Jump to content


Photo

Sean Jauron has a nice ring to it.......


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#41 thebandit27

thebandit27

    Armchair Dynasty Architect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,824 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 12:48 PM

Resource wise, DJ had a lot less to work with than Coach McD does now. Does anyone think Cordy Glenn, Jerry Hughes, and Marcell Dareus receive those contract extensions with Ralph/Littman/Smithers making decisions? 

 

 

 

Absolutely they would have paid them.  You're talking about the regime that gave both Chris Kelsay and Aaron Schobel multiple monster extensions.

 

Paying guys wasn't the issue.  Paying the right guys was the issue, along with accumulating the right talent at the right positions.


Edited by thebandit27, 19 September 2017 - 12:49 PM.


#42 JohnC

JohnC

    UDFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,430 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 12:58 PM



 

I think that they tried to have it both ways (be competitive this year and start putting "the system"--the one they believe will be sustainable in the long-term--in place for the future), and the results are going to be lackluster.

 

IMO, they should've gone full-throttle one way or the other.  Either leave the pieces in place for Taylor to have success, or cut him (and everyone else) loose and start building from the ground up.

The Bills are essentially rebuilding in a full throttle manner. The issue regarding Taylor and how he fits in with this new regime is no mystery. The condition for him to stay was to have a reduced contract with an easy opt out for the team. He is a bridge qb caliber of player for this team and any other team that would have considered him. The market responded to his limited value. There were no takers, at least at the rate he wanted. He wisely adjusted to the market's lackluster response by staying with his current team where he had an opportunity to play. 

 

How Watkins was handled was the  biggest tell as to what the staff had planned. Counting this year the Bills are involved in a four year rebuilding project built primarily through the draft. With that in mind the incentive for the organization is for at least the first year to be bad record wise so that it could be in a good position to draft a franchise qb. 

 

Not wanting to quibble with what you are saying because it makes sense but there is little doubt that McDermott, with the owners accord, planned on reconfiguring the front office and the roster to get beyond the Whaley model of building at best a fringe playoff team. That is exactly what they have done and are doing. There is no hidden agenda because it is there for everyone to see.  



#43 GoBills808

GoBills808

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,539 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 12:59 PM

The Bills are essentially rebuilding in a full throttle manner. The issue regarding Taylor and how he fits in with this new regime is no mystery. The condition for him to stay was to have a reduced contract with an easy opt out for the team. He is a bridge qb caliber of player for this team and any other team that would have considered him. The market responded to his limited value. There were no takers, at least at the rate he wanted. He wisely adjusted to the market's lackluster response by staying with his current team where he had an opportunity to play. 

 

How Watkins was handled was the  biggest tell as to what the staff had planned. Counting this year the Bills are involved in a four year rebuilding project built primarily through the draft. With that in mind the incentive for the organization is for at least the first year to be bad record wise so that it could be in a good position to draft a franchise qb. 

 

Not wanting to quibble with what you are saying because it makes sense but there is little doubt that McDermott, with the owners accord, planned on reconfiguring the front office and the roster to get beyond the Whaley model of building at best a fringe playoff team. That is exactly what they have done and are doing. There is no hidden agenda because it is there for everyone to see.  

Well said.



#44 4_kidd_4

4_kidd_4

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 838 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 01:02 PM

I love Russ Brandon being referred to as "Smithers".

That's gold. Solid. Gold.

#45 Commonsense

Commonsense

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 01:11 PM

 
I honestly don't think there was an option to keep the pieces in place -
 
Do you pay market price to keep Woods & Goodwin?  I certainly wouldn't.
 
Tyrod's contract redo was a clear sign of what the team thought of him and more importantly how the rest of the league valued him.  The new contract came on the heels of Hoyer signing in SF instead of Buffalo and Tyrod's feelers to the rest of the league.  This is a one year prove it or lose it year for Tyrod, and if I'm the Bills, I'm not investing a lot of assets until I know my long term QB situation.


If things continue as the first two weeks suggest then they made the right moves. The only position they mismanaged was RB, that depth is going to show up real soon.

Getting rid of Watkins seems fine in hindsight, he isn't doing much. Don't want to hear about his elite ability, he will be lucky to land a similiar deal to Hurns.

Gilmore is and always was addition by subtraction. Tre and the new secondary already have a confidence about them that has been missing for awhile. Tre also looks every bit as good as I expected.

Darby is hurt and Gaines is playing as well as anyone could hope. Gaines and Matthews were both throw ins on those deals, I'm interested in which one if either is brought back.

Poyer is the biggest surprise. He is running around out there like Happy Gilmore. Hyde has been solid but certainly
over shadowed by the ex Brownie.

No one wants to hear about a tank but if the Bills ended up with a top 1-3 pick and landed the right QB without trading away all those picks they would have a good core to surround him with. That would also mean they have the picks needed to bolster the Oline and other needy positions.

They also played the Taylor situation correctly, he has been diminished to a place holder. His presence is keeping the Bills from presenting the new coach and GM as laughing stocks and fans/media can see the attention to detail and the culture change that is underway.

Personnel wise things could shake out well, really well if they continue to lose. Either way McD and Beane will be getting some high praise oif the team remains disciplined and the accumulated picks inch closer as they approach draft day.

#46 thebandit27

thebandit27

    Armchair Dynasty Architect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,824 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 01:15 PM

The Bills are essentially rebuilding in a full throttle manner. The issue regarding Taylor and how he fits in with this new regime is no mystery. The condition for him to stay was to have a reduced contract with an easy opt out for the team. He is a bridge qb caliber of player for this team and any other team that would have considered him. The market responded to his limited value. There were no takers, at least at the rate he wanted. He wisely adjusted to the market's lackluster response by staying with his current team where he had an opportunity to play. 

 

How Watkins was handled was the  biggest tell as to what the staff had planned. Counting this year the Bills are involved in a four year rebuilding project built primarily through the draft. With that in mind the incentive for the organization is for at least the first year to be bad record wise so that it could be in a good position to draft a franchise qb. 

 

Not wanting to quibble with what you are saying because it makes sense but there is little doubt that McDermott, with the owners accord, planned on reconfiguring the front office and the roster to get beyond the Whaley model of building at best a fringe playoff team. That is exactly what they have done and are doing. There is no hidden agenda because it is there for everyone to see.  

 

I absolutely agree that there's no hidden agenda, and if we're viewing Taylor as a bridge QB, then that's a fine fit.  My issue is that a bridge QB only makes sense when you have your potential franchise QB already on the roster, which brings me back to questioning why they didn't take a QB in the 2017 draft.

 

My main problem is that there's a disjointed effort between moving forward and what they're putting on the field now.  Taylor isn't a fit for the type of passing offense that they seemingly want to operate, but they brought him back in what appears to be an effort to be offensively competent this season.  To me, that's a silly way to move forward.

 

If you want to operate this passing game at any level of efficiency, it would've made more sense to bring in a guy like Nick Foles or Chase Daniel that can deliver the ball quickly at the expense of athleticism and deep ball efficiency.  That, to me, would've felt like they were moving forward with putting their system in to place.

 

Just my 1 cent, of course.



#47 ChanOverChin

ChanOverChin

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 881 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 01:31 PM

Didn't McD go for it on 4th down near midfield in the Panther game??  Is that playing it close to the vest??

 

We don't know enough about McD to start labeling him.

 

The fact is that Carolina has a very good defense.  Unfortunately, the Bills aren't very good on offense.  They need another TE and another WR.  They need their starting LT to play full-time.

 

Tyrod is not a good packet passer.  I don't know why the Bills insist on trying to make him into one.



#48 Heitz

Heitz

    Professional Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,764 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 01:39 PM

Here comes the mob... 


In the Internet age coaches only get one loss until they're called names, saddled with unfair (and often innacurate) comparisons and chased outta town.

:beer:

#49 JohnC

JohnC

    UDFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,430 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 01:57 PM

 

I absolutely agree that there's no hidden agenda, and if we're viewing Taylor as a bridge QB, then that's a fine fit.  My issue is that a bridge QB only makes sense when you have your potential franchise QB already on the roster, which brings me back to questioning why they didn't take a QB in the 2017 draft.

 

My main problem is that there's a disjointed effort between moving forward and what they're putting on the field now.  Taylor isn't a fit for the type of passing offense that they seemingly want to operate, but they brought him back in what appears to be an effort to be offensively competent this season.  To me, that's a silly way to move forward.

 

If you want to operate this passing game at any level of efficiency, it would've made more sense to bring in a guy like Nick Foles or Chase Daniel that can deliver the ball quickly at the expense of athleticism and deep ball efficiency.  That, to me, would've felt like they were moving forward with putting their system in to place.

 

Just my 1 cent, of course.

I always appreciate your thoughtful responses even when I have a different view. As you well know I and the notorious JeffisMagic strenuously advocated for selecting Mahomes with our first round pick. However, the wrestling coach seems to have believed that in the next draft there will be better options at qb. Many scouts agree with that stance. What McDermott is doing is starting a major rebuild and doing it primarily through the draft. (Note: It must be acknowledged that McDermott masterfully revamped the defensive backfield unit in one offseason.) With that strategy in mind one has to agree that he is implementing his plan with the accumulation of draft picks. That certainly is a refreshing departure from the Whaley approach toward the draft. His gratuitously shedding of picks for marginal gain was maddening. 

 

Keeping Taylor or bringing in Foles or Chase Daniels is not an argument worth expending energy over. None of them are franchise qbs. So if you have a similar caliber qb what difference does it make? Why pursue another player when you already have that caliber of player on your roster? Regardless which qb you have they are all temporary players who will (hopefully) will be replaced. I agree with you that Foles and Daniels may be a better fit for the preferred offense but it is still for the short-term. What is probably going to happen this year is Peterman will end up replacing Taylor once the playoffs get out of reach.  I don't consider our rookie qb to be a permanent solution for the qb position. 

 

The core point that I am making in this discourse is that this year has to be considered as only a small segment of the actual rebuilding plan. The record this year has little importance other than how it positions the organization in its ability to draft a franchise qb next year. In the grand scheme of things some of the personnel decisions that you advocate for that make us incrementally better this season have little meaningful impact on how this roster is going to be reshaped in the next few years. 



#50 thebandit27

thebandit27

    Armchair Dynasty Architect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,824 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 02:02 PM

I always appreciate your thoughtful responses even when I have a different view. As you well know I and the notorious JeffisMagic strenuously advocated for selecting Mahomes with our first round pick. However, the wrestling coach seems to have believed that in the next draft there will be better options at qb. Many scouts agree with that stance. What McDermott is doing is starting a major rebuild and doing it primarily through the draft. (Note: It must be acknowledged that McDermott masterfully revamped the defensive backfield unit in one offseason.) With that strategy in mind one has to agree that he is implementing his plan with the accumulation of draft picks. That certainly is a refreshing departure from the Whaley approach toward the draft. His gratuitously shedding of picks for marginal gain was maddening. 

 

Keeping Taylor or bringing in Foles or Chase Daniels is not an argument worth expending energy over. None of them are franchise qbs. So if you have a similar caliber qb what difference does it make? Why pursue another player when you already have that caliber of player on your roster? Regardless which qb you have they are all temporary players who will (hopefully) will be replaced. I agree with you that Foles and Daniels may be a better fit for the preferred offense but it is still for the short-term. What is probably going to happen this year is Peterman will end up replacing Taylor once the playoffs get out of reach.  I don't consider our rookie qb to be a permanent solution for the qb position. 

 

The core point that I am making in this discourse is that this year has to be considered as only a small segment of the actual rebuilding plan. The record this year has little importance other than how it positions the organization in its ability to draft a franchise qb next year. In the grand scheme of things some of the personnel decisions that you advocate for that make us incrementally better this season have little meaningful impact on how this roster is going to be reshaped in the next few years. 

 

The only advantage to going with a different style as the temporary placeholder at QB is that it could potentially help the other parts of the offense acclimate to the system moreso than they will with Taylor at the helm.

 

Other than that, I agree with pretty much all of what you're saying...and, as you know, Blokes and I were the proverbial engineers at the helm of the Mahomes train way back in June of 2016 :D (and you're all going to be at our mercy again when the Baker Mayfield train picks up its steam next year)


Edited by thebandit27, 19 September 2017 - 02:03 PM.


#51 JohnC

JohnC

    UDFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,430 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 04:35 PM



 

The only advantage to going with a different style as the temporary placeholder at QB is that it could potentially help the other parts of the offense acclimate to the system moreso than they will with Taylor at the helm.

 

Other than that, I agree with pretty much all of what you're saying...and, as you know, Blokes and I were the proverbial engineers at the helm of the Mahomes train way back in June of 2016 :D (and you're all going to be at our mercy again when the Baker Mayfield train picks up its steam next year)

You and Blokes may have been the engineers who blew the whistle on Mahomes but it was JeffisMagic who rode that steel horse to not only exhaustion but to death! :D The irony of the Mahomes addition to the Chiefs is that adding him to the roster has made Alex Smith a better qb by forcing him to throw the ball downfield more instead of his Trentative habit of dinking and dunking. It always has been a mystery to me why Alex Smith stubbornly refused to throw the ball deeper when he has all the tools to be good at it. 

 

I'm looking forward to some good draft evaluations of this year's qb class. The ideal situation is to be in a good position to select a good prospect without dealing off some or too many of our picks. An infusion of talent should accelerate the rebuilding process. I still believe that  is this is a four year process. The ridiculous Rex hire set this franchise back.  :wallbash:


Edited by JohnC, 19 September 2017 - 04:36 PM.


#52 Coach Tuesday

Coach Tuesday

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,046 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 04:40 PM

 

The only advantage to going with a different style as the temporary placeholder at QB is that it could potentially help the other parts of the offense acclimate to the system moreso than they will with Taylor at the helm.

 

Other than that, I agree with pretty much all of what you're saying...and, as you know, Blokes and I were the proverbial engineers at the helm of the Mahomes train way back in June of 2016 :D (and you're all going to be at our mercy again when the Baker Mayfield train picks up its steam next year)

 

Baker Mayfield is The One.  I'm on that train.

 

JohnC: rebuilding and starting with a QB in doing so is the right approach, you've been consistent about that here and most of us have now come around to it.  That said, it has to concern you a little bit that McD and Beane don't appear to value speed or explosiveness on offense.  What if they rebuild the wrong way?  



#53 #BADOL

#BADOL

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,866 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 05:02 PM

 

Baker Mayfield is The One.  I'm on that train.

 

JohnC: rebuilding and starting with a QB in doing so is the right approach, you've been consistent about that here and most of us have now come around to it.  That said, it has to concern you a little bit that McD and Beane don't appear to value speed or explosiveness on offense.  What if they rebuild the wrong way?  

 

I am watching the Ken Burns "Vietnam" doc and watching the step by step breakdown of the US ridiculous strategy and execution is eerily reminiscent of the decision making in their 17 year rebuild.

 

There is always that ONE ANGLE....AT THE TIME......where clearly poor or illogical decisions can be misperceived as good ones.........and there are always those very vocal people here who will find them. :doh:

 

They had Mahomes in their hand........there were no guarantees after that........they've NEVER just stayed in that spot and used that first round pick on a QB since NINETEEN SIXTY ONE..........nothing they've done so far veers off the trajectory of mediocrity/treading of water that they've been on.


Edited by #BADOL, 19 September 2017 - 05:02 PM.


#54 Fadingpain

Fadingpain

    Member, Peterman Fan Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,782 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 05:04 PM

Yeah...I still get excited during this type of game. We were just watching two great defensive performances, rather than two great offensive ones.

In fairness, it didn't have that feel to it.

 

I love great defensive football too.  There was a lot of ineptness on offense (on both sides) in that game!



#55 CuddyDark

CuddyDark

    UDFA

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 70 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 05:08 PM

If he is Jauron, get used to Tyrod. Defensive coaches love players like Tyrod, it's low risk. Tyrod is a Jauron wetdream. Never turns the ball over. Safe.



#56 JohnC

JohnC

    UDFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,430 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 05:17 PM

 

Baker Mayfield is The One.  I'm on that train.

 

JohnC: rebuilding and starting with a QB in doing so is the right approach, you've been consistent about that here and most of us have now come around to it.  That said, it has to concern you a little bit that McD and Beane don't appear to value speed or explosiveness on offense.  What if they rebuild the wrong way?  

I agree with you that in order for an offense to succeed you have to have speed and explosiveness. But let's put things in a real world perspective. There was no way that this roster on both sides of the ball could be reconfigured in one year. And there is no way that an offense could be effective without a franchise qb. I consider Watkins to be a superlative talent, a dynamic receiver when healthy. His abilities were neutered because of the stunted qb situation. 

 

On the positive side let's acknowledge how McDermott stabilized a defensive unit that was in disarray under Rex. As I stated in the prior post in one year our new HC completely revamped the defensive backfield. Not only did he rebuild that defensive backfield but he did it with a zone defense that didn't require more expensive man to man players such as Gilmore and in the not too distant future a more expensive Darby. That was a very excellent exchange from a talent to cost ration.  

 

Our next draft is going to be very critical as to whether the timetable for the rebuild is accelerated or stalled. For me it all comes down to the qb issue. If we can obtain a legitimate franchise qb prospect without shedding too many picks then an infusion of talent should bolster the roster. There is no guarantee but it comes down to the draft. If you want to find an early gauge track how our top three picks progress this year. If they advance as players then we have a sense that this scouting staff is more adept than the previous staff.

 

I am watching the Ken Burns "Vietnam" doc and watching the step by step breakdown of the US ridiculous strategy and execution is eerily reminiscent of the decision making in their 17 year rebuild.

 

There is always that ONE ANGLE....AT THE TIME......where clearly poor or illogical decisions can be misperceived as good ones.........and there are always those very vocal people here who will find them. :doh:

 

They had Mahomes in their hand........there were no guarantees after that........they've NEVER just stayed in that spot and used that first round pick on a QB since NINETEEN SIXTY ONE..........nothing they've done so far veers off the trajectory of mediocrity/treading of water that they've been on.

On the Mahomes issue I am with you. When you have an opportunity you have to seize it. 

 

The best book I have read on the Viet Nam was David Halberstam's  The Best and the Brightest. What's clear is that the intellectuals who created the rationality and strategy for that war may have been smart from an academic standpoint but lacked a knowledge of the regional history and wisdom. It got a lot of names placed on a wall!



#57 #BADOL

#BADOL

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,866 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 05:17 PM

If he is Jauron, get used to Tyrod. Defensive coaches love players like Tyrod, it's low risk. Tyrod is a Jauron wetdream. Never turns the ball over. Safe.

 

 

 

This very real possibility is lost on most, it appears.

 

There is this illogical feeling of DEAD CERTAINTY amongst McD lovers that he made the three trades for extra draft picks so that he could draft the next Peyton Manning in round 1 in 2018 and plug him in and start right away.

 

That doesn't add up........a rookie QB is going to make mistakes.......McD isn't going to want to go back to square one in year two.......there is a very real chance Tyrod is back.



#58 JohnC

JohnC

    UDFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,430 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 05:25 PM



 

 

 

This very real possibility is lost on most, it appears.

 

There is this illogical feeling of DEAD CERTAINTY amongst McD lovers that he made the three trades for extra draft picks so that he could draft the next Peyton Manning in round 1 in 2018 and plug him in and start right away.

 

That doesn't add up........a rookie QB is going to make mistakes.......McD isn't going to want to go back to square one in year two.......there is a very real chance Tyrod is back.

Don't count me in the crowd that is demanding that a rookie qb be handed the starting job. That's not what I have advocated or want. I want a prime qb prospect on the roster so the grooming process is started sooner rather than later. Until that is done little else matters. I have stated before that I don't believe that this roster will be good enough to make the playoffs for another three years after this season. 



#59 ScottLaw

ScottLaw

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,114 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 05:43 PM

 
I absolutely agree that there's no hidden agenda, and if we're viewing Taylor as a bridge QB, then that's a fine fit.  My issue is that a bridge QB only makes sense when you have your potential franchise QB already on the roster, which brings me back to questioning why they didn't take a QB in the 2017 draft.
 
My main problem is that there's a disjointed effort between moving forward and what they're putting on the field now.  Taylor isn't a fit for the type of passing offense that they seemingly want to operate, but they brought him back in what appears to be an effort to be offensively competent this season.  To me, that's a silly way to move forward.
 
If you want to operate this passing game at any level of efficiency, it would've made more sense to bring in a guy like Nick Foles or Chase Daniel that can deliver the ball quickly at the expense of athleticism and deep ball efficiency.  That, to me, would've felt like they were moving forward with putting their system in to place.
 
Just my 1 cent, of course.


I've said this all offseason.

They completely half assed it. Either go for a rebuild or go for a winner. They got older and yet traded away/let some good YOUNGER players walk.

So many moves they made made little sense.

#60 HappyDays

HappyDays

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,415 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 05:49 PM

No way Jauron goes for a 4th and 1 from the 44...that's a punt all day.


Exactly. This comparison makes no sense at all. Jauron also had no energy on the sidelines, nothing close to what McDermott exhibits. This is lazy analysis.