How many coaches/GMs survive a tank?

[reddogblitz]

3 hours ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

The point is that it was a throwaway year. 

 

I am a season ticket holder and what I gave them was not "throwaway" money.

 

This whole tank losing nonsense is a slap in the face disrespectful move to people who put their money where their mouth is in regards to supporting the Bills.

[Billsfan1972]

1 hour ago, DrDawkinstein said:

I think folks are forgetting how devastating the unexpected losses of Eric Wood and Richie Incognito were to McBeane's plan. Heck, we had just re-signed Richie to an extension! This would be a completely different team if those two were around, or even ONE of them. And neither of those losses were in Beane's "plan". So folks that say he completely messed up the Offensive side of the ball arent seeing the entire picture. Yeah, he was doing some minor damage, but there was rhyme and reason behind it. Unfortunately, those curve balls of losing the very competent interior of your OL will almost always devastate a team.

Now that is funny!!!!!  Minor damage shipping Watkins & hiring terrible OC's?  Yep but he replaced them with his type of players........  

Edited November 2, 2018 by Billsfan1972

[mannc]

1 minute ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I am a season ticket holder and what I gave them was not "throwaway" money.

 

This whole tank losing nonsense is a slap in the face disrespectful move to people who put their money where their mouth is in regards to supporting the Bills.

Especially since no such strategy was ever disclosed to the ticket-buying public.  If it WAS the plan, then the team is guilty of fraud.

[apuszczalowski]

Tanking is something that the koolaid fans make up as an excuse to justify their team being garbage in a rebuild. No franchise ever goes into a season with the intent of losing g games just to ensure a better chance of drafting #1 overall. How can that be justified to the rest of the team filled with players who have careers that have expiry dates, and ticket buying customers?

 

This is another year of a rebuild that is not going the way they had hoped. The front office believes they have something in Nate Peterman and they have an obsession with draft picks. They want their own guys and decided to ship off guys that didnt meet their standard and take a cap hit now so they hope they will be able to attract some talent in  the offseason.

 

I6s still a valid question to ask even if you change it to how many coaches survive a full rebuild? (Not a simple retooling)

How many times have teams been in a rebuild, and that coach that was supposed to be the one to get them through it gets fired just before they start getting good? You could say Hue Jackson was one of them, Fisher with the Rams, etc. Guys that were the coaches through the bad years as they rebuilt and didnt get to stay on til they turned the corner.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

17 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I am a season ticket holder and what I gave them was not "throwaway" money.

 

This whole tank losing nonsense is a slap in the face disrespectful move to people who put their money where their mouth is in regards to supporting the Bills.

 

I mean, you can't run a team based on fan sentiment.  If you did you would have a new GM, Coach, First Round QB, etc. every year.  They are where they are because they make tough decisions.  I'm sorry, but you are entitled to nothing but your seat as a season ticket holder

2 minutes ago, apuszczalowski said:

Tanking is something that the koolaid fans make up as an excuse to justify their team being garbage in a rebuild. No franchise ever goes into a season with the intent of losing g games just to ensure a better chance of drafting #1 overall. How can that be justified to the rest of the team filled with players who have careers that have expiry dates, and ticket buying customers?

 

This is another year of a rebuild that is not going the way they had hoped. The front office believes they have something in Nate Peterman and they have an obsession with draft picks. They want their own guys and decided to ship off guys that didnt meet their standard and take a cap hit now so they hope they will be able to attract some talent in  the offseason.

 

I6s still a valid question to ask even if you change it to how many coaches survive a full rebuild? (Not a simple retooling)

How many times have teams been in a rebuild, and that coach that was supposed to be the one to get them through it gets fired just before they start getting good? You could say Hue Jackson was one of them, Fisher with the Rams, etc. Guys that were the coaches through the bad years as they rebuilt and didnt get to stay on til they turned the corner.

 

I sort of think "tanking" and "rebuild" are the same thing.  Sure, you are happy to win games along the way, but if you lose a ton it just doesn't matter.  What matters is the plan for the next year and the year after. 

[reddogblitz]

Just now, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

I mean, you can't run a team based on fan sentiment.  If you did you would have a new GM, Coach, First Round QB, etc. every year.  They are where they are because they make tough decisions.  I'm sorry, but you are entitled to nothing but your seat as a season ticket holder

 

I'm not asking them to run on fan sentiment. I'm just asking them to put the best team on the field they can and try to win.  Doesn't seem like too much to ask. 

 

I realize the bolded but I don' t have to like it and don't.  I do think I should be entitled to expect them to at least try to win every game. 

 

The other part to this is I probably don't have a ton of seasons left. I HATE to waste any of them losing in hope that maybe someday they might win again. It is far from a given.

 

If you're happy with it though, good for you.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

Just now, reddogblitz said:

 

I'm not asking them to run on fan sentiment. I'm just asking them to put the best team on the field they can and try to win.  Doesn't seem like too much to ask. 

 

I realize the bolded but I don' t have to like it and don't.  I do think I should be entitled to expect them to at least try to win every game. 

 

The other part to this is I probably don't have a ton of seasons left. I HATE to waste any of them losing in hope that maybe someday they might win again. It is far from a given.

 

If you're happy with it though, good for you.

 

Well, lucky for you, I believe in this staff and think we have our QB.  The years to come are gonna be a ton better than this misery. (I reallllllly hope)

[reddogblitz]

Just now, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Well, lucky for you, I believe in this staff and think we have our QB.  The years to come are gonna be a ton better than this misery. (I reallllllly hope)

 

I hope so too!

 

Go Bills !!

[AlCowlingsTaxiService]

3 hours ago, JerseyBills said:

we all knew the 19-20 season is when we'd be legit contenders.

we did?  It's just that simple?? Hmmmmmm

[reddogblitz]

3 minutes ago, AlCowlingsTaxiService said:

we did?  It's just that simple?? Hmmmmmm

 

I thought we were legit contenders last year and expected we'd be closer this year.  Few teams go from cellar dweller to SB contenders over night.  Most are good for a few years (like last year) and incrementally improve til they break through.  Thinking New Orleans, Denver, and  Seattle here.

[ctk232]

57 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Last year they repeatedly said the plan was to rebuild AND win.  What happened to that?  Last year they also said we were rebuilding and we won 9 games.  Was that not a rebuild even though they said it is. 

 

this team did not need to "rebuild".  they needed to reload. 

Now that's a good debate worth a thread - even though it's basically what all these threads turn into, there is good debate to be had around that subject of whether or not we needed to. 

 

And the plan is still rebuild and win (at least publicly) - we just aren't doing the winning part.

[BADOLBILZ]

5 hours ago, uticaclub said:

Serious question. Not a fan of giving away talent in order to bring in "your guys" since I believe in tanking breeds losing. I'm just wondering if anyone can come up with an example from any sport, where a coach/gm started a tank and where there to see a championship.

 

 

 

Said this many times on here but:

 

No team has parlayed tanking into sustained competitiveness since the Colts tanked the 1997 season to draft Peyton Manning.

 

So the last good tank job was 22 years ago and before the Bills became irrelevant.

 

All of the consistently top teams built in the 2000's rose from mediocrity rather than just being awful and getting super high draft picks.

 

Tanking as a strategy in the modern NFL doesn't work........ because the league has changed.

 

A lot of factors but it begins with major shifts in the "team control" aspect,  salary cap management and the ability of good coaches to turn teams around quickly.

 

First round contracts are only 4 years now instead of the guaranteed 6 years.........and teams are much better at managing the salary cap which results in less franchise changing talents hitting free agency...........and with talent naturally generally spread pretty evenly by the systems in place a sign of BAD coaching is now not being able to make a quick turnaround.

 

 

[dave mcbride]

7 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

 

Said this many times on here but:

 

No team has parlayed tanking into sustained competitiveness since the Colts tanked the 1997 season to draft Peyton Manning.

 

So the last good tank job was 22 years ago and before the Bills became irrelevant.

 

All of the consistently top teams built in the 2000's rose from mediocrity rather than just being awful and getting super high draft picks.

 

Tanking as a strategy in the modern NFL doesn't work........ because the league has changed.

 

A lot of factors but it begins with major shifts in the "team control" aspect,  salary cap management and the ability of good coaches to turn teams around quickly.

 

First round contracts are only 4 years now instead of the guaranteed 6 years.........and teams are much better at managing the salary cap which results in less franchise changing talents hitting free agency...........and with talent naturally generally spread pretty evenly by the systems in place a sign of BAD coaching is now not being able to make a quick turnaround.

 

 

The 2007 Falcons were awful (4-12 and near the bottom of every category), and they got Ryan at #3 in the next draft. Not sure that was a deliberate tank, though - it was the Bobby Petrino season. But it was also the post-Vick season (who wasn't coming back), and they were rolling out Joey Harrington as their starting qb. Regardless, they have had sustained success ever since except for a couple of bumps in the road after 2012. From 2008-2012 (five seasons), they were 56-24.

Edited November 2, 2018 by dave mcbride

[MPT]

3 hours ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

What I said was, "They drafted their future, sat him for a year, and are now moving forward."  That explanation is the whole point.  That is what you are ignoring. 

 

Seriously? You say I'm ignoring your point and then leave out the first sentence of your two sentence quote, which defines the basis of your argument. 

 

If you're saying that the Chiefs handled their QB situation similarly, then I'll grant you they did in fact draft a QB with the intent to sit him for a year. However, having Alex Smith in front of him is a completely different situation than what we're doing. They sat him for a year and still had a plan to be extremely productive offensively. They didn't plan to sit him while tanking, which is what you claimed. 

[Nihilarian]

It makes no sense to tank a season unless you are looking to draft that franchise QB and the Bills drafted theirs in 2018. What's the point? 

 

I don't think this FO intended to tank as it just went that way due to a bad QB, O line, WR situation. This FO/HC and coaching staff must pay the consequences. 

 

2-14 is looking realistic at this point. 

[LABILLBACKER]

1 hour ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

I mean, you can't run a team based on fan sentiment.  If you did you would have a new GM, Coach, First Round QB, etc. every year.  They are where they are because they make tough decisions.  I'm sorry, but you are entitled to nothing but your seat as a season ticket holder

 

I sort of think "tanking" and "rebuild" are the same thing.  Sure, you are happy to win games along the way, but if you lose a ton it just doesn't matter.  What matters is the plan for the next year and the year after. 

Tanking, Rebuild, Process are all the same code words for " give me more time before you fire me"....

[Fadingpain]

5 hours ago, vorpma said:

Tanking breeds losing; what about mediocrity for 16 years, sign a big name free agent - take your pick - make a coaching change, draft poorly and stay in the hunt until December then watch the playoffs minus the Bills in January.  Build up excitement during the off season, keep fan favorites because you are so close (not in reality though), and watch the playoffs minus the Bills in January. Why is it so difficult to understand this is an organization in desperate need of a "rebuild" bringing new culture and identity? Your way we stay mediocre for the next twenty years and repeat the off season hope to the January without the Bills! 2001 - 2016 a total organizational failure! Me, I'm sticking with the rebuild and from I have seen from the "Scientific TBD Polls," so are many others who get it!

I disagree that a crap team and season of this magnitude were required to fix the culture and identity of the team.

 

This "rebuild" begins and ends with the success or failure of Josh Allen, but we didn't select him with a high draft pick resulting from having a bad season anyway. 

 

We burned assets and players to get him in the draft following a playoff season!

 

Burning the franchise to the ground is not necessary if you think Allen is your guy and is going to be a good franchise QB for many years to come.

 

We are likely to select (gulp) a defensive lineman with our high first pick next year.  We already had one until these guys gave him away for nothing.  And the new guy will have close to zero impact on wins and losses regardless.

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Captain Hindsight said:

This year sucks, but at least its not a half assed rebuild. Tear it down and do it if your going to do it.

 

I hope it works out

This team went to the playoffs last year.  Why did it all need to be torn down? 

 

What it needed was a QB better than Tyrod, and in theory, we got that in last year's draft without having a high pick resulting from a bad year.

So why the tear down?  If you think Allen is the man,  (and McBeane do) then we had a playoff team with the man at QB going into this season.  

 

Again, why the tear down?

 

 

 

 

[dave mcbride]

29 minutes ago, Nihilarian said:

It makes no sense to tank a season unless you are looking to draft that franchise QB and the Bills drafted theirs in 2018. What's the point? 

 

I don't think this FO intended to tank as it just went that way due to a bad QB, O line, WR situation. This FO/HC and coaching staff must pay the consequences. 

 

2-14 is looking realistic at this point. 

They'll win at least another game. The defense is too strong and too many of their upcoming opponents too weak to not win a game in which they have a turnover feast. 

[vorpma]

3 hours ago, LABILLBACKER said:

You're right. You tank usually because you're targeting a specific qb (marquee player). McB's year 2 rebuild just under estimated  how bad their offense would be. We truly won't know how this rebuild is doing until the end of next season. The defense looks top 10. And every Bills fan on the face of the earth know we need better WRS, TE, OL, etc. Jury is still out on Allen? I know the word patience is a painful broken record to most fans, as it should be. Let FA/ Draft 2019 play out. Think on the bright side, Peterman might finally be released?

Fair enough, good post!

52 minutes ago, Fadingpain said:

I disagree that a crap team and season of this magnitude were required to fix the culture and identity of the team.

 

This "rebuild" begins and ends with the success or failure of Josh Allen, but we didn't select him with a high draft pick resulting from having a bad season anyway. 

 

We burned assets and players to get him in the draft following a playoff season!

 

Burning the franchise to the ground is not necessary if you think Allen is your guy and is going to be a good franchise QB for many years to come.

 

We are likely to select (gulp) a defensive lineman with our high first pick next year.  We already had one until these guys gave him away for nothing.  And the new guy will have close to zero impact on wins and losses regardless.

 

 

 

 

This team went to the playoffs last year.  Why did it all need to be torn down? 

 

What it needed was a QB better than Tyrod, and in theory, we got that in last year's draft without having a high pick resulting from a bad year.

So why the tear down?  If you think Allen is the man,  (and McBeane do) then we had a playoff team with the man at QB going into this season.  

 

Again, why the tear down?

 

 

 

 

Because it got LUCKY!

[Nihilarian]

1 hour ago, Fadingpain said:

I disagree that a crap team and season of this magnitude were required to fix the culture and identity of the team.

 

This "rebuild" begins and ends with the success or failure of Josh Allen, but we didn't select him with a high draft pick resulting from having a bad season anyway. 

 

We burned assets and players to get him in the draft following a playoff season!

 

Burning the franchise to the ground is not necessary if you think Allen is your guy and is going to be a good franchise QB for many years to come.

 

We are likely to select (gulp) a defensive lineman with our high first pick next year.  We already had one until these guys gave him away for nothing.  And the new guy will have close to zero impact on wins and losses regardless.

 

This team went to the playoffs last year.  Why did it all need to be torn down? 

 

What it needed was a QB better than Tyrod, and in theory, we got that in last year's draft without having a high pick resulting from a bad year.

So why the tear down?  If you think Allen is the man,  (and McBeane do) then we had a playoff team with the man at QB going into this season.  

 

Again, why the tear down?

I highly doubt there was any intention of a tear down at any point. I just think that this FO/coaching staff didn't realize the consequences of losing a pro bowl LG and a pro bowl center at the same time. I wonder if they now realize how important a pro bowler at LG, C to have a quality functioning line and it would be even better with upgrades at RG, RT too.

 

My take is McD put way to much trust in his offensive assistants in believing them when they said they would be okay with the talent on hand at QB (Peterman) and O line Groy, Bodine, Ducasse, Mills, Miller. As it turns out the scrub that Dion Dawkins was drafted to replace is one of the better players on that line. (low bar)

 

If the Pegula's replaced Rex Ryan at the end of a 7-8 season I have no doubts that they won't hesitate to make changes this season too. McD might be on a very short leash at this point and I hope for his sake he makes changes to his offensive coaching staff. No TDs in 50 drives is ridiculous.  

 

 

[BADOLBILZ]

2 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

The 2007 Falcons were awful (4-12 and near the bottom of every category), and they got Ryan at #3 in the next draft. Not sure that was a deliberate tank, though - it was the Bobby Petrino season. But it was also the post-Vick season (who wasn't coming back), and they were rolling out Joey Harrington as their starting qb. Regardless, they have had sustained success ever since except for a couple of bumps in the road after 2012. From 2008-2012 (five seasons), they were 56-24.

 

5 straight winning seasons is nice but that's not what I am talking about at all.

 

Those "couple bumps" were actually a 3 pitch strikeout of non-winning seasons for that 2008-2012 roster and coaching staff.

 

The current Falcons are literally related to that prior success only by Matt Ryan.............and they've gotten back to being good again from a position of mediocrity...........made possible from NOT deciding to go into the tank when their run was over. 

[JerseyBills]

 

 

6 hours ago, nedboy7 said:

 

Draft capital?  You mean an extra 4th and 5th will fix the line?  What’s w this draft obsession. It’s 2 more picks.  Mid and late round. Ok fine you expected a bad team.  That’s fine. Did you expect not having a QB?  Cause that’s what happens when you don’t make a solid plan. Allen might not even become an avg qb for all we know. So while I admire your positive outlook I do not share it w you.  Not cause I’m a bad fan but cause I see a huge mistake that is very hard to get away from.  People seem to use the term rebuild to explain every bad decision made by these guys. No rebuild is one thing. You can have a bad rebuild. Don’t blame the talent level. Cause this team is almost identical to last years. Which is their fault. Can they turn it around. It’s possible. I sure hope so. Cause draft position don’t mean ***** to me. 

You forgot a likely top 5 picks in rds 1 and 2 ,3,4 etc...

And I'll take the extra 4 and 5 , last year - Milano , who looks like a steal and our olb of the future and Johnson - who also looks like a huge steal and our nickel cb of the future. This team has laid a foundation of nice young talent and next off season can address multiple positions because of all the dead money being removed and available cap space. Next off season is when we build on top of that foundation and you have a long term contender .  I don't understand how fans don't see the vision and the foundation that has been built ! Team has the most dead money in the league! They made this sacrifice in order to ensure they build a team that can compete LONG TERM.

 

And Same team as last year? Defense is better imo but the O is wayyy worse. 2 pro bowl OL suddenly retired and The team took a serious blow at QB this year, that's the one position I completely agree they messed up and mismanaged ,which has effected their record but they got their guy in the draft and we'll see how that plays out ,but they have the luxury to heavily focus on fixing this O and adding a number of upgrades , paired up with imo , a great defense.

 

All their moves point to a long term , sustainable vision and I love ittt!!!

5 hours ago, AlCowlingsTaxiService said:

we did?  It's just that simple?? Hmmmmmm

Yes , I mean it's common sense. Our front office knew they'd have the most dead money in the league by a large margin and that makes it a ton times harder to put together a winning team. They sacrificed the season in order to build their team and next off season they have a ton of money to play with and add top end talent via FA, along with a ton of flexibility .

[reddogblitz]

1 hour ago, JerseyBills said:

They made this sacrifice in order to ensure they build a team that can compete LONG TERM.

 

In today's free agency era, I'm not even sure this is possible. Rookies are on 4 year contracts.  In 2 years those contracts are going to start to expire. How much do you think it will take to re up the Tredavian Nightmare?  And then it Wonder Boy works out, the year after that.  Hello cap hell or let them go and hope we can draft someone as good while hopefully drafting in the 20s.  Other players contracts expire as well like Jerry and Shady and they will have to replaced as well. Or re upped at high cost.

 

This is essentially what is happening to Seattle.  They had a great 4 year run but with the cash they have to pay Russell now they can't afford to keep guys like Sherman. They haven't been able to draft replacements drafting in the 20s.

 

After pages and pages only 1 free agency era team has been able to make it work.  maybe Atlanta.and their coach didn't survive.  Others have tried and failed miserably like Cleveland and Jacksonville.  Jacksonville didn't really get better til they abandoned the rebuild philosophy and hired CoAch Moron and made some trades and FA signings.  

[Rc2catch]

12 hours ago, Mango said:

 

The right play is to do what the Rams and KC did. Keep what talent you have on the roster, and give up future draft picks to go get your QB. 

 

Not gut gut your team of talent in exchange for a QB and a bad situation. 

It’s kinda hard to say that now. 

I don’t know if they’ll have success or not but can’t judge KC or LA after a year or two. They can compete now, but in two years? It’s debateable. Have to revisit in a couple years 

[dave mcbride]

6 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

5 straight winning seasons is nice but that's not what I am talking about at all.

 

Those "couple bumps" were actually a 3 pitch strikeout of non-winning seasons for that 2008-2012 roster and coaching staff.

 

The current Falcons are literally related to that prior success only by Matt Ryan.............and they've gotten back to being good again from a position of mediocrity...........made possible from NOT deciding to go into the tank when their run was over. 

Not sure of your point. They were really bad in 2007 and should have gone to the SB in 2012 (they had a 17-3 lead near the half v. SF) and had two 13-3 seasons in that stretch. Every season was a winning season.

[Doc Brown]

Most teams don't tank after drafting their franchise QB.  Here's what went wrong.

 

1.)  Beane and McDermott decided to try the "win now" and "win in the future" philosophy the first year.  It should've just been "win for the future."  They did the right thing in unloading Watkins, Darby, and eventually Dareus for draft picks.  The problem is they resigned Tyrod Taylor and the team over performed given their talent and got a very fluky 9-7 record.  Giving up a 3rd round pick for Benjamin when we realized we could compete in what was supposed to be a tank year was a mistake.

 

2.)  Because we finished with a decent record we now had to give up a lot to get our QB when we could've been 2nd or 3rd in the draft and gave up nothing to get Darnold.  That ultimately ended up being giving up two 2nd round picks and trading Cordy Glenn (9.6 million dead cap).  Glenn and the use of one of the two 2nd round picks on an o-lineman would make our o-line much better than it is.  We also could've used one of those 2nd round picks on a WR.  Did we really have to give up the 1st pick of the 3rd round to move up and get Edmunds?  Only time will tell I guess.

 

3.)  There was also a bad luck factor with Wood (10.4 million in dead cap space) and Incognito (1.15 million dead cap) retiring.  Combine that with trading Dareus (13.5 million dead cap) and we didn't have much money to sign FA OL and WR's.  The one's we did sign were marginal starters at best as we struck out with a WR like John Brown.

 

Combine all those factors and a total mismanagement of the QB situation and you have a historically bad offense and a tank year that wasn't supposed to be one.

 

 

[Mango]

6 hours ago, Rc2catch said:

It’s kinda hard to say that now. 

I don’t know if they’ll have success or not but can’t judge KC or LA after a year or two. They can compete now, but in two years? It’s debateable. Have to revisit in a couple years 

 

 

In in two years they’ll be fine. They didn’t trade a bunch of of their starters to move up in the draft. They kept their talent, and gambled on a QB. 

 

If Mahommes or Goff don’t pan out, both franchises have very quality rosters from top to bottom. 

 

We proactively lost our CB 1, CB 2, MLB, DT 1, LT, WR 1, WR 2, QB 1. All to use all our draft capital to put a guy in a situation, where you now have that many holes, and self created dead cap space, and can’t solve anything. 

 

If Allen is a whiff, this franchise is in really really bad shape for 5 years. 

[Big Gun]

6 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Most teams don't tank after drafting their franchise QB.  Here's what went wrong.

 

1.)  Beane and McDermott decided to try the "win now" and "win in the future" philosophy the first year.  It should've just been "win for the future."  They did the right thing in unloading Watkins, Darby, and eventually Dareus for draft picks.  The problem is they resigned Tyrod Taylor and the team over performed given their talent and got a very fluky 9-7 record.  Giving up a 3rd round pick for Benjamin when we realized we could compete in what was supposed to be a tank year was a mistake.

 

2.)  Because we finished with a decent record we now had to give up a lot to get our QB when we could've been 2nd or 3rd in the draft and gave up nothing to get Darnold.  That ultimately ended up being giving up two 2nd round picks and trading Cordy Glenn (9.6 million dead cap).  Glenn and the use of one of the two 2nd round picks on an o-lineman would make our o-line much better than it is.  We also could've used one of those 2nd round picks on a WR.  Did we really have to give up the 1st pick of the 3rd round to move up and get Edmunds?  Only time will tell I guess.

 

3.)  There was also a bad luck factor with Wood (10.4 million in dead cap space) and Incognito (1.15 million dead cap) retiring.  Combine that with trading Dareus (13.5 million dead cap) and we didn't have much money to sign FA OL and WR's.  The one's we did sign were marginal starters at best as we struck out with a WR like John Brown.

 

Combine all those factors and a total mismanagement of the QB situation and you have a historically bad offense and a tank year that wasn't supposed to be one.

 

 

Evidenced by the unpredictably of what happened with Wood and Incognito, their strike out with FA WR and lame OL is reason why you don't tear it down to the studs and rebuild. Nothing generally goes as planned as too many variables come about.

[BADOLBILZ]

8 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

Not sure of your point. They were really bad in 2007 and should have gone to the SB in 2012 (they had a 17-3 lead near the half v. SF) and had two 13-3 seasons in that stretch. Every season was a winning season.

 

I'm not sure of your point.

 

My point is that the objective of tanking is to become an exceptional franchise........not one of those roller coaster NFC south teams(Atlanta had 5 winning seasons sandwiched between 6 non-winning seasons, fwiw).

 

The objective is to become New England......or Pittsburgh(14 straight seasons without a losing one).........or Green Bay(8 straight playoff trips).........or even Seattle(6 straight winning seasons and counting while re-tooling their team including a SB win and historically dominant defense).

 

Teams that win(and win SB's) year-in-and-year-out.

 

The Falcons are an NFL "box of chocolates".......you never know with them.

 

Getting the QB is the key.........but none of those teams got there by tanking.........neither has the current KC team who is probably the next one to string together a decade of consecutive winning seasons .

 

But yeah you could say the Falcons tanked for one year........but then they had to fire the staff!?   How does that correlate to McBeane?   Fire them after this season? (I'm not against it provided the Pegs can do a better job in the search).

 

I think one of the underlying facts about tanking is that if you end up being that bad in a league that puts all teams on relatively even ground to start..........you probably have the wrong people in place......the HC......maybe even the ownership........ and they won't be able to sustain a good thing.   That's what happened with Mike Smith and Co.  

 

Edited November 3, 2018 by BADOLBILZ

[dave mcbride]

15 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

I'm not sure of your point.

 

My point is that the objective of tanking is to become an exceptional franchise........not one of those roller coaster NFC south teams(Atlanta had 5 winning seasons sandwiched between 6 non-winning seasons, fwiw).

 

The objective is to become New England......or Pittsburgh(14 straight seasons without a losing one).........or Green Bay(8 straight playoff trips).........or even Seattle(6 straight winning seasons and counting while re-tooling their team including a SB win and historically dominant defense).

 

Teams that win(and win SB's) year-in-and-year-out.

 

The Falcons are an NFL "box of chocolates".......you never know with them.

 

Getting the QB is the key.........but none of those teams got there by tanking.........neither has the current KC team who is probably the next one to string together a decade of consecutive winning seasons .

 

But yeah you could say the Falcons tanked for one year........but then they had to fire the staff!?   How does that correlate to McBeane?   Fire them after this season? (I'm not against it provided the Pegs can do a better job in the search).

 

I think one of the underlying facts about tanking is that if you end up being that bad in a league that puts all teams on relatively even ground to start..........you probably have the wrong people in place......the HC......maybe even the ownership........ and they won't be able to sustain a good thing.   That's what happened with Mike Smith and Co.  

 

Like I said in my initial post, it may not qualify as a tank given the whole dog fighting episode and everything that surrounded it. It was more like an act of of god than anything else. Back to the falcons, though - they should have easily won one SB, they should have made another, and they should have beaten the eagles last year (they outplayed them). They are usually in it, and they've had 8 winning seasons in the 10 since Ryan arrived (in a very tough division). They're generally always at least pretty good, and Ryan was actually good in their two down seasons (the D was terrible).

 

Really, I was just flagging a team that got a lot better by getting a lot worse because they landed a franchise qb. Outside of Atlanta, the only other teams I can think of are carolina and SD. The rams don't count because they traded up for goff.

 

Re SD, though, they kept the same front office. Not sure they tanked because they already had brees and were 8-8 the year before. But perhaps they didn't know what they had in brees yet.

Edited November 3, 2018 by dave mcbride

[Nester]

Astros 2013

 

Its the new sports team way. Gruden is taking this to the next level now so the Raiders can be top of the heap 2020/21 when they move. 

He is locked in for 10 years for a reason. 

 

 

 

 

 

[BADOLBILZ]

8 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Like I said in my initial post, it may not qualify as a tank given the whole dog fighting episode and everything that surrounded it. It was more like an act of of god than anything else. Back to the falcons, though - they should have easily won one SB, they should have made another, and they should have beaten the eagles last year (they outplayed them). They are usually in it, and they've had 8 winning seasons in the 10 since Ryan arrived (in a very tough division). They're generally always at least pretty good, and Ryan was actually good in their two down seasons (the D was terrible).

 

Really, I was just flagging a team that got a lot better by getting a lot worse because they landed a franchise qb. Outside of Atlanta, the only other teams I can think of are carolina and SD. The rams don't count because they traded up for goff.

 

Re SD, though, they kept the same front office. Not sure they tanked because they already had brees and were 8-8 the year before. But perhaps they didn't know what they had in brees yet.

 

For the sake of accuracy.......Ryan has had 7 winning seasons in 10 years.

 

He had 3 straight duds........which was just enough to re-tool the roster and get all new,  all better coaching staff.

 

He's not a Brady or Rodgers or Big Ben or even a Russ Wilson........a guy who can help keep the team in the playoff picture during roster transition......he needs a relatively large amount of support...........last year he didn't have as dynamic an offensive group and Tyrod actually ended up producing more offensive TD's than Ryan.

 

There are teams like Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans, SD and even Baltimore and Cinci who are regularly on-and-off competitors but not consistent.

 

I think we are all hoping for more than that from Allen.........and I guess this unintentional tank job.......but like I said most of the tank years resulted in HC changes.........not keeping the guys who mismanaged the team to tanksville.

 

[BADOLBILZ]

34 minutes ago, Nester said:

Astros 2013

 

Its the new sports team way. Gruden is taking this to the next level now so the Raiders can be top of the heap 2020/21 when they move. 

He is locked in for 10 years for a reason. 

 

 

No.

 

The Jags are actually the NFL version of the Astros.

 

They intentionally let it go to hell.........stacked high picks for a number of years.........then bolstered that roster with expensive veterans and made a SB push.

 

The problem with tank thinking is that in the NFL you don't control draft picks for very long,  you have a hard salary cap and there is no real MLB comp to the importance of the QB position.

 

The Astros are set up for a long time.........but the deconstruction has already begun in Jax?..........having a bad season now and traded Donte Fowler because he was such a high pick that his 5th year option was an unmanageable $15M.

 

 

[smuvtalker]

23 hours ago, jahnyc said:

I would feel better about the future of this rebuild if we had more draft picks in next year's draft.  I understand that we have more than our usual allotment, but the additional picks we have next year are after the third round.  We may hit on one or more of those picks, but chances of finding quality players are higher in the early rounds.  I suppose we can trade down if there are opportunities to do so, but this team also needs pro bowl caliber players, and if we have a top five pick, we may have a shot at that kind of a player.  That would be hard to pass up.

Solid post.  For all the talk about us having ten draft picks next year, I didn't realize until about a week or two ago that the first 3 rounds all we have are our own picks.  I dont know why I thought we had an additional second or third rounder to start things off.  

Sitting at 2-6, and in possession of one of the worst offenses in NFL history,  we all know this season is over.  The chances of the Bills reeling off 8 straight wins are less than zero.  I've never been a supporter of the tanking logic, but I have no interest in W's this season.  All I want the rest of the year is to 1)see Josh Allen get the opportunity to start the last 6 or 7 games and see how he develops, and if he is in fact the QB of our future, 2)see the development of Edmunds as he continues to learn this defense, trust his instincts more, and use his freakish physical abilities, because unlike Allen, I've seen enough from Edmunds already to believe he will be a star in this league and our MLB for the next decade, 3)see our defense as a whole continue to gel, because this unit is really, really a good group, and with a core group like Hyde, Poyer, Milano, White, Edmunds,  Hughes, Phillips, this defense could easily be top 5 next year.  

I have zero problems with us not winning a single game the rest of the year if I can see the things I listed above.  And if we have the number one pick, awesome.  Like you mentioned, we can use it to trade down and gain more picks, or if there's a one in a generation type talent there for the taking, pull the trigger...

[mjt328]

Tanking implies the coaches/players are losing on purpose, in order to get a high draft pick.

 

If the Bills were tanking, this would have certainly happened last year. 

Instead, they had their most successful season in 15 years.

 

The Bills have simply undergone the loss of too many veteran players at once.  Part of this was by design (Taylor).  Part of this caught us off guard (Wood, Incognito).  And they either haven't had the resources to replace them yet, or the young replacements are still developing and struggling through growing pains. 

 

[row_33]

7 hours ago, Nester said:

Astros 2013

 

Its the new sports team way. Gruden is taking this to the next level now so the Raiders can be top of the heap 2020/21 when they move. 

He is locked in for 10 years for a reason. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What does baseball have to do with football?

 

nothing

 

[dave mcbride]

9 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

For the sake of accuracy.......Ryan has had 7 winning seasons in 10 years.

 

He had 3 straight duds........which was just enough to re-tool the roster and get all new,  all better coaching staff.

 

He's not a Brady or Rodgers or Big Ben or even a Russ Wilson........a guy who can help keep the team in the playoff picture during roster transition......he needs a relatively large amount of support...........last year he didn't have as dynamic an offensive group and Tyrod actually ended up producing more offensive TD's than Ryan.

 

There are teams like Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans, SD and even Baltimore and Cinci who are regularly on-and-off competitors but not consistent.

 

I think we are all hoping for more than that from Allen.........and I guess this unintentional tank job.......but like I said most of the tank years resulted in HC changes.........not keeping the guys who mismanaged the team to tanksville.

 

Upon looking again, they went 8-8 one season. Don’t be pedantic — you are way better than that. Address the actual issue.

9 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

For the sake of accuracy.......Ryan has had 7 winning seasons in 10 years.

 

He had 3 straight duds........which was just enough to re-tool the roster and get all new,  all better coaching staff.

 

He's not a Brady or Rodgers or Big Ben or even a Russ Wilson........a guy who can help keep the team in the playoff picture during roster transition......he needs a relatively large amount of support...........last year he didn't have as dynamic an offensive group and Tyrod actually ended up producing more offensive TD's than Ryan.

 

There are teams like Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans, SD and even Baltimore and Cinci who are regularly on-and-off competitors but not consistent.

 

I think we are all hoping for more than that from Allen.........and I guess this unintentional tank job.......but like I said most of the tank years resulted in HC changes.........not keeping the guys who mismanaged the team to tanksville.

 

This is just false. The Falcons’ problem in the down years was *always* the defense, not Ryan. 

Edited November 4, 2018 by dave mcbride

[BuffaloBillsGospel]

Nobody is convincinge this is a tank, if it were we would have shipped off McCoy, Meatball, Hughes and other vets for draft picks. Not 1 of them were traded which says to me they just weren't talented enough on offense. It happens when you have 2 of your top OL retire, a rookie QB and an average WR corps. I expect the OL, WR to look almost entirely different. Almost all new regimes coming in change personal. This staff had to switch the entire defense from a 3-4 to a 4-3 and also schemes in the secondary, not sure why anyone would think this is a full rebuild when we got rid of 0 vets and signed a WR at the trade deadline, just my opinion though.

[BigDingus]

18 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Most teams don't tank after drafting their franchise QB.  Here's what went wrong.

 

1.)  Beane and McDermott decided to try the "win now" and "win in the future" philosophy the first year.  It should've just been "win for the future."  They did the right thing in unloading Watkins, Darby, and eventually Dareus for draft picks.  The problem is they resigned Tyrod Taylor and the team over performed given their talent and got a very fluky 9-7 record.  Giving up a 3rd round pick for Benjamin when we realized we could compete in what was supposed to be a tank year was a mistake.

 

2.)  Because we finished with a decent record we now had to give up a lot to get our QB when we could've been 2nd or 3rd in the draft and gave up nothing to get Darnold.  That ultimately ended up being giving up two 2nd round picks and trading Cordy Glenn (9.6 million dead cap).  Glenn and the use of one of the two 2nd round picks on an o-lineman would make our o-line much better than it is.  We also could've used one of those 2nd round picks on a WR.  Did we really have to give up the 1st pick of the 3rd round to move up and get Edmunds?  Only time will tell I guess.

 

3.)  There was also a bad luck factor with Wood (10.4 million in dead cap space) and Incognito (1.15 million dead cap) retiring.  Combine that with trading Dareus (13.5 million dead cap) and we didn't have much money to sign FA OL and WR's.  The one's we did sign were marginal starters at best as we struck out with a WR like John Brown.

 

Combine all those factors and a total mismanagement of the QB situation and you have a historically bad offense and a tank year that wasn't supposed to be one.

 

 

 

Or, even easier, we could've just drafted Mahomes and played out the season the exact same way.

Then come the offseason, we don't have to trade Glenn, lose a bunch of picks to move up to draft a QB, and already have a QB who sat a year while learning the pro game. But you said makes sense too

[BADOLBILZ]

1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:

Upon looking again, they went 8-8 one season. Don’t be pedantic — you are way better than that. Address the actual issue.

This is just false. The Falcons’ problem in the down years was *always* the defense, not Ryan. 

 

3 times in the exchange I had to tell you that 3 is not "a couple".

 

It's clearly a throuple.

 

But by all means get mad at me for your oversight.

 

Bottom line.......I don't put what Ryan has done on par with Brady or Big Ben or Rodgers or even Russ...........if you do.........then good for you.   

 

Nobody else does.

Edited November 4, 2018 by BADOLBILZ