Vic Carucci's Bills analysis: Much more long-term than short-term thinking behind ro

[Wally The Barber]

Vic Carucci's Bills analysis: Much more long-term than short-term thinking behind roster build


I'm sure Sean McDermott means it when he says the Buffalo Bills are taking a "50-50" approach to building a roster with short- and long-term decisions.
There's some hard evidence that supports short-term thinking with the decision to keep Tyrod Taylor at quarterback and hang onto veteran defensive tackle Kyle Williams. The same goes for signing a pair of safeties in free agency -- Micah Hyde and Jordan Poyer -- who can be plugged in as immediate starters.
There's also ample proof of a long-term vision as well, beginning with that 2018 first-round pick the Bills acquired from their draft-day trade with the Kansas City Chiefs ... and the fact their top three choices this year are likely to start or at least see significant action as rookies ... and the fact they resisted the temptation to restructure big-money contracts and push salary-cap cash down the line that would have extended unwanted commitments ... and the fact they chose not to commit to a fifth year on the contract of a wide receiver, Sammy Watkins, who struggles to stay healthy.
The reality is that "50-50" is probably more like "60-40," if not "70-30," in favor of a long-term approach.

Face it. The last thing McDermott is going to come out and say is that the Bills aren't interested in being competitive this year, that it will take at least two and perhaps even three seasons before they're ready to make the jump to being a contender. Or whatever a contender can truly be in the same division as Tom Brady and the New England Patriots.
But McDermott was hired to fix something that was badly broken, and it isn't simply a matter of instilling the discipline and accountability that was sorely lacking under Rex Ryan.
There are too many spots in need of upgrading and too many bloated salaries belonging to underachievers that have to be kept until dumping them won't have a crippling cap impact to expect rapid improvement. The Bills have said goodbye to half of the players who appeared in at least one game last season, and it's unrealistic to expect the replacements and the incumbents and the new coaches, with their new schemes, to all mesh in one year.
Does that mean McDermott won't be under any pressure to show positive results quickly? Hardly. Jaded fans and media, with patience worn to a nub by 17 years of futility, won't hesitate to be heard if there's little or no progress shown this season -- or things actually go in reverse.

"There’s always a pressure from a coach’s standpoint," McDermott acknowledged to reporters last week.
But …
"I think most of the coaches out there would feel the pressure to get … the immediate fix, and sometimes that’s a Band-Aid, and I’m not in to," he said. "I’m not really into that approach."
That's because, by all indications, he doesn't have to be.
Terry and Kim Pegula have given McDermott the ability to work with the cleanest of slates. They allowed for the overhaul of the player-personnel department, which, along with McDermott, has been in the process of a top-to-bottom cleansing of all that the Bills had been doing that got them in the mess left behind by Doug Whaley and Ryan and other decision-makers.
The Bills didn't merely put two new faces at the top of their football operation in McDermott and Brandon Beane. They undertook as massive a transition as any they've made in recent memory.
And the change in direction the Bills are navigating is more like turning around an ocean liner than a subcompact car.
It will take some time.

[psubills62]

I mean, obviously the long-term approach of building a winning roster, a winning attitude, a winning team is ideal. It's just an unfortunate situation all-around because I think there would be a lot less pressure if we didn't have this awful playoff-less streak continuing. McDermott deserves the chance to build a team that he believes will succeed in the long run.

From the little I've seen, this year would be a good one to tank. Multiple good QB prospects potentially entering the draft next year.

[Skooby]

I really like us having 2 - 1st round picks next year.

[Night Train]

I'm guessing McDermott/Beane get at least 3-4 years. Both are young and if it's a long term build, Pegula signed off and will probably show restraint this time. On paper, it sure looks like they finally got the right idea and it all now depends on results. Why shouldn't we have a positive outlook this time around ? Screw the past and those that rehash it.

[YardRat]

I like the approach so far...re-signing some of our own, no knee-jerk long-term contract 'cave-ins' (**cough**Gilmore, Zach Brown and Woods**cough**), a mix of vets (Hyde and Hodges) and youth in free agency...etc. I really think this could be a quicker turn-around than some expect.

Absolutely no need to tank. Look at hockey for a good example.

A few seasons ago, Nashville and Buffalo were in pretty similar situations. One tanked...one took a more balanced approach. One still hasn't made the playoffs...one is playing for a Cup. Personally, I prefer the Nashville approach.

[SpikedLemonade]

I like the approach so far...re-signing some of our own, no knee-jerk long-term contract 'cave-ins' (**cough**Gilmore, Zach Brown and Woods**cough**), a mix of vets (Hyde and Hodges) and youth in free agency...etc. I really think this could be a quicker turn-around than some expect.

Absolutely no need to tank. Look at hockey for a good example.

A few seasons ago, Nashville and Buffalo were in pretty similar situations. One tanked...one took a more balanced approach. One still hasn't made the playoffs...one is playing for a Cup. Personally, I prefer the Nashville approach.

"....but...but...but other NHL teams tanked in the past...."

[GreedoII]

Chiefs cutting salary maybe they will actually suck....

[streetkings01]

Hopefully when the finished product is assembled Brady will be enjoying retirement.

[SpikedLemonade]

Hopefully when the finished product is assembled Brady will be enjoying retirement.

It is not Brady.

It is the Belly Monster.

[kscdogbillsfan1221]

Hopefully when the finished product is assembled Brady will be enjoying retirement.

seeing brady said some **** like 'i wanna play tll i'm 45' it may be around that time.

[psubills62]

I like the approach so far...re-signing some of our own, no knee-jerk long-term contract 'cave-ins' (**cough**Gilmore, Zach Brown and Woods**cough**), a mix of vets (Hyde and Hodges) and youth in free agency...etc. I really think this could be a quicker turn-around than some expect.
Absolutely no need to tank. Look at hockey for a good example.
A few seasons ago, Nashville and Buffalo were in pretty similar situations. One tanked...one took a more balanced approach. One still hasn't made the playoffs...one is playing for a Cup. Personally, I prefer the Nashville approach.
I don't follow hockey, but it seems patently different when one player at one position could make the difference between continuing to wallow in the 5-8 win range and becoming a contender. I'm not saying they should tank, though I do think this next draft will have a much better pool of QB's available. And given the pay structure for draftees, it would be incredibly hard to trade up (even with two firsts) when there are potential franchise QB's available.

[Mace]

I don't follow hockey, but it seems patently different when one player at one position could make the difference between continuing to wallow in the 5-8 win range and becoming a contender. I'm not saying they should tank, though I do think this next draft will have a much better pool of QB's available. And given the pay structure for draftees, it would be incredibly hard to trade up (even with two firsts) when there are potential franchise QB's available.

All you have to do is look at Indy and Luck if you think they tanked (I think they were just that bad without The Peyton), or all the supposed franchise QB's teams overdraft every year and how good they are over time, or team draft success rates, to concluded blowing a season hoping to get a magic ticket to contender doesn't make much sense.

I never can see wasting a season, another year in the hope of some instant winner ticket that we haven't gotten in yearly drafts of trying to supposedly find elite players, as anything more than silly.

Not you, but all the people loving the Sabres tank have been pretty pained by the results, and basically gained nothing but extra years of misery from the purposeful effort. It's comical from time to time when they jump in and then hope the Bills do it.

The Tank. Because it always works juuuuussssst like people want it to.

[Generalissimus Gibby]

Ah long term rebuilds, as a Kansas City Royals fan since the time I could talk, I friggen hate this idea. Football and sports in general these days are win now.

[HHURRICANE]

Wouldn't it be funny if McDermott pulls off a 4-12 season.

If this team doesn't win 8 games this season it will look like an epic fail.

Hard to do a rebuild with losers so they can't just tank.

[psubills62]

All you have to do is look at Indy and Luck if you think they tanked (I think they were just that bad without The Peyton), or all the supposed franchise QB's teams overdraft every year and how good they are over time, or team draft success rates, to concluded blowing a season hoping to get a magic ticket to contender doesn't make much sense.
I never can see wasting a season, another year in the hope of some instant winner ticket that we haven't gotten in yearly drafts of trying to supposedly find elite players, as anything more than silly.
Not you, but all the people loving the Sabres tank have been pretty pained by the results, and basically gained nothing but extra years of misery from the purposeful effort. It's comical from time to time when they jump in and then hope the Bills do it.
The Tank. Because it always works juuuuussssst like people want it to.
I agree, tanking very often doesn't work out. There are some downsides to it, and it's no guarantee.

But let me ask you - haven't the last 17 years basically been wasted? We just waste them losing fewer games. What's the difference in wasting a year winning 8 games and wasting one winning 2-4 games? Difference is a potentially better draft pick. As troubled as Dareus is, he's the highest draft pick we've had in a while and he's still one of the players with the most talent on the team. Anyone who follows football teams would not be surprised at a really bad year when you're trying to rebuild a roster like we are.

We have seemed to be stuck in mid-round hell for a long time with our draft picks. We do poorly enough to not make the playoffs, but not poorly enough to be able to pick a player from the elite group of prospects each year. I don't know if that would have been the golden ticket (certainly haven't seen any QB's I'm a big fan of, especially this past year), but I don't think it could really hurt at this point.

[jimmifli]

I really like us having 2 - 1st round picks next year.

I've often thought it would be great to perpetually trade down from the extra 1st round pick to pick up a second round in the current draft and an extra pick the next year. Essentially use it as an endowment that generates extra picks each year.

[Arm of Harm]

All you have to do is look at Indy and Luck if you think they tanked (I think they were just that bad without The Peyton), or all the supposed franchise QB's teams overdraft every year and how good they are over time, or team draft success rates, to concluded blowing a season hoping to get a magic ticket to contender doesn't make much sense.

I never can see wasting a season, another year in the hope of some instant winner ticket that we haven't gotten in yearly drafts of trying to supposedly find elite players, as anything more than silly.

Not you, but all the people loving the Sabres tank have been pretty pained by the results, and basically gained nothing but extra years of misery from the purposeful effort. It's comical from time to time when they jump in and then hope the Bills do it.

The Tank. Because it always works juuuuussssst like people want it to.


I'll give you something else to chew on. During the mid-'90s, the Dallas Cowboys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Cowboys#1990s) won three Super Bowls in the space of four years. Two of those Super Bowl wins came at Buffalo's expense.

How, you might ask, did the Cowboys achieve this? In the 1988 draft they used the 11th overall pick on Michael Irvin, an elite WR. Then in the 1988 season they went 3-13, good for first overall in the 1989 draft. That first overall pick was used on Troy Aikman; their star QB. They went 1-15 in 1989, due in part to having traded away Herschel Walker part way through the season. (The picks from Herschel Walker were ultimately converted into part of Russell Maryland, part of Emmitt Smith, as well as Kevin Smith and Darren Woodson.) While the Herschel Walker trade definitely helped, the majority of the talent acquisition the Cowboys achieved in the draft during those years occurred due to their own draft picks, not Minnesota's.

Trading away your best, most valuable players (Herschel Walker) represents the opposite of a "win now" approach. Going 3-13 and 1-15 in back-to-back seasons represents the opposite of win now. It was precisely because of those moves--and the early draft picks which resulted--that the Cowboys were able to become one of the most talented teams in the history of the post-merger NFL.

Compare that to the Bills. There are 32 teams in the NFL, which means that a typical NFL team gets a top five pick once every 32/5 = 6.4 years. Over the course of a 17 year period, you'd expect a team to get three top-5 picks. The Bills organically attained only 2 top-five picks during that span, only 2/3 as many as a typical NFL team. And yet, we were literally the only team in the league to miss the playoffs every single year during that span! The overriding characteristic of the Bills' front office during those 17 years has been shortsightedness. The willingness to sacrifice the future for the present. When we went into "win now" mode, despite lacking the player talent necessary to justify that decision, the typical result was to win enough games to keep us out of the top 5, not enough games to get us into the playoffs.

Of course, if you're tanking the season to get better draft picks, you absolutely have to have a front office that's good at evaluating college players. If you don't have a front office like that, the "tank the season" strategy won't produce the results you want. Not because the strategy itself is flawed, but because any strategy will fail if you don't have good execution.

[stuckincincy]

I'll give you something else to chew on. During the mid-'90s, the Dallas Cowboys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Cowboys#1990s) won three Super Bowls in the space of four years. Two of those Super Bowl wins came at Buffalo's expense.

How, you might ask, did the Cowboys achieve this? In the 1988 draft they used the 11th overall pick on Michael Irvin, an elite WR. Then in the 1988 season they went 3-13, good for first overall in the 1989 draft. That first overall pick was used on Troy Aikman; their star QB. They went 1-15 in 1989, due in part to having traded away Herschel Walker part way through the season. (The picks from Herschel Walker were ultimately converted into part of Russell Maryland, part of Emmitt Smith, as well as Kevin Smith and Darren Woodson.) While the Herschel Walker trade definitely helped, the majority of the talent acquisition the Cowboys achieved in the draft during those years occurred due to their own draft picks, not Minnesota's.

Trading away your best, most valuable players (Herschel Walker) represents the opposite of a "win now" approach. Going 3-13 and 1-15 in back-to-back seasons represents the opposite of win now. It was precisely because of those moves--and the early draft picks which resulted--that the Cowboys were able to become one of the most talented teams in the history of the post-merger NFL.

Compare that to the Bills. There are 32 teams in the NFL, which means that a typical NFL team gets a top five pick once every 32/5 = 6.4 years. Over the course of a 17 year period, you'd expect a team to get three top-5 picks. The Bills organically attained only 2 top-five picks during that span, only 2/3 as many as a typical NFL team. And yet, we were literally the only team in the league to miss the playoffs every single year during that span! The overriding characteristic of the Bills' front office during those 17 years has been shortsightedness. The willingness to sacrifice the future for the present. When we went into "win now" mode, despite lacking the player talent necessary to justify that decision, the typical result was to win enough games to keep us out of the top 5, not enough games to get us into the playoffs.

Of course, if you're tanking the season to get better draft picks, you absolutely have to have a front office that's good at evaluating college players. If you don't have a front office like that, the "tank the season" strategy won't produce the results you want. Not because the strategy itself is flawed, but because any strategy will fail if you don't have good execution.

The NFL exists to maximize profits. Like any business.

To that end, it is a league of four teams:

PIT
GB
DAL
NE.

Other teams are the supporting cast.

[streetkings01]

It is not Brady.

It is the Belly Monster.We are 2-0 the past 3 seasons when Brady doesn't play a full game against us.

[John Doe]

I've often thought it would be great to perpetually trade down from the extra 1st round pick to pick up a second round in the current draft and an extra pick the next year. Essentially use it as an endowment that generates extra picks each year.

That's just about what the Patriots did for a few years after they got a first round pick from us for Bledsoe.

They ended up losing the extra first due to one of their transgressions when the league cracked down and took one of their first rounders away.