Shaw66

That's funny. I appreciate that point of view. But this thread is about what he said to the media, and you're talking about something else, which is whether he's the right coach. Good thing to talk about, but that isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about his approach to handling the media and why it makes sense, even if we don't like it. If you don't care what he does with the media, that's okay with me.

Well, I don't agree he called it because he wanted Damar to have a moment. I don't know that you're correct about his heart and his head, but at least what's going on his head is the right question. That is, he can try as hard as he likes, but if he isn't capable of thinking well enough about all the things he needs to think about, he'll never win. As someone said, "I'll become the CEO, I just haven't done it yet." Well, maybe I just don't have what it takes to be CEO. It's a fair opinion to say, "I don't think he's smart enough to win it all." I think that statement is fundamentally different from, "He hasn't won it all, which is evidence that he isn't smart enough to win it all." When Pete Carroll got run out of New England I was convinced that he simply was unable to be a successful head coach. As we know, his history did not control his future. Come on, Deek, try to stay on the subject. The subject here is how McDermott deals with the media, not how he coaches the team. I get that we're all unhappy with the outcomes so far, and I get that you and many people are unhappy with the job McDermott has done. There's plenty of room to argue either side of those points. But that isn't the subject here. The subject here is that some fans don't like the amount of disclosure that McDermott makes. The amount of disclosure has NOTHING to do with whether the team wins or not. The amount of disclosure simply has to do with how satisfied we, the fans, are with what we're hearing. What we are hearing or not hearing is completely irrelevant to the team's success.

This the ultimate, fundamental point. There are two different worlds: the world the team (coaches, players, owners) operate in and the world the rest of us operate in. McDermott's duty to take responsibility for what he did or didn't do lies COMPLETELY in the world he and his team live in - his team has a right to see him take responsibility for his mistakes. He has absolutely NO duty to the rest of us in that regard. It's the same thing when the media ask players about next month's big matchup against the Chiefs, and the players say they're focused only on next week's game against the Panthers. We all cry "BS!!!" but in fact it's the truth. In the players world, if they're thinking about next month, they aren't thinking about next week, and in their world all that matters is next week. The problem does not lie in what McDermott says or doesn't say. It lies in what we expect from him.

He has to let Josh make his own decisions about what Josh says to the press. McDermott cares about what Josh says, and what others say, to the team. The truth is that talking to the press is all downside and no upside. When Josh talks to the press, he runs the risk of offending one or more teammates, but there's pretty much nothing he can say to the press that will improve his relationship with his teammates. What do you think Josh is supposed to do, or McDermott for that matter? Say, "It was my fault"? Should he say it in response to everything that went wrong? Well, no, he can't say it with respect to everything, because he knows and we know that it wasn't always his fault. Okay, so he should say it was his fault only when he actually believes it was his fault. So, on the long ball to Diggs, when the press asks Josh what happened, he says something like, "Well, we're all disappointed we weren't able to complete that one." Which means, of course, since he didn't say it was his fault, Josh thinks it was Diggs's fault, i.e., he throws Diggs under the bus. You see, McDermott's policy about keeping all of his judgments to himself and in house means he never has to dis his players in public, and that's the right thing for coaches to do. We just don't like it, because we want more information, but McDermott doesn't really care how much information we want. What he cares about is winning, and winning requires a completely together locker room, and you can't have a completely together locker room if the coach is explaining to the public what his players or coaches did wrong.

You see, your mindset is wrong. He HAS shown ability to get there, he just hasn't gotten there. Those are two different things. How do I know he's shown the ability? Because his teams have won a lot of games, his teams have pulled out a lot of wins, his teams have succeeded more than just about all the teams in the league over the same period. So, he HAS shown the ability. He just hasn't done it, yet, which is exactly the point that he makes. Every single thing of importance that has been accomplished in the history of human existence had never happened before it was accomplished for the first time. The fact that it hadn't been accomplished did not prove that it couldn't be accomplished; it proved only that it hadn't been accomplished yet.

You guys are just unhappy with (1) the loss (whichever loss we're talking about at any particular time), and (2) the frustration over the loss that causes you to want to blame someone. If McDermott explained exactly what happened in 13 Seconds, people would criticize him for making the wrong choices. He doesn't explain, so people criticize him for not explaining. Can't you see that McDermott's right about this? He's damned if he does, and he's damned if he doesn't, and talking about it only prolongs the focus on the history. Anything that takes the focus off getting better today is a waste of time. McDermott owns the past lives with it, and works to get better. It isn't very satisfying to us, because we'd like to understand more about things that happened, but enhancing our understanding doesn't make the team better.

Of course, he shared with the class. The class is inside One Bills Drive. You're not inside, and he didn't share with you.

You know, that interview explains a lot, while saying pretty much nothing at all. I particularly liked this: It drives us all crazy, the fact that he says practically nothing about the biggest plays, the biggest mistakes, the biggest things to go wrong. But Graham gets it. "McDermott simply doesn’t see any competitive value in being chatty." Everything McDermott does, he does with a purpose. Everything. Talking to the media is part of his job, so he does it, but he understands that no part of talking to the press will help make his team better. He knows what happened in 13 Seconds, but taking that discussion outside One Bills Drive won't make the team better. Talking to the media is just time away from actually working on making the team better. He is very much like Belichick in that way. It's frustrating to everyone on the outside, the fans and the media, because he doesn't say anything, but his job is not to minimize our frustrations. We learned a lot about McDermott when he arrived and quickly removed the pool table from the team clubhouse. He was asked why the ping pong table stayed and the pool table was gone. Ping pong develops eye-hand coordination and other skills relevant to football performance, pool doesn't. It's all about focus on the game. And I was interested in this: Whether it's good or bad, it's important to remember that McDermott is a disciple of the continuous improvement, lifelong learning gurus. I bought one of those books, a book by a woman who studies and promotes the concepts. The book opens describing some research that found that a simple attitude change makes all the difference in what kids accomplish. When faced with a problem they tried to solve and didn't, kids generally had one of two different reactions: They said either "I didn't do it," or "I didn't do it yet." And here it is in McDermott's final comment. "It hasn't happened yet." Earlier McDermott says you've only failed if you've stopped trying. And this is why I have confidence in McDermott, and why I think people are wrong when they say he's locked in on his style of defense and won't change. Resisting change is not at all how McDermott operates. McDermott's philosophy is to embrace change whenever change is necessary, and he and the people around him are constantly asking themselves what has to change. That's how he operates. He's changed coordinators, he's changed players, he's changed styles of play. He just hasn't won the Super Bowl - yet.

Exactly. It's really different now. Losman vs. Edwards. My, my.

This is either the last Rockpile Review for the 2023 season, or the first for 2024. I’m not sure, and that’s as good a place to start as any. I’ve mentioned before that my attitude about the games and the seasons seems to have changed over the past year. I love watching, I love the winning, and the losing doesn’t bother me all that much. It’s an odd feeling, because I used to fret about the losses for days and remember details for weeks or more. Not any more. Now, when the Bills lose, I just move on to what’s next, both in my personal life and in my Bills fan life. For the 2023 season, I didn’t feel compelled to write about every game, or to write about the end of the season. The game was the game, everyone saw it, a lot of people had interesting comments, and it didn’t seem necessary to add anything. We all saw the drop or the interception or the mismanaged clock or whatever, and we all saw Josh Allen. I often felt that I had nothing to add. (Except, of course, it always feels like there's one more thing to say about Josh.) And then the Bills lost to the Chiefs. I was there, I drove home the next day, and by then, I didn’t have much to say. Sitting in the stands, it’s often easy to lose details in the flow of the game, details that somehow stand out better when I watch on TV. Plus, I hadn’t seen why Allen’s throw to Shakir was short, so I had nothing to say about the most important play of the game. And so, no Rockpile Review. Then, the Conference Championship games and the Super Bowl, but all of that was just of casual importance to me. The season was over, and I was ready to move on. The only interest I had in the Super Bowl was that the Chiefs blow out the Niners, preserving for Bills fans the cheap thrill of claiming that the Bills were the second best team in the league. Overtime or not, I still make the claim. Then, two weeks went by, and it seems to me like it’s been a month or two. A month or two since Mahomes did what he seemingly always does, unless someone like Bass does something like Bass did, in which case Mahomes doesn’t have to be Mahomes, he just takes a knee. From here, how and why the Bills didn’t do what we wanted, needed, them to do doesn’t matter to me all that much. It’s time to move on. New season, new roster, same hill to climb. I won’t speculate on free agents coming and going, and I certainly won’t speculate on the draft. That’s for Beane and McDermott’ I’ll be curious to see the products of their work, and what it tells us about their approach to 2024. I expect I’ll like the roster, and I expect the Bills to compete for the Lombardi. The 2024 Bills will be better than the 2023 version. In the meantime, there’s nothing for me to do in the dead silence that is the world of football at this time of year. When does training camp open? GO BILLS!!! The Rockpile Review is written to share the passion we have for the Buffalo Bills. That passion was born in the Rockpile; its parents were everyday people of western New York who translated their dedication to a full day’s hard work and simple pleasures into love for a pro football team.

Thanks, I agree. But - Beane certainly knows that he isn't going to get a premium edge guy late in the first round. I think it's more that McDermott wants these guys - guys who are versatile. I don't think they've kept drafting d linemen because they hope to hit a homerun. I think they have more or less the stable they wanted. Personally, I'm counting on Von being back. He only has to play 50% of the snaps, he's got a great body in great condition. If the Bills knew for sure he'd be back like something like the old Von, well, damn, that would go a long way to satisfy my concerns.

Well, if I were to agree with your assessment of the defense, I'd have to join the folks who want McDermott moved out. And it gives me cause, because I can see that you're correct. Certainly 13 seconds was on coaching. This year's loss was partly on coaching, but I think largely on personnel - no pass rush and no depth at linebacker. Offense, on the other hand, I think has been primarily scheme and playcalling. I think, for example, the 2023 roster underperformed - that is, with the very good offensive coaching (scheme, playcalling) the 2023 roster would have been a consistently dominant offense, instead of occasionally dominant.

This is really good. Thanks. But it highlights my point, and I'd be interested in you comments. I think it's very clear that McDermott's approach to defense is to be very good across the board, so that over the course of the season the defense is performing as it should - low yards per game and low points per game. He wants to get pressure with four men rushing. He believes the best way to get defensive production on the line by rotating 8 or 9, thereby keeping them fresh and changing the look of the defense. Rousseau, and Oliver as you point out, are not stars at their positions, but they do more or less everything at a high level. They fit perfectly into what McDermott wants. He doesn't want a guy who's so good that he demands 85% of the snaps, but he loves having guys who demand 60% and you can afford to have off the field once in a while. However, that system means there's no room for a Chris Jones, a Bosa, a Watt, or pick a few others (or a Von Miller in his prime). What that means is that the defensive line lineup doesn't include a big-play playmaker, the guy who them game is on the line sometimes will just make a play to win the game. That may not matter much in the regular season, because if the defense is putting up the numbers McDermott wants, over the course of the season the Bills will win enough that one game won by a super player making a super play just doesn't matter as much as the consistency this defense produces. But in the playoffs, you want one of those guys, because the averages don't matter so much when it's winner-take-all. I'm not sure I know what to do about that. Will McDermott change his defense a bit to make room for a real stud defensive lineman? Actually, the Bills don't have the draft capital or the cap room to get one of those players, so it doesn't really matter. But philosophically, it's a point that bothers me a lot, because it keeps appearing across the lineup. I know the Niners are unusual, but their offense has three stud skill players, Pro Bowl level. The Bills have one, if you're willing to put Diggs there. The Chiefs come at you with Jones and with Kelce, two stud players, one on each side. Beane and McDermott seem to think this team doesn't need studs. What do you think?

He may have said multiple times, but I recall he said it when they acquired Miller. It's interesting that there is such a persistent theme that the defense lets the Bills down in playoff games, and yet there's also a persistent theme that the Bills have devoted too many resources to the defense and need to splurge this year on offense.

I don't know if this is posted anywhere, but a friend sent this to me this morning. It's one reason good linemen "disappear" against Mahomes.

I've been worrying about Rousseau for a couple of year. Let me say first that I think you sort of suggest that Rousseau is a disappointment. If he's a disappointment, it's only in the sense that he isn't the super star that some, mostly unreasonably, imagined he would be. The only time that it's reasonable to expect that a team got a super star is when the team has a top-ten pick. If teams had thought Rousseau was going to be a super star, some team would have taken him before the Bills did. Rousseau has in fact produced at a level that is reasonable to expect for a guy who was drafted late in the first round: Starter almost from the beginning, makes plays, is coachable, is a solid contributor. But Rousseau was a pick sort of like Edmunds - the Bills bet a bit on his high ceiling, and like Edmunds, he hasn't risen to that ceiling. Instead, and more so than Edmunds, he became a solid starter with no weaknesses. The Bears took the second bet on Edmunds' ceiling, because it is so high, but I don't think teams would make the comparable big bet on Greg, because it's pretty clear he isn't going to be a dominant edge rusher like Watt or a Bosa or something. What bothers me about Rousseau is that the Bills need a few more standout players. Allen is one, and Milano probably is the other. They need one or two more. They hoped Miller would be one, but that hasn't happened yet. But McDermott loves his all-purpose players. He want great athletes who can do everything their position demands, so he likes Rousseau, whose really pretty good at pass rushing, run stopping, pursuing, pass coverage. The problem is that he isn't dominant as any of those things; he's just very good. I think the Bills should keep Rousseau, but if unloading him was part of a plan to get a dominant defensive player, almost at any position, I'd be in favor.

10 cent hamburgers at McDonald's on Niagara Falls Blvd. when I was 14, baby. Classic fast food! I really object when people who think staying with McBeane is the right decision are derided by suggestions that we're willing to settle for the participation trophy. I suppose there are some who feel that way, but most of us want to win just as much as you do. We just believe McBeane are most likely to get the Bills there the soonest.

Thanks for this conversation. I think we see it exactly the same way, and that's comforting, because a lot of people here seem to think I'm crazy!

I agree completely. To give credit where credit is due, however, what others say is, in fact, a legitimate question: Are Beane and McDermott the right people to get the team there? It is certainly possible that they just aren't good enough. I'm not in that camp. I think they're committed to winning big, and they're committed to change in order to get there. Not everyone agrees.

Exactly, again. I wouldn't say what @LeGOATski said - I don't have a lot of personal goals, and winning a Super Bowl isn't really goal, it's a hope or a wish. But other than health and success of my family, there isn't much on my wish list ahead of a Lombardi. So, my "wish" is exactly the same as the team's goal. But your points are correct, about how hard it is to win a Super Bowl and about how much fun it is to be the fan of a team that truly is in the hunt to win it all year after year. During the drought, which team did I envy? Well, in terms of excellence, of course it was the Patriots. What they did was phenomenal, but it's sort of unreasonable to expect any team to do that again. I mean, the NFL might not see another dynasty like that for 50 years. So, no, I didn't envy the Patriots. What I hoped for was to be like the Steelers: a team with a shot every season, a team that had a hard-nosed QB who was one of the best in league, a team with stable ownership and a commitment to quality through continuity, a team that kept going about the work of being a success in the NFL year after year. Amazingly, I got what I hoped for. The Bills have become the kind of franchise I wanted to be a fan of. Will the Bills win a Super Bowl before I die? I don't know, but that's much more up to me and my longevity than is the Bills, because I expect they will win one before Allen retires, I'd guess more than one.

But we already knew that.

Of course not. I'm just trying to describe my emotional reaction to it. I have supreme confidence in my opinions. It's just the way I'm wired.

That's an interesting question. I mean, certainly on a Constitutional level, I'm okay. Everyone's free to think what he wants. My nature, which I'm not necessarily proud of, causes me to be offended when people have really bad ideas about something I care about. I feel like I should say, "How could you possibly think that!" But I also realize that they and I are not inside the organization, and inside the organization, certain things are very clear. Either way. I mean, if I were the owner of the Bills and I was privy to all that the Pegulas know, I might conclude that (contrary to everything I've been saying here) McDermott is fatally flawed and will have to leave as soon as a viable alternative is available. I know that's possible. I just think it's unlikely - I think that McDermott is succeeding at a very high level and he's more likely than any candidate available to build a a truly big winner. The next dynasty. But, as I often say, "What do I know?"

Absolutely. But some people get a lot of enjoyment, or get to vent, or whatever, by pretending they now what the right thing to do is.

Well, first, unless something goes wrong, Josh is in. They're letting a lot of guys in the HOF now, and by the end of his career, Josh is going to have pretty amazing numbers, where he ever wins a Super Bowl. A lot of TDs, a lot of yards passing and a lot of yards rushing. He's already 8th on the career rushing list, and it's not a stretch for him to get into Vick/Newton territory. And his passing number will blow those guys away. The real problem is the MVP. It's just a weird popularity contest. I don't know who votes, but what's happened the last few years is about November the broadcasters all start speculating about who the MVP might be, naming a top 5, and somehow over the next month they drop names off the list, so that by the end of the season the announcers have built a consensus for one guy or another. As we saw this season, the announcers anointed Lamar before Josh and the Bills had a late season run - by early December they all were saying Lamar is the consensus choice. How can that make sense - it's a 17 game season, and a bunch of announcers decide who's going to be the MVP after 12 games. Plus, of course, the MVP is a regular season award and not a playoff award.