Has Sean McDermott's Bills met your personal expectations over the last four season?

[PBF81]

5 minutes ago, Dopey said:

Can you name a team who loses a top 3 qb who wouldn’t see a big drop off in wins? One of the dumbest statements ever.  

 

Sure, all of our teams since the Kelly era you probably could have swapped out QBs arbitrarily and have had it made no more than a 1+/- game difference season to season.  

 

I'm pretty sure that you could have taken the QBs of the Jets or Fins and interchanged them over the past 20+ years and it also wouldn't have made the kind of difference that you reference.  

 

Here's the problem that I have with people using that line of reasoning in defense of Beane or McD, that put that same QB, Allen, on pretty much any of the teams of "The Last 20 Years," and you also have a playoff contender and perhaps even a division winner during the Brady era.  

 

I mean swap Bledsoe for Allen, and we're making the playoffs and winning playoff games.  We had better overall WRs, RBs, OL and even defense back then.  

 

So if we're going to use that, then let's use it entirely for the entire time of the "Last 20 Years" then too.  McBeane defenders won't allow that tho.  

[SirAndrew]

13 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

Would you trade 3 upcoming losing seasons, for 1 Super Bowl win next year?

I wouldn’t because I can’t imagine it. QB’s like Josh Allen don’t have three straight losing seasons. That’s left for teams who win a title under freak circumstances. Allen is a franchise QB who should win at least one title in his career. That’s my issue with this “as long as we compete” mentality. Allen is a top QB, this franchise should win a title with him. Anything less is a failure. People who claim just competing is all you can ask for are correct, you can’t guarantee titles. Brees had one title with the Saints, but nonetheless he brought one home. I don’t expect a Super Bowl every year, but let’s not make excuses for this franchise if they can’t figure it out at least once during Allen’s career. 

[SirAndrew]

11 hours ago, Ga boy said:

JK12’s teams > JA17’s teams.  What’s amazing about Allen is he has won a lot with a team that would be maybe 7 wins without him.  That’s the brutal facts.  

Agree, this team has a lot of overrated talent. I often wonder how incredibly wasted Allen’s career would be without the Diggs trade. 

[Donuts and Doritos]

21 hours ago, Blah Blah said:

Fact is, McDermott is actually Murdaugh.

https://nypost.com/2023/03/03/alex-murdaugh-shaves-head-for-latest-mugshot-after-double-life-sentence/

 

No, that's those are words of George Steinbrenner, just look it up.

 

I was kidding. Sorry, I'll do better next time. 😉

Edited March 5, 2023 by Donuts and Doritos

[Dopey]

11 hours ago, PBF81 said:

 

Sure, all of our teams since the Kelly era you probably could have swapped out QBs arbitrarily and have had it made no more than a 1+/- game difference season to season.  

 

I'm pretty sure that you could have taken the QBs of the Jets or Fins and interchanged them over the past 20+ years and it also wouldn't have made the kind of difference that you reference.  

 

Here's the problem that I have with people using that line of reasoning in defense of Beane or McD, that put that same QB, Allen, on pretty much any of the teams of "The Last 20 Years," and you also have a playoff contender and perhaps even a division winner during the Brady era.  

 

I mean swap Bledsoe for Allen, and we're making the playoffs and winning playoff games.  We had better overall WRs, RBs, OL and even defense back then.  

 

So if we're going to use that, then let's use it entirely for the entire time of the "Last 20 Years" then too.  McBeane defenders won't allow that tho.  

Ga boy wrote:“What’s amazing about Allen is he has won a lot with a team that would be maybe 7 wins without him. “ 

This is what I was commenting on. Any team that loses a top 3 qb in the league will lose more. KC without Mahomes, Cincy without Burrow, Philly without Hurts will not win nearly as many games. Maybe you missed my intent, but all of this “Last 20 year “ stuff you wrote was like listening to Charlie Brown’s teacher talk. 
Since you brought it up, Kelly, in his prime would have those same teams as contenders. Just like Josh would. Kelly was always a better passer than Josh. Josh is bigger and is a better runner. Kelly had a gun and was way more accurate. Off the top of my head, I can name 3 qbs who would have thrived like Josh if they played now: John Elway, Steve Young and Vick. If these guys played in today’s game where qbs are treated with kid gloves, they would have been MVP players. Even Warren Moon. Back then they ran less because they could get the snot knocked out of them with little to no repercussions. If you touch one now…

Qbs we’re pocket passers back then. It’s a different game due to those protections for qbs now. His legs are his big advantage over Kelly and the rules today make it so. 

[Kirby Jackson]

My opinion is that he is a great program builder. If your organization is a mess he can stabilize. That was what he originally came here to do and did it well. 
 

I worry that there is a ceiling with him. He isn’t a great game coach and for the last 3 or 4 years he had a team that was good enough to win a Super Bowl. He has been to 1 conference championship game. He may not be the guy to get to the promised land.

 

I voted “met expectations” because he made the Bills matter. He hasn’t elevated them beyond their talent level.

[NoSaint]

On 3/2/2023 at 6:06 PM, Chaos said:

Has Sean McDermott's Bills met your personal expectations over the last four season? 

I think the phrase “met my expectations” is too vague? 
 

my expectations for him or the team? My expectations as they evolve or at hire?

 

he has exceeded what I thought he would do at hire. He is probably in the ballpark for what I expect a franchise to use as its baseline for success. He has not reached the pinnacle though.

[Chaos]

6 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

I think the phrase “met my expectations” is too vague? 

Fair question. My intent was for each of the last four seasons, your expecation at the beginning of the season vs the result for the season.  So four separate expecations. 

[frostbitmic]

The Bills are fun to watch again for the first time since Son of Bum was on the sidelines, therefore they've exceeded my expectations.

 

This year I had higher expectations that went unfulfilled, I should know better.  

 

 

[PBF81]

4 hours ago, Dopey said:

Ga boy wrote:“What’s amazing about Allen is he has won a lot with a team that would be maybe 7 wins without him. “ 

This is what I was commenting on. Any team that loses a top 3 qb in the league will lose more. KC without Mahomes, Cincy without Burrow, Philly without Hurts will not win nearly as many games. Maybe you missed my intent, but all of this “Last 20 year “ stuff you wrote was like listening to Charlie Brown’s teacher talk. 
Since you brought it up, Kelly, in his prime would have those same teams as contenders. Just like Josh would. Kelly was always a better passer than Josh. Josh is bigger and is a better runner. Kelly had a gun and was way more accurate. Off the top of my head, I can name 3 qbs who would have thrived like Josh if they played now: John Elway, Steve Young and Vick. If these guys played in today’s game where qbs are treated with kid gloves, they would have been MVP players. Even Warren Moon. Back then they ran less because they could get the snot knocked out of them with little to no repercussions. If you touch one now…

Qbs we’re pocket passers back then. It’s a different game due to those protections for qbs now. His legs are his big advantage over Kelly and the rules today make it so. 

 

I think I partially did miss your intent.  Also, I did take some liberties re: your "top-3" comment.  I appreciate the back-n-forth.  

 

Your point seems to be defending McD & Beane.  Am I off?  

 

As to your points, ... Kelly was a better passer simply because he knew how to take advantage of, and did, the high-percentage passing game, which is what propels all QBs to greatness in this league.  Allen was much better at it last season, this season he took an injury and we're told by a "doctor" that his injury prevents him from doing that.  So if true, is that his fault?  But if anything, that is the shortcoming in his game and why there's any doubt that he may not be as good as Mahomes or Burrow as a passer.  

 

As to your comments on Elway, Young, Vick, and "today's game" vs. yesteryear's game, the difference to the QBs was not in how the pressure got to QBs generally speaking, it's been in what those defenders could/could-not do to the QB once they got past their respective OL counterparts.  There's an important difference as it relates to what we're talking about here.  IOW, the OL is still of paramount importance in the mix.  

 

Put Kelly on this team and he's running for his life like he, literally, never knew.  The difference in our OLs today vs. '90-'93 is pronounced.  The same can be said althought not as extremely, between today's OL of ours and pretty much any of our OLs since then.  I mean is anyone really going to positively compare Ballard, Ritcher, Hull, and Woolford to Dawkins, Bates, Morse, Boettger, and Brown?  Hardly.  

 

I would quickly add it's the same for the rosters otherwise also similarly.  We've pretty much always had better RBs than we've had now.  Knox is nothing special and comparable to past TEs.  Some of our defenses, I pointed one out specifically the other day, were worlds better than then one we have now.  There was above-average talent in most positions, not merely in a few spots.  

 

Kelly didn't have Allen's escapability either.  He was far from immobile, but if he had to run for his life like Allen regularly does, no way he performs well like he did.  Kelly also had massive support from a running game featuring Thurman, Davis, and several different bruiser FBs that could get the short yardage when necessary, something that this team doesn't have apart from Allen.  

 

Completely disagree on Vick BTW.  Vick wasn't any better than Taylor.  In the few seasons that both started, Taylor outplayed Vick in passing and didn't turn the ball over nearly as much either.  

 

A great exercise on this BTW, would be to put up the rosters throughout the years and compare them.  I think it would clear things up considerably.  I've already done that informally and keep saying to myself, that if Allen had even the OL of Wood, Levitre, and Glenn for example, better than any three we have now by a long shot.  Some continuity as well which Allen has zero of.   In fact, I'll do that for one year below for the OLs and defense.  

 

Anyway, if you're point was that without Allen we win only 6 or 7 games a season, I'm in full agreement with that.  But at the same time, if we're comparing teams, to take say an average QB, and presumably we can agree that for example David Carr or Andy Dalton are pretty average QBs, if we were to replace Allen with Dalton or Carr, we still wouldn't win more than 6/7 games and we'd be in the AFCE basement.  How would we win them?  

 

If however, KC or Cinci had to go with Carr or Dalton from Mahomes and Burrow, I still see them being competitive, despite not winning 14 or 12 games, I still see them winning 9, 10, or 11 games and making the playoffs.  Cinci already did it with Dalton.  Why?  Because they're better coached than we are, plain and simple.  That's the McD part of it.  They also have more talent elsewhere on the team that steps up, particularly in the big playoff games.  That's the Beane part of it.  

 

IMO McD has run his course, so has Beane.  Could I be wrong?  Of course.  We'll see what this Draft brings, but given the results to date, the odds of one of our rookies stepping up to make a difference is nonexistent.   It would be a first for Beane.  As to McD, he won't have nearly to work with what he's had to date.  White may be finished after his surgery, he certainly wasn't good when he returned this year.  Poyer gone.  Even drafting a WR at 27th isn't going to cut it.  There hasn't been a WR drafted after 11th in either of the last two drafts that has put up starting #2 numbers or even close.  Cinci's improving, KC's still KC, Miami and the Jets are breathing down our necks and each took one from us this past season.  We can never rule NE out.  Lawrence and Jax seem to be coming on and we couldn't beat them last time we played them when they sucked.  

 

But the elephant sitting in the kitchen sink is that come playoff time none of our players steps up.  Diggs our moneyman has been terrible the past two seasons in the playoffs and hasn't had a playoff TD in our last five playoff games.  Against Cinci and KC he posted a combined 7 grabs for 42 yards this and last season, and he's our money guy.  Everyone's complaining about Davis, but at least he shows up come playoff time as our best overall WR in the last two season's playoffs.  Singletary and Cook haven't done anything.  Defensively we don't have anything even approaching a Bruce Smith, Aaron Schobel, or Kyle Williams.  In his 8 total playoff games Oliver's had 2 total sacks and 4 TFL.  That's ridiculous for a 9th overall pick.  What does one even say about a secondary that permits nearly twice the passing yardage against Cinci than Baltimore did, and nearly a hundred yards more than KC with its 19th ranked yardage passing D and 32nd ranked TD passing D.  

 

Our rushing game is below average.  

Our OL is average on a good day. 

Our WRs clearly aren't cutting it.  

Our TE shows up a few times a season but that's it.  

There's not a single impact player on our DL that shows up regularly besides Poyer and Milano neither of which Beane drafted.  

Our LBs, ... LOL, that should be singular, not plural, our LB, Milano, is great, but then there's nothing if Edmunds leaves.  Milano's not Beane's pick.  

As to our secondary, if the playoffs are the indication, there's not much positive to say.  

 

OK, so per above, let's compare rosters between this past season's and that of Mularkey's first of two seasons in Buffalo, and I'll swap QBs on the roster.  Tell me what you'd have expected for both teams.  Mularkey's team went 9-7 that season, led by Bledsoe, missing a Wild Card by a game to the Jets (Pennington) and Denver (Plummer), hardly household names in historical QBs.  

 

Last year's unit (13-3) here was our OL:  

 

LT:  Dawkins 

LG:  Saffold 

C :  Morse 

G:  Bates 

RT:  Brown   

 

2004 (9-7):  

 

LT:  Jennings 

LG:  Ross Tucker 

C :  Teague 

RG:  Villareal 

RT:  Mike Williams 

 

Last season:

DL:  Rousseau, Oliver, Jones, Lawson 

LBs:  Edmunds, Milano 

DBs:  Poyer, Jackson, Hamlin, Johnson, and White 

 

2004:  

DL:  Kelsay, Adams, Williams, Schobel 

LBs:  Posey, Fletcher, Spikes 

DBs:  McGee, Clements, Milloy, Reese  (backups:  Wire, Vincent, 

 

Bledsoe, who couldn't move out of his own way, had 37 sacks.  Allen had 33 last season, and you've agreed that it's easier for QBs now.  So switch the two.  How would each team have fared?  

 

The 2004 team lost four games by an average of 3 points.  Just those four games alone would have put them at 13-3.  If we could have taken one from NE too we'd have won the division against Brady.  Bledsoe on last season's team would have been a disaster.  

 

Which roster would you rather have with Allen, last season's, or 2004's?  That's an easy one for me.  IMO with that defensive roster and OL & McGahee, if we couldn't have won a Super Bowl it will never happen.  With Bledsoe on this team we'd have been lucky to win 6 games.  BTW, our WRs then were Moulds & Evans, the latter whom as a rookie posted almost exactly what Davis did last season but with two more TDs.  

 

 

17 hours ago, Dopey said:

Why try to make this more complicated than what it is? Simple poll that gave me a better feeling about fans here on TBD. Why? The number of voters who are disappointed or have not had their expectations met are outnumbered by a 2:1 margin. I always felt it was a minority, no matter how vocal. 

 

Well, what will be interesting is posing this same exact poll following this upcoming season and then if necessary after the 2024 season. 

 

Somehow I see that margin flipping decisively.  The question then becomes, why are people satisfied now, but not then should that end up being the case.  I mean same coach.  Same "Process."  Same excuses for giving him more [undefined] time, what, 5 years more, 10?   What will have changed in the perceptions of McD or Beane if that happens?  Will they both have gotten worse than they are now and have been, mysteriously?  

 

I suspect that the outcome at that time will depend upon whether or not we make a legitimate run at winning the AFC.  But right now we can't play well against the top two challenging teams requiring monumental offensive efforts to overcome our defensive failures.  We struggled, at home, against a QB that won't ever start in the NFL and nearly lost to a team with the most novice and inexperienced QBs in the playoffs.  

 

I wouldn't be surprised if we do not win the division this season.  Suppose that happens, say one of the following happens: 

 

A. Win the division, but lose again in the WC or D round;    

B.  Don't win the division and if we make the playoffs but lose in the WC or D rounds; 

C.  Don't make the playoffs  

 

How do you think the poll responses will look then?   I don't know, I'm seriously asking.  All I can do is guess.  But we've underachieved with a better roster than we'll have this coming season.  If Milano, Dawkins, or Diggs gets hurt, do you see us winning many games?  These are all rhetorical, but get to the point.  

 

Even if it's for injury to Allen, that would likely befall Beane anyway, for not protecting our multi-hundred million dollar investment.  

 

 

[PrimeTime101]

1 hour ago, PBF81 said:

 

I think I partially did miss your intent.  Also, I did take some liberties re: your "top-3" comment.  I appreciate the back-n-forth.  

 

Your point seems to be defending McD & Beane.  Am I off?  

 

As to your points, ... Kelly was a better passer simply because he knew how to take advantage of, and did, the high-percentage passing game, which is what propels all QBs to greatness in this league.  Allen was much better at it last season, this season he took an injury and we're told by a "doctor" that his injury prevents him from doing that.  So if true, is that his fault?  But if anything, that is the shortcoming in his game and why there's any doubt that he may not be as good as Mahomes or Burrow as a passer.  

 

As to your comments on Elway, Young, Vick, and "today's game" vs. yesteryear's game, the difference to the QBs was not in how the pressure got to QBs generally speaking, it's been in what those defenders could/could-not do to the QB once they got past their respective OL counterparts.  There's an important difference as it relates to what we're talking about here.  IOW, the OL is still of paramount importance in the mix.  

 

Put Kelly on this team and he's running for his life like he, literally, never knew.  The difference in our OLs today vs. '90-'93 is pronounced.  The same can be said althought not as extremely, between today's OL of ours and pretty much any of our OLs since then.  I mean is anyone really going to positively compare Ballard, Ritcher, Hull, and Woolford to Dawkins, Bates, Morse, Boettger, and Brown?  Hardly.  

 

I would quickly add it's the same for the rosters otherwise also similarly.  We've pretty much always had better RBs than we've had now.  Knox is nothing special and comparable to past TEs.  Some of our defenses, I pointed one out specifically the other day, were worlds better than then one we have now.  There was above-average talent in most positions, not merely in a few spots.  

 

Kelly didn't have Allen's escapability either.  He was far from immobile, but if he had to run for his life like Allen regularly does, no way he performs well like he did.  Kelly also had massive support from a running game featuring Thurman, Davis, and several different bruiser FBs that could get the short yardage when necessary, something that this team doesn't have apart from Allen.  

 

Completely disagree on Vick BTW.  Vick wasn't any better than Taylor.  In the few seasons that both started, Taylor outplayed Vick in passing and didn't turn the ball over nearly as much either.  

 

A great exercise on this BTW, would be to put up the rosters throughout the years and compare them.  I think it would clear things up considerably.  I've already done that informally and keep saying to myself, that if Allen had even the OL of Wood, Levitre, and Glenn for example, better than any three we have now by a long shot.  Some continuity as well which Allen has zero of.   In fact, I'll do that for one year below for the OLs and defense.  

 

Anyway, if you're point was that without Allen we win only 6 or 7 games a season, I'm in full agreement with that.  But at the same time, if we're comparing teams, to take say an average QB, and presumably we can agree that for example David Carr or Andy Dalton are pretty average QBs, if we were to replace Allen with Dalton or Carr, we still wouldn't win more than 6/7 games and we'd be in the AFCE basement.  How would we win them?  

 

If however, KC or Cinci had to go with Carr or Dalton from Mahomes and Burrow, I still see them being competitive, despite not winning 14 or 12 games, I still see them winning 9, 10, or 11 games and making the playoffs.  Cinci already did it with Dalton.  Why?  Because they're better coached than we are, plain and simple.  That's the McD part of it.  They also have more talent elsewhere on the team that steps up, particularly in the big playoff games.  That's the Beane part of it.  

 

IMO McD has run his course, so has Beane.  Could I be wrong?  Of course.  We'll see what this Draft brings, but given the results to date, the odds of one of our rookies stepping up to make a difference is nonexistent.   It would be a first for Beane.  As to McD, he won't have nearly to work with what he's had to date.  White may be finished after his surgery, he certainly wasn't good when he returned this year.  Poyer gone.  Even drafting a WR at 27th isn't going to cut it.  There hasn't been a WR drafted after 11th in either of the last two drafts that has put up starting #2 numbers or even close.  Cinci's improving, KC's still KC, Miami and the Jets are breathing down our necks and each took one from us this past season.  We can never rule NE out.  Lawrence and Jax seem to be coming on and we couldn't beat them last time we played them when they sucked.  

 

But the elephant sitting in the kitchen sink is that come playoff time none of our players steps up.  Diggs our moneyman has been terrible the past two seasons in the playoffs and hasn't had a playoff TD in our last five playoff games.  Against Cinci and KC he posted a combined 7 grabs for 42 yards this and last season, and he's our money guy.  Everyone's complaining about Davis, but at least he shows up come playoff time as our best overall WR in the last two season's playoffs.  Singletary and Cook haven't done anything.  Defensively we don't have anything even approaching a Bruce Smith, Aaron Schobel, or Kyle Williams.  In his 8 total playoff games Oliver's had 2 total sacks and 4 TFL.  That's ridiculous for a 9th overall pick.  What does one even say about a secondary that permits nearly twice the passing yardage against Cinci than Baltimore did, and nearly a hundred yards more than KC with its 19th ranked yardage passing D and 32nd ranked TD passing D.  

 

Our rushing game is below average.  

Our OL is average on a good day. 

Our WRs clearly aren't cutting it.  

Our TE shows up a few times a season but that's it.  

There's not a single impact player on our DL that shows up regularly besides Poyer and Milano neither of which Beane drafted.  

Our LBs, ... LOL, that should be singular, not plural, our LB, Milano, is great, but then there's nothing if Edmunds leaves.  Milano's not Beane's pick.  

As to our secondary, if the playoffs are the indication, there's not much positive to say.  

 

OK, so per above, let's compare rosters between this past season's and that of Mularkey's first of two seasons in Buffalo, and I'll swap QBs on the roster.  Tell me what you'd have expected for both teams.  Mularkey's team went 9-7 that season, led by Bledsoe, missing a Wild Card by a game to the Jets (Pennington) and Denver (Plummer), hardly household names in historical QBs.  

 

Last year's unit (13-3) here was our OL:  

 

LT:  Dawkins 

LG:  Saffold 

C :  Morse 

G:  Bates 

RT:  Brown   

 

2004 (9-7):  

 

LT:  Jennings 

LG:  Ross Tucker 

C :  Teague 

RG:  Villareal 

RT:  Mike Williams 

 

Last season:

DL:  Rousseau, Oliver, Jones, Lawson 

LBs:  Edmunds, Milano 

DBs:  Poyer, Jackson, Hamlin, Johnson, and White 

 

2004:  

DL:  Kelsay, Adams, Williams, Schobel 

LBs:  Posey, Fletcher, Spikes 

DBs:  McGee, Clements, Milloy, Reese  (backups:  Wire, Vincent, 

 

Bledsoe, who couldn't move out of his own way, had 37 sacks.  Allen had 33 last season, and you've agreed that it's easier for QBs now.  So switch the two.  How would each team have fared?  

 

The 2004 team lost four games by an average of 3 points.  Just those four games alone would have put them at 13-3.  If we could have taken one from NE too we'd have won the division against Brady.  Bledsoe on last season's team would have been a disaster.  

 

Which roster would you rather have with Allen, last season's, or 2004's?  That's an easy one for me.  IMO with that defensive roster and OL & McGahee, if we couldn't have won a Super Bowl it will never happen.  With Bledsoe on this team we'd have been lucky to win 6 games.  BTW, our WRs then were Moulds & Evans, the latter whom as a rookie posted almost exactly what Davis did last season but with two more TDs.  

 

 

 

Well, what will be interesting is posing this same exact poll following this upcoming season and then if necessary after the 2024 season. 

 

Somehow I see that margin flipping decisively.  The question then becomes, why are people satisfied now, but not then should that end up being the case.  I mean same coach.  Same "Process."  Same excuses for giving him more [undefined] time, what, 5 years more, 10?   What will have changed in the perceptions of McD or Beane if that happens?  Will they both have gotten worse than they are now and have been, mysteriously?  

 

I suspect that the outcome at that time will depend upon whether or not we make a legitimate run at winning the AFC.  But right now we can't play well against the top two challenging teams requiring monumental offensive efforts to overcome our defensive failures.  We struggled, at home, against a QB that won't ever start in the NFL and nearly lost to a team with the most novice and inexperienced QBs in the playoffs.  

 

I wouldn't be surprised if we do not win the division this season.  Suppose that happens, say one of the following happens: 

 

A. Win the division, but lose again in the WC or D round;    

B.  Don't win the division and if we make the playoffs but lose in the WC or D rounds; 

C.  Don't make the playoffs  

 

How do you think the poll responses will look then?   I don't know, I'm seriously asking.  All I can do is guess.  But we've underachieved with a better roster than we'll have this coming season.  If Milano, Dawkins, or Diggs gets hurt, do you see us winning many games?  These are all rhetorical, but get to the point.  

 

Even if it's for injury to Allen, that would likely befall Beane anyway, for not protecting our multi-hundred million dollar investment.  

 

 

seriously take a deep breath man. you are ALL OVER the place... and because you are ALL OVER the place, half the people in here won't even bother reading all the jumbo mumbo stuff. A little of this is a real good read and the rest is yawn.  The other posters are right man. your over complicating this and your just trying to out do people without sticking to main facts.

Edited March 5, 2023 by PrimeTime101

[PBF81]

45 minutes ago, PrimeTime101 said:

seriously take a deep breath man. you are ALL OVER the place... and because you are ALL OVER the place, half the people in here won't even bother reading all the jumbo mumbo stuff. A little of this is a real good read and the rest is yawn.  The other posters are right man. your over complicating this and your just trying to out do people without sticking to main facts.

 

I know

 

I am very interested in the thought processes of people however.    

Edited March 6, 2023 by PBF81

[Kirby Jackson]

7 hours ago, Chaos said:

Fair question. My intent was for each of the last four seasons, your expecation at the beginning of the season vs the result for the season.  So four separate expecations. 

If it is ONLY the last 4 seasons (I should have read more carefully) it has to be falls short. Only the Covid year could you argue that they made it as far as they could’ve/should’ve. 

[newcam2012]

8 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

My opinion is that he is a great program builder. If your organization is a mess he can stabilize. That was what he originally came here to do and did it well. 
 

I worry that there is a ceiling with him. He isn’t a great game coach and for the last 3 or 4 years he had a team that was good enough to win a Super Bowl. He has been to 1 conference championship game. He may not be the guy to get to the promised land.

 

I voted “met expectations” because he made the Bills matter. He hasn’t elevated them beyond their talent level.

Spot on here. 

[Chaos]

8 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I voted “met expectations” because he made the Bills matter. He hasn’t elevated them beyond their talent level.

Has he achieved "at their talent level", or is this team not talented enough to make it further than the divisional round in the playoffs? 

Edited March 6, 2023 by Chaos

[Not Applicable]

The number of people who think it is fine to chronically underachieve today just because the Bills had a playoff drought that ended over five seasons ago is ridiculous. Let's be real here...McDermott backed into the playoffs at 9-7 in 2017 (same record we had in 2014 and 2004 - two markedly better teams that simply didn't luck into the postseason), was abysmal in 2018, and then the QB they likely settled for morphed into possibly the most naturally-gifted talent ever seen at the position. 

 

You think Rex Ryan or Doug Marrone or Chan Gailey aren't making yearly playoff trips with Allen? Marrone went to the AFCCG with Blake Bortles and Ryan went there twice with Mark Sanchez.

 

This losers' attitude that we should be grateful just to be in constant playoff contention is the type of thought process that led Cincinnati to waste a decade with Marvin Lewis.

[newcam2012]

3 hours ago, PBF81 said:

 

I think I partially did miss your intent.  Also, I did take some liberties re: your "top-3" comment.  I appreciate the back-n-forth.  

 

Your point seems to be defending McD & Beane.  Am I off?  

 

As to your points, ... Kelly was a better passer simply because he knew how to take advantage of, and did, the high-percentage passing game, which is what propels all QBs to greatness in this league.  Allen was much better at it last season, this season he took an injury and we're told by a "doctor" that his injury prevents him from doing that.  So if true, is that his fault?  But if anything, that is the shortcoming in his game and why there's any doubt that he may not be as good as Mahomes or Burrow as a passer.  

 

As to your comments on Elway, Young, Vick, and "today's game" vs. yesteryear's game, the difference to the QBs was not in how the pressure got to QBs generally speaking, it's been in what those defenders could/could-not do to the QB once they got past their respective OL counterparts.  There's an important difference as it relates to what we're talking about here.  IOW, the OL is still of paramount importance in the mix.  

 

Put Kelly on this team and he's running for his life like he, literally, never knew.  The difference in our OLs today vs. '90-'93 is pronounced.  The same can be said althought not as extremely, between today's OL of ours and pretty much any of our OLs since then.  I mean is anyone really going to positively compare Ballard, Ritcher, Hull, and Woolford to Dawkins, Bates, Morse, Boettger, and Brown?  Hardly.  

 

I would quickly add it's the same for the rosters otherwise also similarly.  We've pretty much always had better RBs than we've had now.  Knox is nothing special and comparable to past TEs.  Some of our defenses, I pointed one out specifically the other day, were worlds better than then one we have now.  There was above-average talent in most positions, not merely in a few spots.  

 

Kelly didn't have Allen's escapability either.  He was far from immobile, but if he had to run for his life like Allen regularly does, no way he performs well like he did.  Kelly also had massive support from a running game featuring Thurman, Davis, and several different bruiser FBs that could get the short yardage when necessary, something that this team doesn't have apart from Allen.  

 

Completely disagree on Vick BTW.  Vick wasn't any better than Taylor.  In the few seasons that both started, Taylor outplayed Vick in passing and didn't turn the ball over nearly as much either.  

 

A great exercise on this BTW, would be to put up the rosters throughout the years and compare them.  I think it would clear things up considerably.  I've already done that informally and keep saying to myself, that if Allen had even the OL of Wood, Levitre, and Glenn for example, better than any three we have now by a long shot.  Some continuity as well which Allen has zero of.   In fact, I'll do that for one year below for the OLs and defense.  

 

Anyway, if you're point was that without Allen we win only 6 or 7 games a season, I'm in full agreement with that.  But at the same time, if we're comparing teams, to take say an average QB, and presumably we can agree that for example David Carr or Andy Dalton are pretty average QBs, if we were to replace Allen with Dalton or Carr, we still wouldn't win more than 6/7 games and we'd be in the AFCE basement.  How would we win them?  

 

If however, KC or Cinci had to go with Carr or Dalton from Mahomes and Burrow, I still see them being competitive, despite not winning 14 or 12 games, I still see them winning 9, 10, or 11 games and making the playoffs.  Cinci already did it with Dalton.  Why?  Because they're better coached than we are, plain and simple.  That's the McD part of it.  They also have more talent elsewhere on the team that steps up, particularly in the big playoff games.  That's the Beane part of it.  

 

IMO McD has run his course, so has Beane.  Could I be wrong?  Of course.  We'll see what this Draft brings, but given the results to date, the odds of one of our rookies stepping up to make a difference is nonexistent.   It would be a first for Beane.  As to McD, he won't have nearly to work with what he's had to date.  White may be finished after his surgery, he certainly wasn't good when he returned this year.  Poyer gone.  Even drafting a WR at 27th isn't going to cut it.  There hasn't been a WR drafted after 11th in either of the last two drafts that has put up starting #2 numbers or even close.  Cinci's improving, KC's still KC, Miami and the Jets are breathing down our necks and each took one from us this past season.  We can never rule NE out.  Lawrence and Jax seem to be coming on and we couldn't beat them last time we played them when they sucked.  

 

But the elephant sitting in the kitchen sink is that come playoff time none of our players steps up.  Diggs our moneyman has been terrible the past two seasons in the playoffs and hasn't had a playoff TD in our last five playoff games.  Against Cinci and KC he posted a combined 7 grabs for 42 yards this and last season, and he's our money guy.  Everyone's complaining about Davis, but at least he shows up come playoff time as our best overall WR in the last two season's playoffs.  Singletary and Cook haven't done anything.  Defensively we don't have anything even approaching a Bruce Smith, Aaron Schobel, or Kyle Williams.  In his 8 total playoff games Oliver's had 2 total sacks and 4 TFL.  That's ridiculous for a 9th overall pick.  What does one even say about a secondary that permits nearly twice the passing yardage against Cinci than Baltimore did, and nearly a hundred yards more than KC with its 19th ranked yardage passing D and 32nd ranked TD passing D.  

 

Our rushing game is below average.  

Our OL is average on a good day. 

Our WRs clearly aren't cutting it.  

Our TE shows up a few times a season but that's it.  

There's not a single impact player on our DL that shows up regularly besides Poyer and Milano neither of which Beane drafted.  

Our LBs, ... LOL, that should be singular, not plural, our LB, Milano, is great, but then there's nothing if Edmunds leaves.  Milano's not Beane's pick.  

As to our secondary, if the playoffs are the indication, there's not much positive to say.  

 

OK, so per above, let's compare rosters between this past season's and that of Mularkey's first of two seasons in Buffalo, and I'll swap QBs on the roster.  Tell me what you'd have expected for both teams.  Mularkey's team went 9-7 that season, led by Bledsoe, missing a Wild Card by a game to the Jets (Pennington) and Denver (Plummer), hardly household names in historical QBs.  

 

Last year's unit (13-3) here was our OL:  

 

LT:  Dawkins 

LG:  Saffold 

C :  Morse 

G:  Bates 

RT:  Brown   

 

2004 (9-7):  

 

LT:  Jennings 

LG:  Ross Tucker 

C :  Teague 

RG:  Villareal 

RT:  Mike Williams 

 

Last season:

DL:  Rousseau, Oliver, Jones, Lawson 

LBs:  Edmunds, Milano 

DBs:  Poyer, Jackson, Hamlin, Johnson, and White 

 

2004:  

DL:  Kelsay, Adams, Williams, Schobel 

LBs:  Posey, Fletcher, Spikes 

DBs:  McGee, Clements, Milloy, Reese  (backups:  Wire, Vincent, 

 

Bledsoe, who couldn't move out of his own way, had 37 sacks.  Allen had 33 last season, and you've agreed that it's easier for QBs now.  So switch the two.  How would each team have fared?  

 

The 2004 team lost four games by an average of 3 points.  Just those four games alone would have put them at 13-3.  If we could have taken one from NE too we'd have won the division against Brady.  Bledsoe on last season's team would have been a disaster.  

 

Which roster would you rather have with Allen, last season's, or 2004's?  That's an easy one for me.  IMO with that defensive roster and OL & McGahee, if we couldn't have won a Super Bowl it will never happen.  With Bledsoe on this team we'd have been lucky to win 6 games.  BTW, our WRs then were Moulds & Evans, the latter whom as a rookie posted almost exactly what Davis did last season but with two more TDs.  

 

 

 

Well, what will be interesting is posing this same exact poll following this upcoming season and then if necessary after the 2024 season. 

 

Somehow I see that margin flipping decisively.  The question then becomes, why are people satisfied now, but not then should that end up being the case.  I mean same coach.  Same "Process."  Same excuses for giving him more [undefined] time, what, 5 years more, 10?   What will have changed in the perceptions of McD or Beane if that happens?  Will they both have gotten worse than they are now and have been, mysteriously?  

 

I suspect that the outcome at that time will depend upon whether or not we make a legitimate run at winning the AFC.  But right now we can't play well against the top two challenging teams requiring monumental offensive efforts to overcome our defensive failures.  We struggled, at home, against a QB that won't ever start in the NFL and nearly lost to a team with the most novice and inexperienced QBs in the playoffs.  

 

I wouldn't be surprised if we do not win the division this season.  Suppose that happens, say one of the following happens: 

 

A. Win the division, but lose again in the WC or D round;    

B.  Don't win the division and if we make the playoffs but lose in the WC or D rounds; 

C.  Don't make the playoffs  

 

How do you think the poll responses will look then?   I don't know, I'm seriously asking.  All I can do is guess.  But we've underachieved with a better roster than we'll have this coming season.  If Milano, Dawkins, or Diggs gets hurt, do you see us winning many games?  These are all rhetorical, but get to the point.  

 

Even if it's for injury to Allen, that would likely befall Beane anyway, for not protecting our multi-hundred million dollar investment.  

 

 

"IMO McD run his course, so has Beane.  Could I be wrong?  Of course.  We'll see what this Draft brings, but given the results to date, the odds of one of our rookies stepping up to make a difference is nonexistent.   It would be a first for Beane.  As to McD, he won't have nearly to work with what he's had to date.  White may be finished after his surgery, he certainly wasn't good when he returned this year.  Poyer gone.  Even drafting a WR at 27th isn't going to cut it.  There hasn't been a WR drafted after 11th in either of the last two drafts that has put up starting #2 numbers or even close.  Cinci's improving, KC's still KC, Miami and the Jets are breathing down our necks and each took one from us this past season.  We can never rule NE out.  Lawrence and Jax seem to be coming on and we couldn't beat them last time we played them when they sucked."

 

Really well thought out and written. I concur with everything you said here. A sad and discouraging read but as accurate as could be. 

4 minutes ago, Patrick Fitzryan said:

The number of people who think it is fine to chronically underachieve today just because the Bills had a playoff drought that ended over five seasons ago is ridiculous. Let's be real here...McDermott backed into the playoffs at 9-7 in 2017 (same record we had in 2014 and 2004 - two markedly better teams that simply didn't luck into the postseason), was abysmal in 2018, and then the QB they likely settled for morphed into possibly the most naturally-gifted talent ever seen at the position. 

 

You think Rex Ryan or Doug Marrone or Chan Gailey aren't making yearly playoff trips with Allen? Marrone went to the AFCCG with Blake Bortles and Ryan went there twice with Mark Sanchez.

 

This losers' attitude that we should be grateful just to be in constant playoff contention is the type of thought process that led Cincinnati to waste a decade with Marvin Lewis.

I really think it's time to move on from McD and Beane. They should move to a mediocre team that needs a build. They are great at turning around a losing organization. It's clear they can't get over the hump. McD consistently gets his butt waxed come playoff time. Besides Allen, Beane has way more misses than hits. 

[Kirby Jackson]

1 hour ago, Chaos said:

Has he achieved "at their talent level", or is this team not talented enough to make it further than the divisional round in the playoffs? 

If it is the last 4 years, he has failed. They have had 4 years of Super Bowl talent. I’m not naive enough to think that means 4 championships. At the same time, 1 conference title appearance is a failure. 

[mead107]

Best coach ever 

 

[Doc Brown]

2019 - Exceeded expectations.  Going from 6-10 to 10-6 was impressive given we didn't have a true #1 WR yet.  

2020 - Exceeded expectations.  Offense came out of nowhere.  Two playoff wins.  No shame in losing to the best Chiefs roster in Reid's tenure.

2021 - Fell below expectations.  Especially the defense.  Going 11-6 and then the 13 seconds debacle despite being mostly healthy was disappointing.

2022 - Met expectations given the injuries and unprecedented off the field issues.  If we were as healthy as we were in 2021 then we would've won the whole thing.