nfreeman Posted September 1, 2017 Report Share Posted September 1, 2017 They should just cut him now. No way do they want that dead space next year. $14M less and they would need a new tackle. That would be insanity. 2 very valid opinions. There does appear to be an increasing drumbeat from the Bills' FO indicating that they are seriously considering dumping him and taking the hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted September 1, 2017 Report Share Posted September 1, 2017 2 very valid opinions. There does appear to be an increasing drumbeat from the Bills' FO indicating that they are seriously considering dumping him and taking the hit. No; Aud Smell is up and wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted September 1, 2017 Report Share Posted September 1, 2017 No; Aud Smell is ###### up and wrong. Seconded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted September 1, 2017 Report Share Posted September 1, 2017 That opinion on Aud Smell is also reasonable (heh). However: at what point does it become the right move for the Bills to dump Dareus and take the cap hit? I believe the next time he fails a drug test, he's suspended for a full season. What if that happens? Or what if he just continually misses meetings, is late for practice and generally doesn't buy in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanny Posted September 1, 2017 Report Share Posted September 1, 2017 I think his next misstep is his last for the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffismagic Posted September 1, 2017 Report Share Posted September 1, 2017 Let's say the Bills part way with Dareus. I get that he is not a model citizen and is a headache. But Buffalo would then have a bottom 2 roster in the NFL. Digging out of that and just getting back to .500 might be a task that McDermott and Beane never achieve here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted September 1, 2017 Report Share Posted September 1, 2017 Let's say the Bills part way with Dareus. I get that he is not a model citizen and is a headache. But Buffalo would then have a bottom 2 roster in the NFL. Digging out of that and just getting back to .500 might be a task that McDermott and Beane never achieve here. Especially when handicapped by $14M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffismagic Posted September 1, 2017 Report Share Posted September 1, 2017 Especially when handicapped by $14M. Don't forget the more than 8 million in dead cap for Tyrod as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted September 1, 2017 Report Share Posted September 1, 2017 Agreed. Back to the Bills: I scanned through the thread. This is apparently the only comment about last night's game. I didn't get a chance to watch the game. I kind of wanted to, but was busy selling a car. Looking at the highlights and stuff, the Bills appeared to look much better (both defense and offense) compared to the first three games. In fact the game wasn't even close until two late TDs by the Lions in garbage time at the end. Does this give us any reason for optimism? Is it finally coming together? Have the Bills under McDermott turned a corner? Or was it just a preseason game against a meh team? What do you think the BIlls will look like going into the first few games of the regular season? I'm not sure a single Detroit starter played, and only 1 or 2 bills starters did. Combined with the gulf that stands between preseason NFL play-calling/game-planning and that of the regular season, this game and any of the other games have a big asterisk in terms of predictability. At least in the previous preseason games we saw STARTERs performing miserably :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted September 1, 2017 Report Share Posted September 1, 2017 Let's say the Bills part way with Dareus. I get that he is not a model citizen and is a headache. But Buffalo would then have a bottom 2 roster in the NFL. Digging out of that and just getting back to .500 might be a task that McDermott and Beane never achieve here. This raises another interesting question -- how much rope do McD and BB think they have? And how much do they actually have? Surely they're aware that TP has shown a fairly short fuse with coaches and GMs of both of his franchises -- do they not think they are at risk of the same fate if the team delivers 2 crappy seasons in a row? Especially if Mahomes turns out to be a star and/or if Dareus does the same for another team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted September 1, 2017 Report Share Posted September 1, 2017 They cannot do it because that cap hit extends into next season as well. As for my surprise cut: TJ Yates. I don't even think that will surprise TJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erickompositör72 Posted September 1, 2017 Report Share Posted September 1, 2017 disclaimer: hockey fan talking football Just some overly-optimistic speculation: how good could the Bills be if Peterman is forced to start game 1, and actually performs to the utmost potential we've seen in the preseason? It seems that [especially] McDermott & Co are not going to undermine Tyrod, and will keep publicly voicing their confidence in him. It makes sense, as there is a chance he'll be ready for game 1, and it's critical he feels all of the team & coaching's support. However, they must be quite a bit intrigued by Peterman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted September 1, 2017 Report Share Posted September 1, 2017 No; Aud Smell is ###### up and wrong. Guilty as charged. I love Marcell, but the new regime needs to rip off the band-aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffismagic Posted September 1, 2017 Report Share Posted September 1, 2017 This raises another interesting question -- how much rope do McD and BB think they have? And how much do they actually have? Surely they're aware that TP has shown a fairly short fuse with coaches and GMs of both of his franchises -- do they not think they are at risk of the same fate if the team delivers 2 crappy seasons in a row? Especially if Mahomes turns out to be a star and/or if Dareus does the same for another team? I would love to be a fly on the wall in one of those meetings! And the data supports your statement. The Pegulas only gave their last 2 coaches 2 years or less. Darcy Regier sold them on a rebuild and started selling off pieces and was canned in the middle of it (even though he was doing a masterful job in selling assets and acquiring picks). Tim Murray only got 2 drafts with his people at the helm as he took over the last place team right before 2014 draft. I think that the team cannot look unprepared or sloppy. That was what the fans were sold with McD and if his teams do not at least compete effectively (even while taking losses) I suspect it could be 2 years instead of the normal 3 years that new coaches get in the NFL. The other thing I want to know is when did they decide to sell assets? When McD first got here every move looked like a push to the playoffs and even his draft looked like a short term filling needs affair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted September 1, 2017 Report Share Posted September 1, 2017 I would love to be a fly on the wall in one of those meetings! And the data supports your statement. The Pegulas only gave their last 2 coaches 2 years or less. Darcy Regier sold them on a rebuild and started selling off pieces and was canned in the middle of it (even though he was doing a masterful job in selling assets and acquiring picks). Tim Murray only got 2 drafts with his people at the helm as he took over the last place team right before 2014 draft. I think that the team cannot look unprepared or sloppy. That was what the fans were sold with McD and if his teams do not at least compete effectively (even while taking losses) I suspect it could be 2 years instead of the normal 3 years that new coaches get in the NFL. The other thing I want to know is when did they decide to sell assets? When McD first got here every move looked like a push to the playoffs and even his draft looked like a short term filling needs affair. This also raises an interesting question -- i.e. not "when" they decided this, but have they in fact decided this? I don't think trading Sammy, Darby and Ragland necessarily means that they have decided to sell off assets as a rebuilding move. The Darby and Ragland trades could simply have been unloading guys whom they felt didn't fit their schemes. The Watkins move could have been either (i) they didn't want to commit huge $$ to a guy with Sammy's injury history or (ii) they didn't want to commit huge $$ to WR before they knew they had the right QB. I think it's most likely that the Darby and Ragland moves were designed to make the team better and were scheme-driven. I'm not sure about the Sammy move, but if it was about not paying for a WR until they have a QB, then it's kinda of a piece with the Darby and Ragland moves -- and my biggest concern about McD and BB is that each of these moves (as well as some of their draft-day trades) smacks of being too clever by half. In other words, it's too clever to dump good young players because they don't fit your scheme, instead of adapting your scheme to the talents of your players. It's too clever to dump a superstar WR because you are trying to time your WR cap space to coincide with year 2 or year 3 of some future QB who may or may not materialize. It's too clever to give up draft picks because you think the guys you've identified in rounds 2 and 3 are sleepers. I'm not sure if it would be too clever to dump Dareus, but it might be. So while as I've said previously I like a lot of what I see from McD and BB, I am concerned that they might be missing the forest for the trees and accordingly we might be looking at yet another debacle. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted September 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) Looks like the Jets envied our moves The inevitable has finally happened as the Jets have traded Sheldon Richardson to the Seattle Seahawks for a 2018 second-round draft pick and wide receiver Jermaine Kearse, according to ESPN’s Adam Schefter. The two teams also swapped seventh-rounder selections, per Schefter I would love to be a fly on the wall in one of those meetings! And the data supports your statement. The Pegulas only gave their last 2 coaches 2 years or less. Darcy Regier sold them on a rebuild and started selling off pieces and was canned in the middle of it (even though he was doing a masterful job in selling assets and acquiring picks). Tim Murray only got 2 drafts with his people at the helm as he took over the last place team right before 2014 draft. I think that the team cannot look unprepared or sloppy. That was what the fans were sold with McD and if his teams do not at least compete effectively (even while taking losses) I suspect it could be 2 years instead of the normal 3 years that new coaches get in the NFL. The other thing I want to know is when did they decide to sell assets? When McD first got here every move looked like a push to the playoffs and even his draft looked like a short term filling needs affair. Why is it masterful when a GM of 15 years and with one Cup appearance does this but when Beane does it it's terrible? And Darcy had a ton of experience, unlike Beane Edited September 1, 2017 by WildCard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffismagic Posted September 1, 2017 Report Share Posted September 1, 2017 This also raises an interesting question -- i.e. not "when" they decided this, but have they in fact decided this? I don't think trading Sammy, Darby and Ragland necessarily means that they have decided to sell off assets as a rebuilding move. The Darby and Ragland trades could simply have been unloading guys whom they felt didn't fit their schemes. The Watkins move could have been either (i) they didn't want to commit huge $$ to a guy with Sammy's injury history or (ii) they didn't want to commit huge $$ to WR before they knew they had the right QB. I think it's most likely that the Darby and Ragland moves were designed to make the team better and were scheme-driven. I'm not sure about the Sammy move, but if it was about not paying for a WR until they have a QB, then it's kinda of a piece with the Darby and Ragland moves -- and my biggest concern about McD and BB is that each of these moves (as well as some of their draft-day trades) smacks of being too clever by half. In other words, it's too clever to dump good young players because they don't fit your scheme, instead of adapting your scheme to the talents of your players. It's too clever to dump a superstar WR because you are trying to time your WR cap space to coincide with year 2 or year 3 of some future QB who may or may not materialize. It's too clever to give up draft picks because you think the guys you've identified in rounds 2 and 3 are sleepers. I'm not sure if it would be too clever to dump Dareus, but it might be. So while as I've said previously I like a lot of what I see from McD and BB, I am concerned that they might be missing the forest for the trees and accordingly we might be looking at yet another debacle. We'll see. I understand Ragland and Darby. I called for trading Ragland as soon as McD was hired because I knew he was no 4-3 mike in a McD defense where the linebacker needs to cover lots of ground. Darby also makes sense in that he did not play zone well enough. Many corners can do man or zone but not both. Luckily Tre White can do both. I also agree that there is no rebuild. It's a bit of both and it comes down to talent. This not acquiring talent and building a team instead sounds like the road Chip Kelly and Josh McDaniels took. Coaches need talented players and if they don't have them they will fail. Looks like the Jets envied our moves Why is it masterful when a GM of 15 years and with one Cup appearance does this but when Beane does it it's terrible? And Darcy had a ton of experience, unlike Beane Getting a 1st for Gaustad. But Darcy did not sell young players. He sold veterans nearing FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted September 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2017 Getting a 1st for Gaustad. But Darcy did not sell young players. He sold veterans nearing FA. So one move? Who do you think Beane should sell then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffismagic Posted September 1, 2017 Report Share Posted September 1, 2017 So one move? Who do you think Beane should sell then? Tyrod Taylor, not resigned. Kyle Williams, not resigned Eric Wood traded, Groy starts Shady, trade him Hughes, trade him Gilmore franchised and sold for a pick No to picking up Ducasse, Holmes, and Dimarco This is closer to what I would expect a rebuild should look like I also would have picked up 5th year option on Watkins and seen if I could get more out of him. No point in selling low. Not given away picks to trade up to fill needs such as Zay and Dawkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted September 2, 2017 Report Share Posted September 2, 2017 Tyrod Taylor, not resigned. Kyle Williams, not resigned Eric Wood traded, Groy starts Shady, trade him Hughes, trade him Gilmore franchised and sold for a pick No to picking up Ducasse, Holmes, and Dimarco This is closer to what I would expect a rebuild should look like I also would have picked up 5th year option on Watkins and seen if I could get more out of him. No point in selling low. Not given away picks to trade up to fill needs such as Zay and Dawkins You make plenty of assumptions. Nobody is trading more for Watkins then a high 2nd round pick if he has another year on his deal. As for Gilmore, that didn't work for Carolina and they ended up looking petty for tying up Norman until most teams spent their money. As for taking on Darius' cap hit, if they so choose they will have plenty of room to absorb hit as cap is expected to continue to rise and the Bills are already in pretty good shape next year. As for the rest, I still feel there is no benefit to completely gutting roster. Football is not like other sports. Top 10 picks are still a gamble and completely scorching your roster will take years to redo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffismagic Posted September 2, 2017 Report Share Posted September 2, 2017 You make plenty of assumptions. Nobody is trading more for Watkins then a high 2nd round pick if he has another year on his deal. As for Gilmore, that didn't work for Carolina and they ended up looking petty for tying up Norman until most teams spent their money. As for taking on Darius' cap hit, if they so choose they will have plenty of room to absorb hit as cap is expected to continue to rise and the Bills are already in pretty good shape next year. As for the rest, I still feel there is no benefit to completely gutting roster. Football is not like other sports. Top 10 picks are still a gamble and completely scorching your roster will take years to redo. Hey Tom, like to apologize for my Andy Reid post last night.You have been a civil poster and my post did not come off the way I wanted. My position is not for a complete rebuild, I was just giving an example of moves that would indicate a rebuild was taking place. My own position was a bit more nuanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted September 2, 2017 Report Share Posted September 2, 2017 Hey Tom, like to apologize for my Andy Reid post last night.You have been a civil poster and my post did not come off the way I wanted. My position is not for a complete rebuild, I was just giving an example of moves that would indicate a rebuild was taking place. My own position was a bit more nuanced. No apology necessary but appreciated. My comments on total rebuild weren't directed entirely toward your position but to those advocating complete rebuild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffismagic Posted September 2, 2017 Report Share Posted September 2, 2017 No apology necessary but appreciated. My comments on total rebuild weren't directed entirely toward your position but to those advocating complete rebuild. You said, "Top 10 picks are still a gamble and completely scorching your roster will take years to redo." And we are in agreement there. No reason to blow up your roster when a prudent rebuild could be one year down and back to a better position next year. What I advocated was getting a top QB prospect in 2017 and getting rid of players that would not be there when the team was contending such as Wood and Williams. I thought the Bills were 2 great drafts away from being a legit team. But now the Bills are at least 3 great drafts from competing with the big boys. Will the new guys get that much time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted September 2, 2017 Report Share Posted September 2, 2017 Bills just need to make sure they get a top 5 pick, and hope the Chiefs (currently without RB's) have more injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyldnwoody44 Posted September 2, 2017 Report Share Posted September 2, 2017 Is it too early to make predictions on the next draft class, and I mean this speaking from a position where I don't follow college close enough to actually know. In hockey McDavid was seen as a slam dunk 2 years in advance, I don't see fb having that on lock down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts