John Warrow’s High Praise For Beane & McDermott Regime

[BADOLBILZ]

8 minutes ago, K-9 said:

There's a lot to that. Leads to perpetual mediocrity at best. 

 

 

There isn't anything to it, actually............all of the best teams of the 2000's rose to that level from a state of mediocrity.........in some cases several years of it.

 

The teams that bottomed out in the 2000's?  Hasn't worked out well.

 

The last team to be rewarded for that with a SB win were the 1998 Colts..........who got one.

 

The days of needing to bottom out to break the chain of mediocrity ended before the Bills even started their run of mediocre to bad teams.  

 

 

[Royale with Cheese]

22 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

In his book GM, Ernie Accorsi says you can have a winning team with one prima donna, it's very hard with two and impossible with three.  McDermott wants none, and its hard to argue with that.  It makes no difference how talented Dareus is; he didn't have the attitude to play for McDermott's Bills.  

  

 

He didn't have the attitude and is one more suspension away from I think 10 games?  A man making nearly $100 million shouldn't be a hole clogger, he needs to be a disruption in both the pass and run.  Dareus was that prior to 2015 and now isn't any longer. 

[K-9]

1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

Go back and watch some of the Cover-1 stuff on Dareus from that time.    Tell me if Star can stack and shed like that.

 

Two weeks after Dareus was traded the defense went on the worst stretch of play in team history.

 

They were fortunate to limp to a 4-5 finish because of 3 wins against woeful Dolphins and Colts teams.........and the Colts and second Phins game were much too close considering Brissett and Fales were the opposing QB's.

 

And not only was Dareus good in Buffalo but he went to Jax in 2017 and they instantly went from the bottom of the league in run defense to near the top.

 

It was a very suspect decision to trade him and only exacerbated by replacing him with a ridiculous contract for Star.

 

 But if they had traded Dareus in the preseason they surely miss the playoffs.........no question........so I guess that's a plus for McBeane.

Pure hyperbole. 

 

Your research game needs work. You can start with the 2012 season, with Dareus starting and in the middle of it all, to find a stretch that's even worse. 

[Rock-A-Bye Beasley]

9 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

He didn't have the attitude and is one more suspension away from I think 10 games?  A man making nearly $100 million shouldn't be a hole clogger, he needs to be a disruption in both the pass and run.  Dareus was that prior to 2015 and now isn't any longer. 

 

Even if I concede what you’re saying about Dareus, he’s still much better than Star.

 

Until you come up with any evidence other than “McDermott said so” it’s pretty clear. 

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/marcell-dareus/6155

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/star-lotulelei/7795

 

5 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Pure hyperbole. 

 

Your research game needs work. You can start with the 2012 season, with Dareus starting and in the middle of it all, to find a stretch that's even worse. 

 

Change the subject much? 

[K-9]

3 minutes ago, Chemical said:

 

Even if I concede what you’re saying about Dareus, he’s still much better than Star.

 

Until you come up with any evidence other than “McDermott said so” it’s pretty clear. 

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/marcell-dareus/6155

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/star-lotulelei/7795

 

 

Change the subject much? 

Subject wasn't changed. 

 

A claim was made that after we traded Dareus, the Bills defense went on its worse run in history. 

 

I merely corrected that inaccurate claim. 

Edited June 17, 2019 by K-9

[Cripple Creek]

5 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

If someone has honestly tried to portray the Bills making the playoffs in 2017 as a bad thing they are an idiot. I remain skeptical that anyone has really done that.

Not sure why you’re skeptical when the information is right out there for you to see for yourself, but, that’s your choice.

[Rock-A-Bye Beasley]

2 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Subject wasn't changed. 

 

A claim was made that after we traded Dareus, the Bills defense went on its worse run in history. 

 

I merely corrected that inaccurate claim. 

 

And now your hope is that we will argue which was the worst run in Bills history. Instead of staying on the topic of Dareus’ absence negatively affected the defense immediately. 

 

Sure maybe it was hyperbole. So what? The point is still taken, you’re ignoring it and changing the subject. 

[K-9]

Just now, Chemical said:

 

And now your hope is that we will argue which was the worst run in Bills history. Instead of staying on the topic of Dareus’ absence negatively affected the defense immediately. 

 

Sure maybe it was hyperbole. So what? The point is still taken, you’re ignoring it and changing the subject. 

LMAO! My hope? When's the next drama club meeting? 

 

Anyway, I haven't been involved in an argument suggesting Dareus's absence didn't negatively impact the defense when it obviously did. Like I said, I was merely correcting an inaccurate statement which was deliberately used to bolster the argument. There's a word for that, but it escapes me at the moment. 

[Royale with Cheese]

2 minutes ago, Chemical said:

 

Even if I concede what you’re saying about Dareus, he’s still much better than Star.

 

Until you come up with any evidence other than “McDermott said so” it’s pretty clear. 

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/marcell-dareus/6155

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/star-lotulelei/7795

 

 

I don't understand your point about "McDermott said so".

 

What aren't you getting?  Dareus signed a contract worth twice as much as Stars....3 years before.  So yes, Dareus is the more talented player which is why he was drafted #3 overall but that's not the point.  The point is you give Dareus more money because he's supposed to do more as a two way player.  Star gets half the money because he's not a guy who gets after the QB in the passing game.  Problem is, Dareus isn't that player anymore so you're essentially paying him WELL MORE than his value.  

 

Oh I guess Pro Football Focus is the end all be all LOL....

 

https://www.catscratchreader.com/2016/5/9/11640274/nfl-players-rail-on-pro-football-focus-grading-system

 

 

[Rock-A-Bye Beasley]

14 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

I don't understand your point about "McDermott said so".

 

What aren't you getting?  Dareus signed a contract worth twice as much as Stars....3 years before.  So yes, Dareus is the more talented player which is why he was drafted #3 overall but that's not the point.  The point is you give Dareus more money because he's supposed to do more as a two way player.  Star gets half the money because he's not a guy who gets after the QB in the passing game.  Problem is, Dareus isn't that player anymore so you're essentially paying him WELL MORE than his value.  

 

Oh I guess Pro Football Focus is the end all be all LOL....

 

https://www.catscratchreader.com/2016/5/9/11640274/nfl-players-rail-on-pro-football-focus-grading-system

 

 

 

McDermott said so=

 

You previously said that McDermott said Star is doing his job. That’s the only attempt I’ve seen to defend his lack of stats/playing time for the highest paid player on the team. 

[GunnerBill]

47 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said:

Not sure why you’re skeptical when the information is right out there for you to see for yourself, but, that’s your choice.

 I have looked I can't find a single person who has said the Bills making the playoffs was a bad thing. 

[K-9]

12 minutes ago, Chemical said:

 

McDermott said so=

 

You previously said that McDermott said Star is doing his job. That’s the only attempt I’ve seen to defend his lack of stats/playing time for the highest paid player on the team. 

Per the bold, what should his stats be as a 1-tech playing 47% of the snaps in McDermott's scheme?

[Royale with Cheese]

18 minutes ago, Chemical said:

 

McDermott said so=

 

You previously said that McDermott said Star is doing his job. That’s the only attempt I’ve seen to defend his lack of stats/playing time for the highest paid player on the team. 

 

I don't think I wrote anything about what McDermott said.  I am using his playing time, which was second most among our DT's, as indication that he isn't as bad as Baldo or you think he did.  Star was on of our first, if not the first, FA signing we had last year.  We obviously were targeting him and our FO feels he's worth the money they gave him.

He's still running with the first unit now and is our starter opposite Oliver.  It'll be a heavy rotation and Star will be a regular. 

 

I'm not an expert interior lineman (DT) grader except the obvious stuff like blowing up a play.  So I'm not arguing X's and O's.

My argument is he's on the field and the guy who knows what he wants out of his defense....keeps him on the field.  It doesn't look like that's changing.

But if it does, then I will concede my point. 

Edited June 17, 2019 by Royale with Cheese

[BADOLBILZ]

51 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Pure hyperbole. 

 

Your research game needs work. You can start with the 2012 season, with Dareus starting and in the middle of it all, to find a stretch that's even worse. 

 

That 3 game stretch was statistically the worst stretch of performances in Bills history............they couldn't stop anything.

 

And the reaction by McDermott after the first two of those games?    Bench Tyrod.   Like that's going to stop teams from moving the ball at will on your run defense.    

 

[Gugny]

2 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

That 3 game stretch was statistically the worst stretch of performances in Bills history............they couldn't stop anything.

 

And the reaction by McDermott after the first two of those games?    Bench Tyrod.   Like that's going to stop teams from moving the ball at will on your run defense.    

 

 

That was a horrible stretch by the run D.  But let's not pretend Tyrod Taylor didn't deserve to be benched.  He certainly earned that.

[K-9]

1 minute ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

That 3 game stretch was statistically the worst stretch of performances in Bills history............they couldn't stop anything.

 

And the reaction by McDermott after the first two of those games?    Bench Tyrod.   Like that's going to stop teams from moving the ball at will on your run defense.    

 

Worse than a three game stretch where they gave up 1,553 total yards and 740 rushing yards?

 

Show me. 

[Rock-A-Bye Beasley]

43 minutes ago, K-9 said:

LMAO! My hope? When's the next drama club meeting? 

 

Anyway, I haven't been involved in an argument suggesting Dareus's absence didn't negatively impact the defense when it obviously did. Like I said, I was merely correcting an inaccurate statement which was deliberately used to bolster the argument. There's a word for that, but it escapes me at the moment. 

 

And now you get to back that up. I didn't feel like looking it up because it doesn't alter the point, but Badol seems to think he's still correct. Congrats on changing the subject though!

 

Not sure how my use of the word "hope" implies I may be interested in acting.

[BADOLBILZ]

7 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Per the bold, what should his stats be as a 1-tech playing 47% of the snaps in McDermott's scheme?

 

 

Well start with Harrison Phillips' stats.

 

The rookie had 35 tackles and made 6 plays in the backfield(TFL + QB hits) playing in 38% of Bills snaps.

 

Star had 17 tackles and 1 backfield play(a TFL vs. TN) in 47% of Bills snaps.

 

Better yet.........stay away from stats.........you are making one mistake after another on them in this thread.

 

 

 

 

[K-9]

1 minute ago, Chemical said:

 

And now you get to back that up. I didn't feel like looking it up because it doesn't alter the point, but Badol seems to think he's still correct. Congrats on changing the subject though!

 

Not sure how my use of the word "hope" implies I may be interested in acting.

Is it just laziness on your behalf? Or is this a drama club challenge?

 

Show me a three game stretch where the Bills defense gave up more than 1,553 total yards, 740 of which were on the ground after they traded Dareus in 2017, and I'll thank you for the edification. 

[BADOLBILZ]

6 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Worse than a three game stretch where they gave up 1,553 total yards and 740 rushing yards?

 

Show me. 

 

 

135 points allowed in 3 games ring a bell?

 

Grasp that..........that's 45 points per game.

 

Is your memory that short?

 

Worst stretch in Bills history and 4th worst by ANY team since the AFL/NFL merger.

[Rock-A-Bye Beasley]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

Is it just laziness on your behalf? Or is this a drama club challenge?

 

Show me a three game stretch where the Bills defense gave up more than 1,553 total yards, 740 of which were on the ground after they traded Dareus in 2017, and I'll thank you for the edification. 

 

Yes it is laziness because my whole point is it doesn''t matter if there was another 3 game stretch that was worse.

 

No need to embarrass yourself further by attempting to use the same insult twice. Apparently you don''t know what a drama club is. It reminds me of the time my dad thought the secret service's main job was to keep secrets.

[K-9]

Just now, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

135 points allowed in 3 games ring a bell?

 

Grasp that..........that's 45 points per game.

 

Is your memory that short?

 

Worst stretch in Bills history and 4th worst by ANY team since the AFL/NFL merger.

Ooh, the "gotcha" moment you've been waiting for. 

 

Nice try waiting to spring the points against rather than the total and rushing yards given up. 

 

But let's continue your disingenuous exercise, shall we. 

 

What happens when we add the ONE game immediately after those three game stretches and make them a four consecutive game stretch instead? 

 

Glad you asked:

 

The four game stretch in 2017, post Dareus, we yielded 145 points, for an avg. of 36 per game. 

 

The four game stretch in 2012, with Dareus, we yielded 148 points, for an avg. of 37 per game. 

 

So, if you want to sit on your laurels and stand by your "worst three game stretch in history"  without Dareus in 2017 argument, fine. 

 

I counter with "worst four game stretch" in Bills history with Darues in 2012. 

 

But please don't act like total yards and rushing yards given up don't tell the WHY of the points against. Try being a bit more intellectually honest and/or diligent when having to make a stretch to support a point. 

 

We now await your ever present and never effective moving of the goal posts. 

 

 

13 minutes ago, Chemical said:

 

Yes it is laziness because my whole point is it doesn''t matter if there was another 3 game stretch that was worse.

 

No need to embarrass yourself further by attempting to use the same insult twice. Apparently you don''t know what a drama club is. It reminds me of the time my dad thought the secret service's main job was to keep secrets.

I agree 100% that it doesn't matter one F**king bit if there was worse 3 game stretch. I just object to specious arguments for the sake of bolstering a faulty premise. Now, I know you weren't part of that, but you inserted yourself into my particular argument, when I did nothing of the sort in yours. 

 

Sorry about your dad. 

[BADOLBILZ]

4 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Ooh, the "gotcha" moment you've been waiting for. 

 

Nice try waiting to spring the points against rather than the total and rushing yards given up. 

 

But let's continue your disingenuous exercise, shall we. 

 

 

How is that a "gotcha"?    It was just a year and a half ago and talked about by astonished observers for the rest of the season......... how could you forget that?

 

And one of those 2012 games you are talking about the Bills won 19-16 in Arizona.

 

I don't care about comparing the 2012 Wannstedt defense to the 2017 team...........that has nothing to do with the point.......the 2012 defense was an abomination............the point is that the 2017 Bills defense came apart without Dareus.   That's why they desperately overpaid for Star.    That's a reality and one of several significant judgement errors by McBeane in 2017, IMO.

 

 

 

 

[Rock-A-Bye Beasley]

6 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Ooh, the "gotcha" moment you've been waiting for. 

 

Nice try waiting to spring the points against rather than the total and rushing yards given up. 

 

But let's continue your disingenuous exercise, shall we. 

 

What happens when we add the ONE game immediately after those three game stretches and make them a four consecutive game stretch instead? 

 

Glad you asked:

 

The four game stretch in 2017, post Dareus, we yielded 145 points, for an avg. of 36 per game. 

 

The four game stretch in 2012, with Dareus, we yielded 148 points, for an avg. of 37 per game. 

 

So, if you want to sit on your laurels and stand by your "worst three game stretch in history"  without Dareus in 2017 argument, fine. 

 

I counter with "worst four game stretch" in Bills history with Darues in 2012. 

 

But please don't act like total yards and rushing yards given up don't tell the WHY of the points against. Try being a bit more intellectually honest and/or diligent when having to make a stretch to support a point. 

 

We now await your ever present and never effective moving of the goal posts. 

 

 

I agree 100% that it doesn't matter one F**king bit if there was worse 3 game stretch. I just object to specious arguments for the sake of bolstering a faulty premise. Now, I know you weren't part of that, but you inserted yourself into my particular argument, when I did nothing of the sort in yours. 

 

Sorry about your dad. 

 

Ok now I'm confused. A few posts ago you said "I haven't been involved in an argument suggesting Dareus's absence didn't negatively impact the defense when it obviously did." Now you're saying his premise is faulty?

 

I was only pointing out your desire to change the subject, which you have been successful, because here we are discussing which stretch was technically worse for the defense which doesn't matter at all.

 

Dareus was a key part of the defense during a playoff run and the decision to trade him had a negative impact. That's his premise, that's what you disagree with in the bold, but agree with in the above quoted statement.

[BADOLBILZ]

49 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

let's not pretend Tyrod Taylor didn't deserve to be benched.  He certainly earned that.

 

 Here's the reality..........Taylor had one atrocious game against the Saints...........the game before in NJ he was the only Bills player who showed up..........and he deserved to be benched in the middle of a playoff race for Nate Peterman?   You still going with that? 

[K-9]

4 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

How is that a "gotcha"?    It was just a year and a half ago and talked about by astonished observers for the rest of the season......... how could you forget that?

 

And one of those 2012 games you are talking about the Bills won 19-16 in Arizona.

 

I don't care about comparing the 2012 Wannstedt defense to the 2017 team...........that has nothing to do with the point.......the 2012 defense was an abomination............the point is that the 2017 Bills defense came apart without Dareus.   That's why they desperately overpaid for Star.    That's a reality and one of several significant judgement errors by McBeane in 2017, IMO.

 

 

 

 

I didn't forget about the points given up, I was strictly looking at it from a total and rushing yards given up standpoint which tell a different story. 

 

And I don't give a crap about the 2012 Bills, either. 

 

Nor do I give a crap about the 2017 Bills. 

 

McBeane felt they had legitimate reasons to offload Dareus. Regardless if it made them worse in the short term. That's taking a principled stand and I can respect it. Dareus made it clear he didn't want to be part of another change in Buffalo, either. It was an untenable situation. 

 

Now you and others are certainly free to keep reminding the rest of us how stupid it was, how it created a hole, how Star sucks, etc., but the point is made: you feel McBeane screwed the pooch. How long does that have to be yelled from the rooftops? Until Star leaves? It's going on two years. It's history. And I don't understand the reason for it other than to keep trying to convince the rest of us that McBeane are stupid. 

 

The next regime is going to make head scratching moves, too. Maybe we can get an early start on griping about their stupidity now. 

 

 

[dave mcbride]

11 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Ooh, the "gotcha" moment you've been waiting for. 

 

Nice try waiting to spring the points against rather than the total and rushing yards given up. 

 

But let's continue your disingenuous exercise, shall we. 

 

What happens when we add the ONE game immediately after those three game stretches and make them a four consecutive game stretch instead? 

 

Glad you asked:

 

The four game stretch in 2017, post Dareus, we yielded 145 points, for an avg. of 36 per game. 

 

The four game stretch in 2012, with Dareus, we yielded 148 points, for an avg. of 37 per game. 

 

So, if you want to sit on your laurels and stand by your "worst three game stretch in history"  without Dareus in 2017 argument, fine. 

 

I counter with "worst four game stretch" in Bills history with Darues in 2012. 

 

But please don't act like total yards and rushing yards given up don't tell the WHY of the points against. Try being a bit more intellectually honest and/or diligent when having to make a stretch to support a point. 

 

We now await your ever present and never effective moving of the goal posts. 

 

 

I agree 100% that it doesn't matter one F**king bit if there was worse 3 game stretch. I just object to specious arguments for the sake of bolstering a faulty premise. Now, I know you weren't part of that, but you inserted yourself into my particular argument, when I did nothing of the sort in yours. 

 

Sorry about your dad. 

It's really hard to make ANY assessments of Dareus's performance in those four games in 2012. One of those games was a biannual beat-down by the Pats in which DT Keith Williams (who?????) played 77 percent of the snaps.  The second was a game in which Alex Smith absolutely shredded the secondary and Greg Roman thoroughly outcoached Wannstedt. The third saw Kevin Kolb rush 5 times for 66 yards, padding the rush stats. Even still, the Cardinals offense didn't do much, scoring only 16 points in a game that went into OT.  The final one saw Chris Johnson break an 83 yard TD run, which totally skews the stats, and as it pertains to the d-line, they have no control over anything 10 yards past the LOS. (That game also featured one of Fitzpatrick's worst late-game ill-advised INTs, and as you'll recall George Wilson dropped an easy INT which would have sealed the game with a minute to go.) Most importantly, it's really impossible to deduce how bad he was or whether his presence or absence had much of an effect overall given that a defense consists of 11 moving parts. That defense was bad overall (27th in defensive DVOA), the LBs were awful (Bryan Scott, Kelvin Sheppard, Nick Barnett, a young Arthur Moats, and a rookie Nigel Bradham) and they had stone age-level coordination on top of that. The first two teams they faced in this sequence were super bowl caliber too. 

 

As for Dareus's play in those games, I have zero recollection of how he played, and I'd venture to guess that no one else here does either.

[K-9]

14 minutes ago, Chemical said:

 

Ok now I'm confused. A few posts ago you said "I haven't been involved in an argument suggesting Dareus's absence didn't negatively impact the defense when it obviously did." Now you're saying his premise is faulty?

 

I was only pointing out your desire to change the subject, which you have been successful, because here we are discussing which stretch was technically worse for the defense which doesn't matter at all.

 

Dareus was a key part of the defense during a playoff run and the decision to trade him had a negative impact. That's his premise, that's what you disagree with in the bold, but agree with in the above quoted statement.

His premise was, and this is the last time I'll say it:

 

After the Bills traded Dareus they had their worst three game stretch in history on defense. 

 

I countered that argument. 

 

That is the ONLY aspect of the argument I was involved in, so save your indignation for those actually arguing the point about not being worse without Dareus. Because I F**KING agree we became worse vs. the run without Darues. 

 

Are we done here? Finally?

[dave mcbride]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

McBeane felt they had legitimate reasons to offload Dareus. Regardless if it made them worse in the short term. That's taking a principled stand and I can respect it. Dareus made it clear he didn't want to be part of another change in Buffalo, either. It was an untenable situation. 

 

Now you and others are certainly free to keep reminding the rest of us how stupid it was, how it created a hole, how Star sucks, etc., but the point is made: you feel McBeane screwed the pooch. How long does that have to be yelled from the rooftops? Until Star leaves? It's going on two years. It's history. And I don't understand the reason for it other than to keep trying to convince the rest of us that McBeane are stupid. 

 

The next regime is going to make head scratching moves, too. Maybe we can get an early start on griping about their stupidity now. 

 

 

I do agree with you that the Dareus situation was pretty untenable and that he probably had to go. There's stuff that happens behind the scenes that none of us are privy too. Sure, we find out when an o-lineman goes nuts, runs naked over an electric fence, and draws police attention, but there are a lot of crazy people in the NFL who do stupid sh*t, and we don't hear about all of them. Not even close. That lurks behind all of these conversations. 

[K-9]

3 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

It's really hard to make ANY assessments of Dareus's performance in those four games in 2012. One of those games was a biannual beat-down by the Pats in which DT Keith Williams (who?????) played 77 percent of the snaps.  The second was a game in which Alex Smith absolutely shredded the secondary and Greg Roman thoroughly outcoached Wannstedt. The third saw Kevin Kolb rush 5 times for 66 yards, padding the rush stats. Even still, the Cardinals offense didn't do much, scoring only 16 points in a game that went into OT.  The final one saw Chris Johnson break an 83 yard TD run, which totally skews the stats, and as it pertains to the d-line, they have no control over anything 10 yards past the LOS. (That game also featured one of Fitzpatrick's worst late-game ill-advised INTs, and as you'll recall George Wilson dropped an easy INT which would have sealed the game with a minute to go.) Most importantly, it's really impossible to deduce how bad he was or whether his presence or absence had much of an effect overall given that a defense consists of 11 moving parts. That defense was bad overall (27th in defensive DVOA), the LBs were awful (Bryan Scott, Kelvin Sheppard, Nick Barnett, a young Arthur Moats, and a rookie Nigel Bradham) and they had stone age-level coordination on top of that. The first two teams they faced in this sequence were super bowl caliber too. 

 

As for Dareus's play in those games, I have zero recollection of how he played, and I'd venture to guess that no one else here does either.

Let's just forget about it Dave. My point had nothing to do with Dareus in 2012 and I regret using the term "with Dareus" now that I think about it. The only point was that the Bills have had worse stretches than in the aftermath of the Dareus trade. 

 

I'm moving on. 

[Gugny]

1 minute ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 Here's the reality..........Taylor had one atrocious game against the Saints...........the game before in NJ he was the only Bills player who showed up..........and he deserved to be benched in the middle of a playoff race for Nate Peterman?   You still going with that? 

 

Here's my reality .............................. outside of a couple games vs. Miami, Tyrod Taylor sucked his entire time in Buffalo.  The game in NJ was a shitshow on offense and defense (this is a game I actually attended).  Tyrod padded the stats and made the game appear closer during the last 5-6 minutes of the game (AKA "Garbage Time).

 

Did I think we'd win with Peterman?  I wasn't sure.

Did I think we'd win with Taylor?  Absolutely not.

 

That's why I was fine with him getting benched.  So yes ....................................... I'm still going with that.

[Magox]

Let me sum this up really quickly.  Dareus' had two dominant years, 2013 and 2014.   Signed a huge deal in 2015 and never had a dominant year ever since he got paid.  

 

Has played decent level of run clogging football slightly more on than off since his last dominant year in 2014.  

 

He is one suspension away from being locked away from the NFL for a long time.

 

Dareus was signed at $16M a year, Star at $10M a year.

 

Dareus is the better player even though he isn't who he used to be, but he's not that much better than Star.

 

Not to mention that Beane/McD can count on Star not being late for practices, failing drug tests or getting suspended for some other stupid excuse.  In other words, they can depend on him, and they know that he'll clog running lanes.  

 

Bottom line, they were willing to pay $10M a year for a non spectacular run clogger, even though I do believe he's probably only worth around $7M a year but they were not willing to continue paying $16m a year for a player that could do a little more than Star but someone that they couldn't rely on who was only one suspension away from being potentially out of the league.

[Rock-A-Bye Beasley]

8 minutes ago, K-9 said:

His premise was, and this is the last time I'll say it:

 

After the Bills traded Dareus they had their worst three game stretch in history on defense. 

 

I countered that argument. 

 

That is the ONLY aspect of the argument I was involved in, so save your indignation for those actually arguing the point about not being worse without Dareus. Because I F**KING agree we became worse vs. the run without Darues. 

 

Are we done here? Finally?

 

I sure hope so. What a pointless tangent you just created. Glad it's over.

[oldmanfan]

As regards Dareus your highest paid player can't be your worst attitude player.  So they got rid of him.

[K-9]

12 minutes ago, Chemical said:

 

I sure hope so. What a pointless tangent you just created. Glad it's over.

Well, it wasn't pointless to the two people who were actually discussing an issue about the worst three game defensive stretch in Bills history; a very refined point. Too bad you felt the need to chime in and insisted on making my very narrow point a part of amuch larger argument you were having with others when it didn't involve your argument. Especially when I agree with the larger point of having been worse on defense after trading Dareus. Had I meant it to include your argument, I would have responded to one of your posts directly. 

 

If you don't like tangents that are pointless in your opinion, don't involve yourself in them. 

Edited June 17, 2019 by K-9

[Cripple Creek]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 I have looked I can't find a single person who has said the Bills making the playoffs was a bad thing. 

Maybe you’re not looking hard enough. Can you find anyone who, when asked specifically about the playoff appearance, had nothing good to say about it and only gave excuses for why it happened?

[SoTier]

6 hours ago, K-9 said:

Ah, the mad as hell working class hero, “they owe me, damn it!” indignation.  A real classic. Have you had your Howard Beale moment yet? You’ll have to get in line with ScottLaw when demanding that apology letter from then Bills, though. 

 

Hardly.  I just don't like giving handouts to billionaires when they repeatedly fail to deliver what they promise.  The 2018 Bills were NOT entertaining at all except for Josh Allen's heroics.  Moreover, the Buffalo Sabres have rarely been entertaining since Pegula purchased them.   If Pegula wants money for his new stadium -- which likely will price out many of the Bills long-time faithful just like what happened with the Jets and Giants  -- then he needs to prove he can deliver a reasonably entertaining product rather than a team that gets blown out by 20+ points in every fourth game, that can't score more than 1 offensive TD a game, and is out of the playoff hunt by October.

 

3 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

He didn't have the attitude and is one more suspension away from I think 10 games?  A man making nearly $100 million shouldn't be a hole clogger, he needs to be a disruption in both the pass and run.  Dareus was that prior to 2015 and now isn't any longer. 

 

Isn't that just about the same excuse that supporters of the Bills trading away Marshawn Lynch used?  Hopefully, this won't be another case of the Bills parting with a future All Pro just because they didn't want him around.

 

 

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, SoTier said:

Hardly.  I just don't like giving handouts to billionaires when they repeatedly fail to deliver what they promise.  The 2018 Bills were NOT entertaining at all except for Josh Allen's heroics.  Moreover, the Buffalo Sabres have rarely been entertaining since Pegula purchased them.   If Pegula wants money for his new stadium -- which likely will price out many of the Bills long-time faithful just like what happened with the Jets and Giants  -- then he needs to prove he can deliver a reasonably entertaining product rather than a team that gets blown out by 20+ points in every fourth game, that can't score more than 1 offensive TD a game, and is out of the playoff hunt by October.

Can't argue with any of that. 

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

So what's your point?

 

They've still been an abysmal sports franchise for just about all of the past two decades. 

 

The team is always bad, so my posts are down on the team. Go figure.?

 

I like Allen. I really like what I saw the past 6 games of the season. Ive voiced my opinion that I don't think they did enough to get weapons around him. I hope he makes a significant jump in his 2nd year where it doesn't matter and he's making plays despite that or that the WR/TE group prove me wrong.

 

Another abysmal offensive showing for the 2019 season would be a hard pill to swallow for the Pegulas on the McBeane regime. 

Point is these are golden years compared to a previous 25 year era when we were literally the worst team in the four major pro sports in North America. So, while you see fit to rant, rave, and rail against the present state of things, it's been much worse in the past. And by comparison, imo, you don't have near as much to moan about. 

 

It's the old walking to and from school, up hill all the way, both ways, in blizzard conditions, "get off my lawn", old fart complaint about how you youngins have it so good. 

[3rdand12]

1 hour ago, Magox said:

Let me sum this up really quickly.  Dareus' had two dominant years, 2013 and 2014.   Signed a huge deal in 2015 and never had a dominant year ever since he got paid.  

 

Has played decent level of run clogging football slightly more on than off since his last dominant year in 2014.  

 

He is one suspension away from being locked away from the NFL for a long time.

 

Dareus was signed at $16M a year, Star at $10M a year.

 

Dareus is the better player even though he isn't who he used to be, but he's not that much better than Star.

 

Not to mention that Beane/McD can count on Star not being late for practices, failing drug tests or getting suspended for some other stupid excuse.  In other words, they can depend on him, and they know that he'll clog running lanes.  

 

Bottom line, they were willing to pay $10M a year for a non spectacular run clogger, even though I do believe he's probably only worth around $7M a year but they were not willing to continue paying $16m a year for a player that could do a little more than Star but someone that they couldn't rely on who was only one suspension away from being potentially out of the league.

seems simple enough 

 : )