 

I don't understand your rose colored glasses comment.

[Foxx]

15 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Words have meaning, yes.  Whether that meaning actually has meaning, maybe not.  The discussion centered around complete vs. partial rebuild, and given there's no way to really quantify that it becomes a semantic use of words.  Everyone understands the new regime is building the kind of team they want. Whether it's a complete or partial rebuild, based on whether they keep a few players or not, is semantics.  It's just people thinking they're smarter than the other guy at that point.

 

I don't understand your rose colored glasses comment.

thinking of something in terms other than what reality is.