John Warrow’s High Praise For Beane & McDermott Regime

[Rocket94]

1 minute ago, Gugny said:

 

At the very least, pay him well (like teams do for Wade Phillips) and hire a HC who has the same defensive philosophy.  All water under the bridge, now.  But the Bills were headed in the right direction while Schwartz was DC.

I know...it was never even seriously considered. I never liked the Rex hiring at all. Publicity bs...filled the seats.

[Rocket94]

13 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

At the very least, pay him well (like teams do for Wade Phillips) and hire a HC who has the same defensive philosophy.  All water under the bridge, now.  But the Bills were headed in the right direction while Schwartz was DC.

I know...it was never even seriously considered. I never liked the Rex hiring at all. Publicity bs...filled the seats.

Sure Rex "Its personal" then we get our butts kicked!

[Phil The Thrill]

16 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

He schooled me? ? What are you 12? 

 

Its not an argument. It's a conversation. 

 

It’s a conversation between two people that have completely different ideas (aka a debate) and John made a lot more sense that you did.  He did a better job of using logic and evidence to share his informed viewpoint.  I was commenting on that

Edited May 19, 2019 by Phil The Thrill

[formerlyofCtown]

On 4/27/2019 at 1:31 PM, BullBuchanan said:

They just signed a Super Bowl MVP QB and have a top tier defense. If you aren't considering them at minimum better than us on paper, you're making a mistake.

Could be wrong but I think our D was better last season and we did beat them.

[billsfan89]

The Bills roster has flaws but it certainly is the most complete roster they have had since 2015 (Coming off of a top 5 defense in 2014 and adding a lot of offensive talent) but unlike 2015 the Bills actually have the coaching and culture set up to capitalize on the talent. I also think the approach to building the team is much more sound beyond just having good coaching. 

 

They have a coherent plan at QB and appear to understand how to acquire defensive talent both via free agency and via the draft. BUT the results thus far through 2 seasons have been mixed. So although on paper the team looks to have added a lot of talent in areas of weakness while retaining almost every component of the team that was successful it still has to bear out on the field. I think anything less than 9 wins is fireable for McD. 

 

So while the positivity this off-season has been deserved it still has to play out on the field. 

[Punching Bag]

18 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

I think anything less than 9 wins is fireable for McD. 

 

So while the positivity this off-season has been deserved it still has to play out on the field. 

 

You are certainly acting more positive than in past.  I expected you to post that anythinh other than a Superbowl championship via shutout is a fire-able offense.

[Turk71]

  After more than 3 weeks the OP still hasn't corrected the spelling of Wawrow's name in the title? Come On Man!! 

   The original post after the incorrectly spelled title has his name spelled correctly 16 times! Wtf?

   I guess I am the only one annoyed by this.?

[RochesterLifer]

51 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 I think anything less than 9 wins is fireable for McD. 

 

This is a rediculous statement. While I am hoping form10-6, even if the Bills fall short, McDermott is on very solid ground.

[thenorthremembers]

4 minutes ago, RochesterLifer said:

 

This is a rediculous statement. While I am hoping form10-6, even if the Bills fall short, McDermott is on very solid ground.

Agree 100 percent.  If he gets to nine wins this year he will be 24-24 with a playoff birth.  No way they fire him with a .500 record, 73 million dollars in cap space, and the first playoff appearance in nearly 20 years.  He will get four years minimum.

[billsfan89]

1 hour ago, Limeaid said:

 

You are certainly acting more positive than in past.  I expected you to post that anythinh other than a Superbowl championship via shutout is a fire-able offense.

 

I think 9 wins is a fair bar. Obviously context matters, if there are massive injuries or Allen gets hurt then you can reevaluate. But under normal conditions I think holding a coach coming off of a 6 win season to improve by 3 games is a fair standard to have. 

 

I am not saying it's an absolute standard but I don't think McD should be safe in any circumstance.

32 minutes ago, RochesterLifer said:

 

This is a rediculous statement. While I am hoping form10-6, even if the Bills fall short, McDermott is on very solid ground.

 

If McD goes 7-9 and there aren't any mitigating circumstances why should he keep his job? It's not without context but McD shouldn't be a completely safe coach either. 

[MJS]

On 5/18/2019 at 5:17 PM, Nextmanup said:

Football disaster, eh?  Rex won 15 games in a bit less than 2 seasons with the team.

 

McDermott?  15 wins in 2 seasons as well.

Yeah, Rex was actually one of the most successful of the drought coaches in wins and losses. Marrone the other one.

 

But a deeper look shows their ineptitude. Marrone was an offensive (specifically offensive line) "guru" and had a terrible, terrible offense. And the offensive line was the worst it had been in a long time, improving greatly right after he left. Rex was a defensive "guru" and took an already elite defense and ruined it. The wins and losses don't accurately show how bad they were, in my opinion. Rex worse than Marrone, obviously.

 

Marrone inherited a decent Jags team and had a year of success, but I don't think he'll last. Things are crumbling beneath him (because he's just not a good coach OR leader).

[billsfan89]

Just now, ScottLaw said:

I think it depends.

 

If they are .500 and more blow outs and domination by the Patriots over them then I can see them strongly considering making a change. If they are competitive in just about every game and lose a few close games on their way to a .500 record then yes I agree he is safe. 

 

I don't think quality of losses or wins matters that much 8 wins and 8 losses is the result. You are what your record says. I think how many injuries and how your players develop is the appropriate context to consider. 

 

I think 8 wins would be borderline, I would lean on giving McD another make or break season but 7 or less is firable in my opinion.

[Gugny]

1 hour ago, ScottLaw said:

 

 

I mean you want to see growth. For the most part the Bills consistently got their asses handed to them against the better teams of the league the past couple years. Just mauled due to lack of talent compared to the teams they were playing.Competitive games game in and game out with no blow out losses would indicate things are headed in the right direction. 

 

 

8-8 would be disappointing, but I'm not sure it's a fireable offense.

 

 

Don't you ever get tired of writing this crap?  By tired ... I mean even half as tired as the Bills fans on this site are.  You're a crusader and a troll.  It's not fun.  Go away.

[Delete This Account]

On 5/16/2019 at 6:10 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

On the contrary, I appreciate the gouge.  But there's a distinction - making a decision "we aren't going to get into a bidding war and tie up too much money in this guy" is not the same thing as "the Bills can't afford to keep him", right?

 

 

Sorry for late response.

They initially hoped to keep him, but when it became clear what Woods would command on the market, they knew they were out of the running.

 

jw

 

 

 

[Delete This Account]

On 5/16/2019 at 10:48 PM, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

John has it ever been explained to you by anyone in the Bills organization why the team didn't hire Beane in January of 2017????   I am sure there was a reason but there certainly wasn't a good excuse for it.   The only positive out of trading away the pick that became Patrick Mahomes is that Beane isn't saddled with it on his resume.    Of course.....coincidentally......all the Bills early picks in that draft(White,Jones, Dawkins) were guys who visited Beane in Carolina.  

 

As for your numbers:

 

1.IMO, that's some cash-to-the-cap level nonsense if that's really how Beane rationalized the lack of attention paid to the OL.    The cap is malleable.   Your rookie QB's brain stem....not so much.  Until Allen started running wild he had his head dribbled off the turf against Cinci in preseason and missed games to injury from unblocked pass rushers in Houston. 

2.They also didn't draft a WR in either 2018 or 2019.

3. Incognito was a pro bowl guard...........why did they need him to take a pay-cut from his already cheap deal?   

4. Cash-to-the-cap.  An entirely self imposed limit is a choice......not a limit.

5. They could afford Star Lotulelei.......who amazingly made only ONE play behind the LOS last year....that's hard to do on that many snaps.   But they couldn't "afford" Bob Woods who put up 2,000 receiving yards since he left?  Here's what happened.......they determined that they DID NOT WANT to spend that.  Important distinction.

6. If you recall the Eagles struggled for months to find any takers for Matthews for any kind of draft capital.    The league was moving away from "lumbering" WR's as HOF WR James Lofton characterized Matthews.   Beane was behind the curve on this.   And the primary pick that he spent on Benjamin was just 29 picks later than the one they acquired for Watkins.  So if they "didn't give up much" in acquiring KB I guess they didn't get much more for Watkins either.  

 

They didn't hire Beane because they weren't going to fire Whaley until after the draft. They didn't want to risk losing the institutional scouting knowledge he had compiled.

 

1. that's your opinion. Beane decided to limit himself on how much money to spend and where to spend it last season.

 

2. You're right.

 

3. They didn't make him do anything. They offered it up and he accepted. In fact, he was happy about it initially until he wasn't.

 

4. yes, you've said this, i see.

 

5. they signed Star because he was one of the few big-name players who was interested in signing with Bills, and Bills felt he would address an important need. this, of course, was in 2018 under Beane. Woods left in 2017 before Beane arrived. this is also an important distinction.

 

6. sure. of course you conveniently omit the fact that the Bills would've lost Watkins for nothing in free agency the following year, while knowing they weren't going to re-sign him. so, the thought was, why not bring in someone with another year on his contract to see if he might fit. he didn't. shrug.

 

jw

 

On 5/17/2019 at 9:08 AM, SoTier said:

 

This list smacks of simply repeating excuses circulated by the Bills FO to cover their collective backsides for making poor decisions. 

 

Don't give me this "They never anticipated losing Wood and Incognito" BS.   Yes, Wood's force retirement was an unexpected blow, but Incognito was 36 years old.   A competent FO anticipates that 36 year old OLers just might not be around too much longer ... or, heaven forbid, OLers might get injured.   Despite losing Incognito and with John Miller having struggled in 2017 and Vlad Ducasse being a career bottom-feeder OG, the Bills finally got around to drafting their one and only 2018 OLer at the end of the fifth round.

 

Technically, the Bills had Tyrod Taylor and Nathan Peterman on the payroll at the beginning of free agency, and then traded Taylor to the Browns a day after the FA began.   McCarron was signed after Taylor was traded.   If FA WRs chose to sign elsewhere because of the QB situation, that's on Beane/McDermott for choosing to have such inexperienced/incompetent (Peterman) QBs on the roster.

 

Saying that "they were committed to only spending only so much in free agency, because the objective was to free up as much room under the cap as possible" says that they -- Beane, McDermott, Pegula, all the bean-counters at OBD -- were perfectly okay with spending huge amounts of draft capital to get a first round QB but weren't really interested in seeing him succeed.  How is that significantly different from the way that the Donahoe or the Brandon/Levy/Jauron or the Brandon/Nix/ Whaley regimes operated -- exciting the fan base with individual FA signings or draft picks but never building a quality team to make those signings worthwhile?

 

As for re-signing Woods, I doubt that the Bills ever had any expectations of doing so.   Woods was simply too good to settle for whatever the Bills were willing to offer him.  The last top class WR that the Bills drafted and re-signed for the current market rate for #1 WRs was Eric Moulds.  While Lee Evans was also re-signed, he had never played as well as expected.  

 

It wasn't a case of they couldn't "afford" to re-sign Stephon Gilmore, either.  It's that they chose to not to do so because that's been the Bills practice for decades: draft first round DBs, develop them into top players, and let them walk away in FA rather than pay them.  Only first rounder Leotis McKelvin, who was never more than a competent DB, was re-signed.  Winfield, Clements, Whitner, and Gilmore all left because the Bills decided to draft their replacements rather than pay them.  

 

One of the big reasons that I'm not sold on the Beane and McDermott regime being any more successful than their predecessors is that they've done so many things the same way they've been done in the past.  They seem to be carrying on the tainted legacy of Russ Brandon of putting the making more profit ahead of winning more games.  Before he was hired by the Bills, Brandon's claim to fame was gutting the Florida Marlins the year after they won the 1997 World Series (Fire Sale ).   That shouldn't be surprising since they were both hired while he was in charge of the team, so it's likely they share his views about paying for players.  From your post, it certainly sounds that way, which to my mind doesn't bode well for building a winning franchise on their watch.   The way the entire QB situation was handled in 2018, from not providing Allen with an experienced QB coach to the get-go to keeping Peterman on the roster long after it became clear that the team wouldn't play for him to waiting a month for Anderson and to finally getting around to signing a somewhat competent backup QB only after Anderson got injured doesn't scream "this organization is going to do whatever it needs to do to win games".  It says just the opposite.

 

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not jumping on this bandwagon until it proves itself.  I've been fooled too many times before by the Bills.

 

i stopped glancing through this when you wrote Incognito "was 36 years old."

he'll be 36 this July.

if you're going to make a long-winded point, trying getting your facts straight up high. otherwise, i'd like to thank you for sparing me from reading the rest, which i'm sure is error-prone.

 

jw

 

having glanced at your second-to-last paragraph, and seeing the reference to Russ Brandon, who had very little say in hiring McDermott or Beane, i'm sorry i even read any portion of this thread, as i now feel dumber.

Edited May 28, 2019 by john wawrow

[3rdand12]

 

2 hours ago, 3rdand12 said:

The transition is still a work in progress to a full on McD Beane vision.
But they seem to be steady and true. I say that after this past draft and how they managed early FA.

The pattern is reasonably clear by now.

Glad Pegulas have/had the patience to allow these Two fellows to build Buffalo Bills into something reliable and repeatable. aint home yet. But all  "the signs point to Yes "
Been a fun off season and very much looking forward to each step forward. Getting Coaches dialed in finally ( Daboll for instance )

I will be giddy by game one.

Most fun i have had being a Bills fan in a rather long time. 

 

Edited May 29, 2019 by 3rdand12

[JohnC]

20 hours ago, john wawrow said:

 

 

 

 

3. They didn't make him do anything. They offered it up and he accepted. In fact, he was happy about it initially until he wasn't.

 

 

John W., I still don't understand the organization's frugality with Incognito. His contract wasn't exorbitant and he played up to it. Was he declining? Probably so, but it wasn't significant enough to alter his status as probably the best blocker on the line. He was at a sun setting stage in his career so an extended contract was not probable. The team was in a good enough cap shape so signing him at his current contract level instead of at a diminished level didn't make sense to me, especially for one of our best blockers on a mediocre line. Last year, our OL was one of the worst lines in the league. His subtraction contributed to the plummeting performance of the unit. 

 

What I am basically asking is why did McBeane play contract hardball with RI when they didn't need to? Were there other issues going on with this player who had a history of problems? 

Edited May 29, 2019 by JohnC
editing

[BADOLBILZ]

21 hours ago, john wawrow said:

 

They didn't hire Beane because they weren't going to fire Whaley until after the draft. They didn't want to risk losing the institutional scouting knowledge he had compiled.

 

1. that's your opinion. Beane decided to limit himself on how much money to spend and where to spend it last season.

 

2. You're right.

 

3. They didn't make him do anything. They offered it up and he accepted. In fact, he was happy about it initially until he wasn't.

 

4. yes, you've said this, i see.

 

5. they signed Star because he was one of the few big-name players who was interested in signing with Bills, and Bills felt he would address an important need. this, of course, was in 2018 under Beane. Woods left in 2017 before Beane arrived. this is also an important distinction.

 

6. sure. of course you conveniently omit the fact that the Bills would've lost Watkins for nothing in free agency the following year, while knowing they weren't going to re-sign him. so, the thought was, why not bring in someone with another year on his contract to see if he might fit. he didn't. shrug.

 

jw

 

 

i stopped glancing through this when you wrote Incognito "was 36 years old."

he'll be 36 this July.

if you're going to make a long-winded point, trying getting your facts straight up high. otherwise, i'd like to thank you for sparing me from reading the rest, which i'm sure is error-prone.

 

jw

 

having glanced at your second-to-last paragraph, and seeing the reference to Russ Brandon, who had very little say in hiring McDermott or Beane, i'm sorry i even read any portion of this thread, as i now feel dumber.

 

 

3. So there was no threat of the Bills releasing Richie Incognito if he refused a pay cut?   Really?   My point was why did he have to take a pay cut to be retained?   He was good.....the other options clearly were not.   But you are saying they asked his agent if he'd LIKE a pay cut and he was like "sure, why not"?   That sounds implausible.

 

5. I didn't ask you why they signed Star.   The point is that Beane has told you they couldn't "afford" moves that they didn't make while clearly and vastly overpaying for a guy like Star Lotulelei.   You take the very subjective "afford" and present it as a solid excuse,  which it's CLEARLY not.   Beane is very good at manipulating the media to accept the same excuse that wouldn't fly for previous GM's.   I credit him for bringing basic corporate competence to the table though.   I know you guys aren't used to seeing that from Bills GM's.

 

6. A LOT can happen over the course of 6 months or a football season.    We've seen Eric Moulds go from being considered a very realistic possibility to be cut entering camp in 1998 to having the best season a WR has had in Bills history.   We saw a massive attitude change from the LeSean McCoy of 2015 to the guy who came to mini-camp in 2016 with a new mindset.   Knowing these things happen..........saying the Bills "would've lost Watkins for nothing in free agency" is incredibly speculative.   Has it occurred to you that the same guy that tells you he can't afford things that simple calculations should tell you that he can is also telling you what he wants you to hear regarding situations like the Watkins trade?   And again, with KB, they acquired a guy who they were only going to get 23-24 games out of before HE became a free agent but that was........what.......a "smart" or "efficient" move?    

[Delete This Account]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

John W., I still don't understand the organization's frugality with Incognito. His contract wasn't exorbitant and he played up to it. Was he declining? Probably so, but it wasn't significant enough to alter his status as probably the best blocker on the line. He was at a sun setting stage in his career so an extended contract was not probable. The team was in a good enough cap shape so signing him at his current contract level instead of at a diminished level didn't make sense to me, especially for one of our best blockers on a mediocre line. Last year, our OL was one of the worst lines in the league. His subtraction contributed to the plummeting performance of the unit. 

 

What I am basically asking is why did McBeane play contract hardball with RI when they didn't need to? Were there other issues going on with this player who had a history of problems? 

 

The team at the time was doing its due diligence in trying to free up as much salary cap space as possible.

This happens more often than we know during every offseason.

I'm not aware of any "hardball" negotiations going on, and don't think Richie was going to be cut had he not accepted the restructured deal.

He certainly would've had his options, at that point, to go elsewhere and make more money had he been released at that time.

The odd thing was, Incognito accepted the paycut and announced he was happy to be coming back for that matter on the tweeter.

 

and then he wasn't.

 

jw

 

2 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

3. So there was no threat of the Bills releasing Richie Incognito if he refused a pay cut?   Really?   My point was why did he have to take a pay cut to be retained?   He was good.....the other options clearly were not.   But you are saying they asked his agent if he'd LIKE a pay cut and he was like "sure, why not"?   That sounds implausible.

 

5. I didn't ask you why they signed Star.   The point is that Beane has told you they couldn't "afford" moves that they didn't make while clearly and vastly overpaying for a guy like Star Lotulelei.   You take the very subjective "afford" and present it as a solid excuse,  which it's CLEARLY not.   Beane is very good at manipulating the media to accept the same excuse that wouldn't fly for previous GM's.   I credit him for bringing basic corporate competence to the table though.   I know you guys aren't used to seeing that from Bills GM's.

 

6. A LOT can happen over the course of 6 months or a football season.    We've seen Eric Moulds go from being considered a very realistic possibility to be cut entering camp in 1998 to having the best season a WR has had in Bills history.   We saw a massive attitude change from the LeSean McCoy of 2015 to the guy who came to mini-camp in 2016 with a new mindset.   Knowing these things happen..........saying the Bills "would've lost Watkins for nothing in free agency" is incredibly speculative.   Has it occurred to you that the same guy that tells you he can't afford things that simple calculations should tell you that he can is also telling you what he wants you to hear regarding situations like the Watkins trade?   And again, with KB, they acquired a guy who they were only going to get 23-24 games out of before HE became a free agent but that was........what.......a "smart" or "efficient" move?    

 

you seem to be assuming my only source is Brandon Beane.

well, we know what assuming leads to ...

 

jw

 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

 

[John from Riverside]

14 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

 

The team at the time was doing its due diligence in trying to free up as much salary cap space as possible.

This happens more often than we know during every offseason.

I'm not aware of any "hardball" negotiations going on, and don't think Richie was going to be cut had he not accepted the restructured deal.

He certainly would've had his options, at that point, to go elsewhere and make more money had he been released at that time.

The odd thing was, Incognito accepted the paycut and announced he was happy to be coming back for that matter on the tweeter.

 

and then he wasn't.

 

jw

 

 

you seem to be assuming my only source is Brandon Beane.

well, we know what assuming leads to ...

 

jw

 

I dont suppose it could be as simple as the bills brass had person to person contact with Cog and saw he was going batshit crazy......and realized it was best to cut bait at that time?

 

Now.....where they DID make a mistake was not adequately replacing him.......but they also had the issue of feeling they needed to shed salary pointing towards this offseason?

[ColoradoBills]

20 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

 

The team at the time was doing its due diligence in trying to free up as much salary cap space as possible.

This happens more often than we know during every offseason.

I'm not aware of any "hardball" negotiations going on, and don't think Richie was going to be cut had he not accepted the restructured deal.

He certainly would've had his options, at that point, to go elsewhere and make more money had he been released at that time.

The odd thing was, Incognito accepted the paycut and announced he was happy to be coming back for that matter on the tweeter.

 

and then he wasn't.

 

jw

 

 

Personally I believe the whole thing started with the JAX game and the racial slur thing.

When Ritchie signed he was given the chance to play again by the Pegulas and I believing that had

a zero tolerance type verbal clause to it.

 

The league was looking into it and I think something got said to Incognito about the consequences if found to be true.

 

Then the contract stuff came up.  I'm thinking they are somehow tied together.

Occum's Razor.

[Punching Bag]

1 hour ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Personally I believe the whole thing started with the JAX game and the racial slur thing.

When Ritchie signed he was given the chance to play again by the Pegulas and I believing that had

a zero tolerance type verbal clause to it.

 

The league was looking into it and I think something got said to Incognito about the consequences if found to be true.

 

Then the contract stuff came up.  I'm thinking they are somehow tied together.

Occum's Razor.

 

I agree although can see nothing not third hand to support it.  

 

[K-9]

2 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Personally I believe the whole thing started with the JAX game and the racial slur thing.

When Ritchie signed he was given the chance to play again by the Pegulas and I believing that had

a zero tolerance type verbal clause to it.

 

The league was looking into it and I think something got said to Incognito about the consequences if found to be true.

 

Then the contract stuff came up.  I'm thinking they are somehow tied together.

Occum's Razor.

I believe there may be something to this. It’s possible they made it easy for RI to simply leave if he chose. 

[Delete This Account]

ok, folks, you don't need google translator for this. that said, i'm working under the belief that we all understand words, words have accepted definitions, and that we're all on board with that except, of course, with the anarchists.

 

i find nothing wrong with the anarchists in principle, but let's leave them out of this, because then this whole thing that i'm going to write next will go awry.

 

of course, many things that i've already written in this post have gone awry, so who the heck am i kidding. clearly, i'm writing this for an audience of one.

 

and that audience happens to be me.

 

so i'm going to get a kick out of this if nothing else.

 

because, let's face it, how often to i have to post the same words in different posts over and over again, before someone starts mentioning occam's razor. and once we reach the point of someone mentioning occam's razor, and using an example that is far more complex and speculative than occam's razor, then clearly, this is the point where all bet's are off and it's time to start babbling.

 

and i regret that i'm writing fairly quickly here, so those among you who are slow readers might want to take a breath.

 

so, where was i?

 

yes, google translator. sorry, i lied. you'll need google translator because, after all,

de hars hpyitparsai

 

and

agus tá mé tuirseach de mé féin a athrá

fariq kurat alqadam

 

Phyāyām prah̄yạd ngein doy k̄hx h̄ı̂ p̄hū̂ lèn thảngān ngeindeụ̄xn h̄ım̀

der Spieler akzeptierte

og þá gerði hann það ekki

end of Sutōrī

 

 

[Dr. Who]

Personally, I think Occam's nominalism the beginning of western decline into reductionist metaphysics and rationalist modes of thought both superficial and arrogant. Why should Occam's razor be true, for that matter, when reality may require nuance, sensitivity to complexity, ambiguity, for all sorts of things that defy capture by the "clear and concise" idea? Yet for all that, vatic descent into polyglot repudiation of the demos that routinely inhabits sports' message boards appears a somewhat dramatic, though perhaps effective counter-movement.

[teef]

so wawrow thinks he's better than me?!

[ColoradoBills]

3 hours ago, Limeaid said:

 

I agree although can see nothing not third hand to support it.  

 

 

2 hours ago, K-9 said:

I believe there may be something to this. It’s possible they made it easy for RI to simply leave if he chose. 

 

It's just what I think happened.

 

2 hours ago, john wawrow said:

 

because, let's face it, how often to i have to post the same words in different posts over and over again, before someone starts mentioning occam's razor. and once we reach the point of someone mentioning occam's razor, and using an example that is far more complex and speculative than occam's razor, then clearly, this is the point where all bet's are off and it's time to start babbling.

 

 

It's not complex.

He was signed with the caveat that there would be no more bullcrap with him.

That didn't happen.

 

Seems a lot more logical (Occum's Razor) than Beane deciding that Ritchie Incognito was going to be the only player that the Bills wanted to renegotiate

a contract with to save money.

 

I like your writing John but to me this had more to do about circumstances than money.

 

 

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

Personally, I think Occam's nominalism the beginning of western decline into reductionist metaphysics and rationalist modes of thought both superficial and arrogant. Why should Occam's razor be true, for that matter, when reality may require nuance, sensitivity to complexity, ambiguity, for all sorts of things that defy capture by the "clear and concise" idea? Yet for all that, vatic descent into polyglot repudiation of the demos that routinely inhabits sports' message boards appears a somewhat dramatic, though perhaps effective counter-movement.

If I am a Gilette razor guy instead of a Occam razor guy does that mean I just can't cut it? 

[3rdand12]

6 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Personally I believe the whole thing started with the JAX game and the racial slur thing.

When Ritchie signed he was given the chance to play again by the Pegulas and I believing that had

a zero tolerance type verbal clause to it.

 

The league was looking into it and I think something got said to Incognito about the consequences if found to be true.

 

Then the contract stuff came up.  I'm thinking they are somehow tied together.

Occum's Razor.

the wheel certainly turned after that.  Never full convinced it was true. or that it was not an accumulation of digression on him being over aggressive. i tried to watch his play after the news.

19 minutes ago, JohnC said:

If I am a Gilette razor guy instead of a Occam razor guy does that mean I just can't cut it? 

its the manner of the cut.

[Augie]

4 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

Personally, I think Occam's nominalism the beginning of western decline into reductionist metaphysics and rationalist modes of thought both superficial and arrogant. Why should Occam's razor be true, for that matter, when reality may require nuance, sensitivity to complexity, ambiguity, for all sorts of things that defy capture by the "clear and concise" idea? Yet for all that, vatic descent into polyglot repudiation of the demos that routinely inhabits sports' message boards appears a somewhat dramatic, though perhaps effective counter-movement.

 

You took the words right out of my mouth! 

 

I think........

 

 

. 

4 hours ago, teef said:

so wawrow thinks he's better than me?!

 

No, no, no....don’t be silly. He doesn’t even know who you are!

 

It’s the rest of us who think that!

 

?

 

[BADOLBILZ]

9 hours ago, john wawrow said:

 

 

you seem to be assuming my only source is Brandon Beane.

well, we know what assuming leads to ...

 

jw

 

 

 

Why would I assume that?  

 

What it "seems" like is that the organization is very much behind whatever Beane and McDermott do.........whether that's because they like the moves or just "understand" why the moves were made.    So the answers will all be pretty much the same regardless of the source with this regime.   Which is not unexpected when everyone south of owners box was either hired by them or evaluated and allowed to stay by them.  

 

That's why you clean house.......it buys loyalty and time to get systems in place.    What it doesn't do is make Beane or McDermott stack up better against their counterparts around the league in terms of talent evaluation/cap management and strategy/gameday coaching etc...........another .000 batting average in UFA like last offseason and another stack of blowout losses and/or 2 more losses to Belichick etc.. will take a mighty bite out of that cushion created by the house cleaning regardless of the quality of lip service provided.

Edited May 30, 2019 by BADOLBILZ

[Delete This Account]

On 5/29/2019 at 10:54 PM, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Why would I assume that?  

 

What it "seems" like is that the organization is very much behind whatever Beane and McDermott do.........whether that's because they like the moves or just "understand" why the moves were made.    So the answers will all be pretty much the same regardless of the source with this regime.   Which is not unexpected when everyone south of owners box was either hired by them or evaluated and allowed to stay by them.  

 

That's why you clean house.......it buys loyalty and time to get systems in place.    What it doesn't do is make Beane or McDermott stack up better against their counterparts around the league in terms of talent evaluation/cap management and strategy/gameday coaching etc...........another .000 batting average in UFA like last offseason and another stack of blowout losses and/or 2 more losses to Belichick etc.. will take a mighty bite out of that cushion created by the house cleaning regardless of the quality of lip service provided.

 

i'm not a fan of the team by the mere nature of my job.

what's your excuse?

 

jw

[Coach Tuesday]

51 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

 

i'm not a fan of the team by the mere nature of my job.

what's your excuse?

 

jw

 

Come on.  There was good discourse back and forth - would hate to see it reduced to "you're not a real fan if you're critical of the product."

Edited May 31, 2019 by Coach Tuesday

[RochesterLifer]

8 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

Come on.  There was good discourse back and forth - would hate to see it reduced to "you're not a real fan if you're critical of the product."

 

Honestly Coach, I haven't found this to be "good discourse" at all. While JW is sharing his (quality) thoughts and information, BADOLBILZ has petulantly and pointlessly argued with every post, as if taking on a sportswriter is providing 15 minutes of fame. I look forward to what JW has to share and have had to tolerate BADOLBILZ' (I want ice cream!!!!!!) grade school level responses to read it.

[Commsvet11]

7 minutes ago, RochesterLifer said:

 

Honestly Coach, I haven't found this to be "good discourse" at all. While JW is sharing his (quality) thoughts and information, BADOLBILZ has petulantly and pointlessly argued with every post, as if taking on a sportswriter is providing 15 minutes of fame. I look forward to what JW has to share and have had to tolerate BADOLBILZ' (I want ice cream!!!!!!) grade school level responses to read it.

 

Perhaps a subscription would best suit you then? This is a message board and I enjoy the back and forth.

[RochesterLifer]

3 minutes ago, Commsvet11 said:

 

Perhaps a subscription would best suit you then? This is a message board and I enjoy the back and forth.

Fair enough. We all have our tastes. If BADOLBILZ had a point beyond just arguing, I too would enjoy the back and forth.

[Commsvet11]

12 minutes ago, RochesterLifer said:

Fair enough. We all have our tastes. If BADOLBILZ had a point beyond just arguing, I too would enjoy the back and forth.

 

Here is the issue, there are people like BADOLBILZ, who share the same idea about the current FO, but here is the problem, in the off-season you get crucified for it even if you back it with facts .....and during the regular season you get told “you just hoping to be right more than the Bills team/player succeeding” even though during the whole year one presented this view and crucified for it and told “you are not a Bills” or “Go root for another team”. 

 

 

[Delete This Account]

1 hour ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

Come on.  There was good discourse back and forth - would hate to see it reduced to "you're not a real fan if you're critical of the product."

 

 

good discourse?

not sure about that. as all threads eventually unravel, this was expected.

i've stated my case.

not sure why this dude continued to challenge me as i've said what i've said, and gonna stick by it.

 

the sheer negativity from the poster leads me to question whether he's a fan. thus my question.

 

all that said, this whole conversation's run it's course, so let this be my final response of this thread.

 

jw

[BADOLBILZ]

49 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

 

 

good discourse?

not sure about that. as all threads eventually unravel, this was expected.

i've stated my case.

not sure why this dude continued to challenge me as i've said what i've said, and gonna stick by it.

 

the sheer negativity from the poster leads me to question whether he's a fan. thus my question.

 

all that said, this whole conversation's run it's course, so let this be my final response of this thread.

 

jw

 

 

JW I apologize if I offended you with my pretty reasonable/debatable responses.

 

Here's a less friendly take..........I absolutely take offense to your misuse the language to IMO slant a take from your sources.

 

I also understand that the landscape for journalists has been changing and there is no financial/career advantage in you giving anything less than maximum benefit of the doubt to the organization you are paid to cover.

 

We "couldn't afford to pay Robert Woods $8M" looks a lot better to the organization than "we were pretty certain he wasn't worth $8M" and then having him go put up 2K yards in his first two years in LA.

 

Originally I thought maybe you were just eased into that mindset by a very media friendly GM.............unfortunately my opinion has changed.

 

It's unfortunate when your local AP rep can't even be objective but I guess that's the way it is.

 

Good day sir!