billsfan1959

Don't you ever tire of being a one trick pony?

We may be in the minority; however, I agree. I would love to have Whaley on this staff.

None of this is even true. Beane looked into Antonio Brown (This was before all of the issues really started) and decided it wasn't worth it. I call that due diligence. Also, in case you haven't noticed, this has become a pass first offense - almost to the detriment of the running game, and Mc Dermott has taken risks when warranted. The fact that they haven't scored a lot of points is not a result of being a conservative, ball-control offense, as much as it has been because of drive killing mistakes, penalties, and turnovers.

I think Whaley took, and continues to take a lot of unwarranted criticism. I think there were two primary issues that caused him problems. First, he was tasked with finding players for differing philosophies under coaching changes. The second has nothing to do with finding talent; however, I am convinced his lack of skills as a public speaker brought about a very unfavorable perception of him and his abilities. I agree with you, I thought Whaley was a very good talent evaluator.

They did do some good things. They also did some boneheaded things. The same with McDermott and Beane. That was my point.

Talk about cherry picking things to support one's point.... You should be better than that.

Save your breath. Some people just want to live in the past and be miserable...

Ahhhh, another "they are 5-2 but should really be winless if it wasn't for gifts and quality of oppents that is the worst ever seen in the history of the NFL - maybe the worst in the history of competion since the beginning of man" poster. I have never seen such angst, hand-wringing, and misery over a 5-2 record....

Is that what we have to do now? Qualify each and every win and overall record of every team? Where does it end and what does it tell us. Philly beat us, but they lost to Dallas, who lost to the jets, who we beat. So, what does that exactly say? This is so non-sensical. Why are you so unhappy that you have to find a way to diminish anything good about this team?

Completely different discussion. However, since you asked, I have no idea why he made the comment that there have been far too many years of irresponsible decisions. It is an accurate assessment; however, not necessary. Their decisions are not relevant to what is currently happening. But, again, a completely different topic than the one I was responding to.

The point here, however difficult it appears to be for you to grasp, is that it is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to McDermott what any other coach did at any point in NFL history. If you would like to make some sort of intelligent argument as to why what Jauron (or anyone else) did is relevant to McDermott, I would be more than willing to listen. I'll wait....

Well, if comparisons to other coaches is your benchmark: McDermott is 20-19 as a head coach. At the exact same point in his career, Bill Bilichick was 14-25. What had he done to prove he could be an upper echelon coach? This is such a ridiculous and pointless exercise. But it is what happens when you cannot intellectually defend your positions.

Go back and look at the threads where "success" was defined by most everyone as fighting for a playoff spot. However, I was particularly talking about the so called experts. As far as the "still building" comment: Stop being so obtuse. As if there is no difference in the stage of building between teams.

Why be so miserable? Come join the optimistic side. You'll feel better.... No it's not. Quit being ridiculous.

But hey, they have a 300 yard passer, so, it makes those losses acceptable....

Because that is so relevant to this team, this coach, this time, etc... Really, can't you do better than this?

Still 5-2 For a team they are still building and that was picked to win 6 or 7 games this year... But, hey, keep whining if it makes you feel better....

I guess 5-2 is pretty mediocre...

Yeah, he is in real danger here...

Clearly, he thought this week's performance was better than in other weeks. You believe otherwise. However, you also stated that the Eagles' halftime adjustments included double-teaming Star. Coaches do not waste their time making halftime adjustments on specific players who are just playing average...

So, let me get this straight. You have been saying Joe B. is wrong in his assertion that Star was one of the better defenders on the field this week. As supporting analysis, you offer the opinion of another poster who says absolutely nothing that supports you?

And yet, we still see reporters write negative things about the team, ownership, and individual players whenever they feel it is necessary. I read plenty of criticism in articles written over the last two weeks. They also write many positive things as well. After all, this is a team that is trending upward during a rebuild, has some good young talent, and is actually 5-2 at almost the midpoint of the season. Is it so hard to believe that maybe Star actually was one of the better defenders on the field this week? Or does that create so much cognitive dissonance for you that you have to create some grand conspiracy to reduce it? It is still a valid question. Maybe they got better offensive production because they started double teaming Star? You keep offering an opinion and then providing an analysis that contradicts it.

The Star sucks agenda has been on this board since he was signed...

So, does the fact that the Eagles halftime adjustments included more double teams of Star tell you anything about what the Eagles thought about his play?

There are a number of posters who, on a micro and macro level, immediately overreact and/or form opinions, provide analyses, assess blame, demand accountability, etc., prior to ever having the necessary information to do so. Which is fine; however, they then become so entrenched in those opinions, analyses, and blame - that they dig their heels in and refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary. And when anybody offers a differing opinion or tries to present evidence to support a differing opinion, it is met with anger, aggression, or outright delusional assertions. Now Joe B. is cluless, a hack, ignorant of the game of football, a mere puppet of Pegula under some illuminati type conspiracy theory, etc., etc., - all for daring to provide an anlysis and opinion contrary to a narrative pushed by some on this board. SMFH