John Warrow’s High Praise For Beane & McDermott Regime

[K-9]

7 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

...and it's hard to tell exactly what his role is today....wonder if this is still accurate.....

 

Bills promote Overdorf to senior VP in minor restructuring

• Associated Press
• Published: Jan. 31, 2008 at 11:34 a.m.
• Updated: July 26, 2012 at 08:17 p.m.
•  

ORCHARD PARK, N.Y. -- Jim Overdorf was promoted to Buffalo Bills senior vice president of football administration, giving him control over contract negotiations and salary cap decisions.

 

The move announced Thursday was part of a minor front office restructuring that follows Russ Brandon's promotion to chief operating officer. Brandon's promotion came after the Bills elected not to fill the general manager's role after Marv Levy stepped down at the end of the season.

 

For Overdorf, the promotion means he formally becomes the team's top executive in day-to-day football matters, answering to Brandon and Bills owner Ralph Wilson. Overdorf is entering his 23rd season with the team and has handled contract talks for most of this decade.

 

 

He is their cap guru and chief contract negotiator. 

[Cripple Creek]

7 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Not really.

 

He used examples against the context of what I said. Historically if you are mediocre to below average for 3 straight years as a new regime chances are you aren't going to suddenly emerge in your 4th or anywhere else.

 

That wasn't the case with Carroll or Vermeil.

 

But, they were (fired previously). I’m not a mind reader, but I assume that the guy who submitted their names might have been doing so to say that it’s possible they may have been fired before they had a chance to find success with that team.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

He is their cap guru and chief contract negotiator. 

 

 

...thanks....so his duties remain principally the same.....

[LSHMEAB]

3 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Thats great work putting up stuff from 2000 that has nothing to do with this current team.

 

 

But we say this with EVERY regime. That was the point.

 

I'll reserve ultimate judgement until I see the product they put on the field in this, a PIVOTAL season, whether some want to admit it or not.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

6 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

But we say this with EVERY regime. That was the point.

 

I'll reserve ultimate judgement until I see the product they put on the field in this, a PIVOTAL season, whether some want to admit it or not.

 

...hard to quantify "pivotal" with all of the newness from personnel to coaching moves....is the MINIMAL achievement 10-6 with a WC spot or does the "TBD Fire Everyone Gang" blossom?.....what if 9-7 with a near miss on the WC spot, Josh is in the top ten for QB's, as are the offense and defense, but we missed (barely)?....woeful failure?...blew "THE PIVOTAL definition"?......you're an astute football guy.....what are your assessments as far as 2019 outcomes and grades for various realistic scenarios?....

[LSHMEAB]

6 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...hard to quantify "pivotal" with all of the newness from personnel to coaching moves....is the MINIMAL achievement 10-6 with a WC spot or does the "TBD Fire Everyone Gang" blossom?.....what if 9-7 with a near miss on the WC spot, Josh is in the top ten for QB's, as are the offense and defense, but we missed (barely)?....woeful failure?...blew "THE PIVOTAL definition"?......you're an astute football guy.....what are your assessments as far as 2019 outcomes and grades for various realistic scenarios?....

That's the second time you've referred to me as "astute." Questionable judgement.

 

I would say .500 should be the benchmark. I understand there have been a ton of changes, but that's not a new phenomenon in the NFL. They've turned this roster over quite dramatically(by choice). I'll grant you that. That's why I'd be "OK" with a .500 season. I think it's kind of ridiculous to give them a complete pass simply because of that turnover. They were 6-10 last season and had a chance to use a great deal of the much ballyhooed draft capital to bring in process guys. A 2 game improvement is a reasonable expectation.

 

I hear a lot of talk about bounces of the ball potentially leading to a 5-11ish record, but the overwhelming majority of games are not determined by a bounce of a ball, a poorly timed penalty, etc. The majority of games are won by the more prepared/talented team. I think objective folks will know TRUE progress when they see it, and progress can be measured to a great extent by wins and losses. I'd personally feel satisfied with the direction of the team if they can at least win 8.

[Shaw66]

54 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

That's the second time you've referred to me as "astute." Questionable judgement.

 

I would say .500 should be the benchmark. I understand there have been a ton of changes, but that's not a new phenomenon in the NFL. They've turned this roster over quite dramatically(by choice). I'll grant you that. That's why I'd be "OK" with a .500 season. I think it's kind of ridiculous to give them a complete pass simply because of that turnover. They were 6-10 last season and had a chance to use a great deal of the much ballyhooed draft capital to bring in process guys. A 2 game improvement is a reasonable expectation.

 

I hear a lot of talk about bounces of the ball potentially leading to a 5-11ish record, but the overwhelming majority of games are not determined by a bounce of a ball, a poorly timed penalty, etc. The majority of games are won by the more prepared/talented team. I think objective folks will know TRUE progress when they see it, and progress can be measured to a great extent by wins and losses. I'd personally feel satisfied with the direction of the team if they can at least win 8.

Good stuff.

 

I think .500 as the bench mark, together noticeable sustainable improvement in week areas, particularly Oline and QB.   .500 is good enough if there appears to be real progress on the field.  

 

9-7 or better is real progress, almost regardless of whether we think there's been good progress in this area or that.  If they can win 9, that's a successful season.   And I said a few months ago, and I still believe it's true, that the Bills have a better chance to exceed expectations and get to 10-6 or better, than they are likely to go 6- 10 or worse.  I expect several more solid performers, the Milano-types, to emerge this season, enough of them together with Allen that simply won't allow the team to lose a lot.  I think those unheralded people will emerge because of their commitment to hard work and the leadership they're going to see from some combination of McCoy, Gore, Beasley, Alexander, Hughes, Star.  I think that mix of leadership and eager young talent will be unwilling to settle for losses.  

Edited June 9, 2019 by Shaw66

[JohnC]

5 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

Not really.

 

He used examples against the context of what I said. Historically if you are mediocre to below average for 3 straight years as a new regime chances are you aren't going to suddenly emerge in your 4th or anywhere else.

 

That wasn't the case with Carroll or Vermeil.

 

Did you start your count when in his first year McDermott took a stripped down team into the playoffs for the first time in a generation? If that first year wasn't considered successful then I don't know why the players in the locker room were doing a jig when they qualified.  

Edited June 9, 2019 by JohnC
punctuation

[3rdand12]

3 hours ago, LSHMEAB said:

That's the second time you've referred to me as "astute." Questionable judgement.

 

I would say .500 should be the benchmark. I understand there have been a ton of changes, but that's not a new phenomenon in the NFL. They've turned this roster over quite dramatically(by choice). I'll grant you that. That's why I'd be "OK" with a .500 season. I think it's kind of ridiculous to give them a complete pass simply because of that turnover. They were 6-10 last season and had a chance to use a great deal of the much ballyhooed draft capital to bring in process guys. A 2 game improvement is a reasonable expectation.

 

I hear a lot of talk about bounces of the ball potentially leading to a 5-11ish record, but the overwhelming majority of games are not determined by a bounce of a ball, a poorly timed penalty, etc. The majority of games are won by the more prepared/talented team. I think objective folks will know TRUE progress when they see it, and progress can be measured to a great extent by wins and losses. I'd personally feel satisfied with the direction of the team if they can at least win 8.

see , he is correct. You are astute !

While i expect Bills will get into wildcard at least, and do no consider it a fireable Offense if they miss.
I am not sure what could happen that is so dramatic they could come in under .500. Based on current trends

: )

[K-9]

1 hour ago, 3rdand12 said:

see , he is correct. You are astute !

While i expect Bills will get into wildcard at least, and do no consider it a fireable Offense if they miss.
I am not sure what could happen that is so dramatic they could come in under .500. Based on current trends

: )

I’m glad he’s a stute. We need more stutes in this world.

 

I feel the same way about lerts, too. It’s good to be a lert.

[Patrick Duffy]

[SoTier]

13 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Thats great work putting up stuff from 2000 that has nothing to do with this current team.

 

 

 

That's my "big picture", dude.   2000 was the last year of the remains of the Glory Years as John Butler, AJ Smith, etc left the Bills for San Diego, and Wade Phillips was sent packing.  2000 was the first year of the Drought.   2000 was the year Bill Belichick became the Patriots HC and drafted Tom Brady in the 6th round of the 2000 draft, a dramatic changing of the guard in the AFCE and NFL from the Bills dominating the AFCE and AFC for most of the decade to the Patriots dominating the AFCE, the AFC, and the NFL for two decades.

 

You cannot claim that the current regime is somehow "different from" previous regimes unless you actually know what those previous regimes did.  I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that the record of the current regime hasn't been significantly better than previous ones but facts are pesky things when they contradict the favored story line.

 

11 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Anything to be negative.

 

No, I answered a poster claiming I didn't "see the big picture".   I could say I'm sorry that you don't like that but I'd be lying.  I don't care if you like it or not.  The Bills history over the last twenty years is NOT POSITIVE in any way, shape or form.  Unless or until McDermott proves he's not another poor/mediocre HC, he's no better than his predecessors.  I'm not proud.  I'll gladly admit that McDermott is a good HC when he proves he's better than his predecessors but I'm not giving him kudos for being no better than Ryan, Marrone or Gailey.  It's time for McDermott to prove it.

 

11 hours ago, Cripple Creek said:

Just curious. Since last year screamed failure to you what did the prior season w Tyrod Taylor as the starting QB scream to you?

 

Even a blind squirrel gets lucky and finds a nut occasionally.  Andy Dalton threw a 49 yard TD pass to Tyler Boyd on 4th and 12 with 44 seconds left in the game, knocking the Ravens out of the playoffs and putting the Bills in ... on tie breakers.

 

10 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

Are you aware that every member of the Bills organization from just 5 years ago has been replaced? Literally to a man it is an entirely different organization. The only commonality is the name of the team. This is just lazy analysis. Next time throw in a reference to Russ Brandon for the cherry on top.

 

Ummm... not true.  John Overdorf continues to manage the Bills contracts and cap situation so that the Bills continue to be unable to "afford" to re-sign most of the top young veterans they develop.   If Josh Allen actually develops into a top NFL QB, Bills fans had best hope that the Bills resident "cap genius"  retires before that happens because if the Bills couldn't afford to keep their best young vets when they didn't have a franchise QB, they'll either let Allen walk away or strip the team of talent first.

 

10 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

He doesn't care.  Go look back at some posts from him.  He thinks Pegula doesn't care about winning and only cares about $$, thinks he's the same as Ralph.  

 

Granted we all have have different opinions but opinions should be based in some modicum of fact and logic.  He has neither.

 

Russ Brandon was in charge of the team from 2006 through 2017.  In those twelve seasons, the team went 75-117 (.392), had 2 winning seasons, and a single one and done playoff "run".   Prior to Pegula's buying the team, Brandon's team won only  43 of its 117 games (.368) , had 1 winning season, and no playoff appearances at all.  Why did Pegula keep Brandon when he sent almost all of the rest of Wilson's FO hangers-on packing?  Why did he promote Brandon to a position in which he ran both the Bills and the Sabres, Pegula's other hapless, non-winning team?   Except for Brandon making moves on the wrong female staff member, he'd STILL be in charge of both teams.

 

Maybe that screams Pegula cares about winning to you, but it sure as hell doesn't to me, but I'm sure you'll find some "logical" reason for keeping and promoting Brandon other than his infamous ability to put butts in the seats.

 

9 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...hard to quantify "pivotal" with all of the newness from personnel to coaching moves....is the MINIMAL achievement 10-6 with a WC spot or does the "TBD Fire Everyone Gang" blossom?.....what if 9-7 with a near miss on the WC spot, Josh is in the top ten for QB's, as are the offense and defense, but we missed (barely)?....woeful failure?...blew "THE PIVOTAL definition"?......you're an astute football guy.....what are your assessments as far as 2019 outcomes and grades for various realistic scenarios?....

 

Nobody who's been critical of the McDermott/Beane regime has been demanding 10 wins, and most aren't even demanding 9 wins.  I certainly haven't.  Why is it NOT realistic to expect that with much  better talent and a more experienced young QB, a competently coached team can win 2 more games than the previous 6 win season if there are no catastrophic injuries that derail the team?  

 

5 hours ago, JohnC said:

Did you start your count when in his first year McDermott took a stripped down team into the playoffs for the first time in a generation? If that first year wasn't considered successful then I don't know why the players in the locker room were doing a jig when they qualified.  

 

McDermott was responsible for that "stripped down team" because he wanted to replace players he didn't like with "his guys" ... and yeah, I included 2017.  Why not?   It's not like a 9-7 season and making a wild card slot on a tie-breaker over another 9-7 team is such a monumental accomplishment that it was all that special -- except to desperate Bills fans.  Since the Bills reverted to form, record wise, in 2018, it's on McDermott to prove that 2018 was the exception and 2017 was the norm.

 

Edited June 10, 2019 by SoTier

[Royale with Cheese]

1 minute ago, SoTier said:

 

That's my "big picture", dude.   2000 was the last year of the remains of the Glory Years as John Butler, AJ Smith, etc left the Bills for San Diego, and Wade Phillips was sent packing.  2000 was the first year of the Drought.   2000 was the year Bill Belichick became the Patriots HC and drafted Tom Brady in the 6th round of the 2000 draft, a dramatic changing of the guard....

 

 

LOL....we are talking about the big picture moves that Beane made and somehow your relating this to what happened 20 years ago???  WTF.

[oldmanfan]

The logical reason Brandon was put in charge of PSE was because of his ability to put butts in the seats.  You answered your own question. Then you belittle making the playoffs and turn that into a negative.  

 

Your hatred for the Bills clouds your ability to see anything clearly.  And yes I know you don't care what I or others think.  Which begs the question:  why participate in a board designed for discussion and debate if you wish to do neither?

[SoTier]

1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

LOL....we are talking about the big picture moves that Beane made and somehow your relating this to what happened 20 years ago???  WTF.

 

So, your "big picture" is only 2017 and the first round of the 2018 draft??? 

 

FTR, I was specifically addressing the job that McDermott's done/doing as HC, not Beane, who's future as GM will likely be determined by how Allen turns out.

[Royale with Cheese]

12 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

So, your "big picture" is only 2017 and the first round of the 2018 draft??? 

 

FTR, I was specifically addressing the job that McDermott's done/doing as HC, not Beane, who's future as GM will likely be determined by how Allen turns out.

 

I cant believe this has to be explained to you.

[Cripple Creek]

30 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Even a blind squirrel gets lucky and finds a nut occasionally.  Andy Dalton threw a 49 yard TD pass to Tyler Boyd on 4th and 12 with 44 seconds left in the game, knocking the Ravens out of the playoffs and putting the Bills in ... on tie breakers.

 

 

 

That's all anyone needs to know about you in a nutshell.  I'm so sorry for your loss.

[oldmanfan]

4 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said:

That's all anyone needs to know about you in a nutshell.  I'm so sorry for your loss.

Any excuse to be negative.  

[Augie]

22 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

So, your "big picture" is only 2017 and the first round of the 2018 draft??? 

 

FTR, I was specifically addressing the job that McDermott's done/doing as HC, not Beane, who's future as GM will likely be determined by how Allen turns out.

The “big picture” cannot start before the new owners installed the new FO. If Jack Kemp kept running backwards and took a 30 yard sack, that is just as relevant as why the Braves left. It’s Buffalo sports history, but that’s about it. 

[HappyDays]

1 hour ago, SoTier said:

John Overdorf continues to manage the Bills contracts and cap situation so that the Bills continue to be unable to "afford" to re-sign most of the top young veterans they develop.   If Josh Allen actually develops into a top NFL QB, Bills fans had best hope that the Bills resident "cap genius"  retires before that happens because if the Bills couldn't afford to keep their best young vets when they didn't have a franchise QB, they'll either let Allen walk away or strip the team of talent first

 

Oh please. You're living in 2009. Pay attention to what has happened since the Pegulas took over. The Bills aren't pinching pennies anymore.

[Augie]

3 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Oh please. You're living in 2009. Pay attention to what has happened since the Pegulas took over. The Bills aren't pinching pennies anymore.

Quite the contrary, I would say. Look at the new facilities, new turf and all the front loaded contracts. That will tell you all you need to know. 

[Bill from NYC]

6 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

The logical reason Brandon was put in charge of PSE was because of his ability to put butts in the seats.  You answered your own question. Then you belittle making the playoffs and turn that into a negative.  

 

Your hatred for the Bills clouds your ability to see anything clearly.  And yes I know you don't care what I or others think.  Which begs the question:  why participate in a board designed for discussion and debate if you wish to do neither?

Maybe he participates because he feels strongly about the Bills and wants to discuss them. Who appointed you the keeper of the gate?

 

I remind you again that people don't need permission from you to post here.

[oldmanfan]

23 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

Maybe he participates because he feels strongly about the Bills and wants to discuss them. Who appointed you the keeper of the gate?

 

I remind you again that people don't need permission from you to post here.

And I remind you that no one is telling him he can't.  His posts are consistently negative, are devoid of logic, and I and others here point that out in response to what he writes.  

 

You are the one who is telling me I can't post.  You are the one trying to be the keeper of the gate.   You clearly do not understand the purpose of a discussion board.  

 

[Bill from NYC]

14 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

And I remind you that no one is telling him he can't.  His posts are consistently negative, are devoid of logic, and I and others here point that out in response to what he writes.  

 

You are the one who is telling me I can't post.  You are the one trying to be the keeper of the gate.   You clearly do not understand the purpose of a discussion board.  

 

Nice deflection.

 

You and the "others" who you deem fit to speak for are posters with opinions. Who posts here is a decision made by SDS and the Mods. They must be doing OK; you seem to like it here. They have proven more than capable for decades but if and when they need help, I am sure they will reach out to you and your self proclaimed cadre.

[oldmanfan]

Just now, Bill from NYC said:

Nice deflection.

 

You and the "others" who you deem fit to speak for are posters with opinions. Who posts here is a decision made by SDS and the Mods. They must be doing OK; you seem to like it here. They have proven more than capable for decades but if and when they need help, I am sure they will reach out to you and your self proclaimed cadre.

Stop and think.  You are telling me (and others) we are not allowed to post in rebuttal to what the guy in question posts.  You are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing - telling  me and others they are not allowed to post.  Logic is in short supply around here.  

 

Again if this SoTier guy wants to post stuff that doesn't make a whole lot of sense fine by me.  But when you go out of your way to spin everything negatively, when you somehow cannot understand that Pegula is not Wilson, that what Beane does has nothing to do with what say Whaley did, that what McD does has nothing to do with what say Jauron did, then people point it out.  I could compare the current regime to what Buster Ramsay and his crew did back in the day; it would mean nothing. And when he spins makingbthe playoffs under McD for the first time in 17 years into a negative, it pretty much tells you all you need to know as several folks have pointed out.

 

In your world,  I guess, the board would consist of single posts for any given topic.  Because no one should respond to or debate anything.

[Bill from NYC]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Stop and think.  You are telling me (and others) we are not allowed to post in rebuttal to what the guy in question posts.  You are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing - telling  me and others they are not allowed to post.  Logic is in short supply around here.  

 

Again if this SoTier guy wants to post stuff that doesn't make a whole lot of sense fine by me.  But when you go out of your way to spin everything negatively, when you somehow cannot understand that Pegula is not Wilson, that what Beane does has nothing to do with what say Whaley did, that what McD does has nothing to do with what say Jauron did, then people point it out.  I could compare the current regime to what Buster Ramsay and his crew did back in the day; it would mean nothing. And when he spins makingbthe playoffs under McD for the first time in 17 years into a negative, it pretty much tells you all you need to know as several folks have pointed out.

 

In your world,  I guess, the board would consist of single posts for any given topic.  Because no one should respond to or debate anything.

Never mind. Make up rules as you will. Wail away.

[oldmanfan]

2 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

Never mind. Make up rules as you will. Wail away.

So you cannot admit your post was the exact thing you rail against.  Okay.

 

By the way, I don't see the mods telling me or anyone else who had issues with the one guy's posts that we can't post things.  No warnings were given, no have I ever received one. 

 

People post their views, other people respond and challenge those.  Do you honestly not get that?

[eball]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

So you cannot admit your post was the exact thing you rail against.  Okay.

 

By the way, I don't see the mods telling me or anyone else who had issues with the one guy's posts that we can't post things.  No warnings were given, no have I ever received one. 

 

People post their views, other people respond and challenge those.  Do you honestly not get that?

 

Bill is a good dude.  He loves the debate and discussion over what the Bills do and have done.  He's not telling you not to post, he's reacting to one poster "dressing down" another poster for his opinions.  He doesn't like it when I come down on the negative posters as well.  It's all good.  We can't all think the same way or it would be a dull board.

 

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, eball said:

 

Bill is a good dude.  He loves the debate and discussion over what the Bills do and have done.  He's not telling you not to post, he's reacting to one poster "dressing down" another poster for his opinions.  He doesn't like it when I come down on the negative posters as well.  It's all good.  We can't all think the same way or it would be a dull board.

 

I am not telling anyone not to post.  I did question why one would want to if all you post is negative stuff, and then tell people to just ignore it if you don't like it.  That defeats the purpose of the board. I hope Bill gets that; I'm not sure he does.   I guess I don't consider it dressing down, I just consider it debate.  God knows I've had things I've written ripped to shreds at times, and in retrospect at times I got what I deserved.

[Thurman#1]

On 6/9/2019 at 9:22 PM, SoTier said:

The 2017 Bills that made the playoffs was not a team that fit Sean McDermott's plan; it had been built by Doug Whaley to fit the "plans" of Doug Marrone and Rex Ryan with McDermott's "plan" tacked on to it.   McDermott owns the 6-10 2018 and he'll own the 2019 team because the rosters were/are filled with players he picked to fit his plan.  So,  if his plan is worth continuing on with, it has to show results this season.  Beane went out and got him more talent on the offense as well as adding some nice youngsters for the defense.  I don't think that's enough for the team to challenge NE or SD or KC but they should be good enough to win at least as many games as they lose (8-8).  The offensive assistants, including OC Brian Daboll, need to do better. The defense also needs to step up, especially against the run, and especially late in games.  McDermott needs to do better.  He needs to produce wins not losses masked as "moral victories", ie not getting blown out by NE or losing a close game in the closing seconds because the defense can't make a clutch play when it needs it.   It's put up or shut up time.

 

 

 

 

Your logic here made me chuckle.

 

The 2017 team wasn't a McDermott team according to you, although 5 of 11 defensive starters and 4 of 11 offensive starters and the fact that the defense and offense both totally changed schemes?

 

And yet the 2018 team was a McDermott team and one they should be judged on. And you feel it's OK to make those judgments after one season that you feel is a "McDermott team."

 

Boy, what a coincidence ... the way you've got it set up there happens to be the most negative possible way to look at the situation!! Wow, who'd have thought you of all people would find a negative way to look at the situation?

 

The way it should actually be looked at is simple. The first couple of years of a major rebuild should be expected to suck. Reasonably often the first three, actually, but always the first two. We'll be able to start judging them based on wins this year and next. If they get worse this year or don't show improvement, seat temperature will start to rise a bit, as it's time in the life cycle when a significant amount of teams started showing real post-rebuild improvement.

 

 

Edited June 11, 2019 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

On 6/7/2019 at 12:03 PM, ScottLaw said:

Belichick is the exepction.

 

There hasn't been too many other HC/GM combos who've been mediocre to below average their first 3 years and gone on to win in their fourth or elsewhere.

 

Its been discussed but history shows that if your basically a dud for three years you aren't going to suddenly emerge in your fourth.... but I'm guessing they'll be back for a 4th barring an absolute disaster. I think it would have to be a 4-5 win season or worse, IMO. 

 

 

Yeah, if you are mediocre to below average for three straight years, you aren't going to emerge.

 

That's why Chuck Noll is so well-known as a loser of a coach. 1-13, 5-9 and 6-8 his first three years. Clearly he sucked. It's why we know for sure that Belichick will not be remembered as a good coach.

 

Jason Garrett: 5-3, 8-8, 8-8, 8-8 his first three-and-a-half years. Looks like  in the right situation he might be very good indeed. I hate Jerry Jones, but he's valued continuity and understood that things sometimes take more time than you would like and he appears to be reaping the benefits of that understanding.

 

And as Bandit pointed out earlier, Kubiak is another example.

 

Yeah, it's rarer these days than it used to be. But that's largely because in the days of social media:

 

1) There haven't been so many full rebuilds as there used to be, as two to three and even occasionally four years of real badness does not look good to unpopular fans. Better to reload and go for 8-8 in the short term, and ....

 

2) Impatient (and often bad) owners rarely have the patience to wait as long as they should. Plenty of NFL teams are stuck on the "I need to see something new right now," treadmill, getting a new start, seeing progress that they feel is too slow and firing the coaches too soon and watching the new regime put in new schemes and new protocols and firing them before their work has a chance to bear fruit. Carroll's a great example of that, fired after one year by the Jets and after three years of diminishing returns by the Pats. Neither the Pats nor Jets were rebuilding but we know that in the right situation and with a good QB, Carroll can be an excellent head coach. But it would've required more patience for either of those teams to find that out with Carroll. In the old days that was better understood and guys like Landry could go 0-11, 4-9, 5-8, 4-10, 5-8, and 7-7 and still be on the same bench the next year watching his work finally start to pay off.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2019 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

On 6/10/2019 at 11:23 AM, SoTier said:

Ummm... not true.  John Overdorf continues to manage the Bills contracts and cap situation so that the Bills continue to be unable to "afford" to re-sign most of the top young veterans they develop.   If Josh Allen actually develops into a top NFL QB, Bills fans had best hope that the Bills resident "cap genius"  retires before that happens because if the Bills couldn't afford to keep their best young vets when they didn't have a franchise QB, they'll either let Allen walk away or strip the team of talent first.

 

 

 

Overdorf has never managed the cap. That was up to Whaley, who did a very poor job. Overdorf did the contracts, yes, but the GM decided whether to sign the players based on the contract terms. Overdorf gave Whaley cap advice and info, without a doubt. We have no idea whether that advice was good or bad. The GM decides whether to pull the trigger, and he likewise gets the credit, or in Whaley's case, the blame.

 

Overdorf clearly can get this done when given good direction from above, as the terrific cap situation this year (and on into the future as well) shows.

 

 

On 6/8/2019 at 8:26 PM, SoTier said:

 

The last time I looked, HCs are responsible for the performance of the defense, offense, and special teams.   If the 2019 offense is again poor with a healthy Josh Allen, the buck does NOT stop with Brian Daboll.  McDermott will have struck out with 2 OCs as well as most of his offensive assistants in just 3 seasons.   How does this suggest in any way that McDermott is going to get any better at it if he gets more time???

 

 

 

It does indeed suggest it because McDermott and Beane chose not to spend significant resources on the offense the first two years while he built up the defense, bringing in Josh Allen excepted.

 

You don't spend resources on an offense that was already at best mediocre, of course you're not going to be good on offense.

 

What suggests that McDermott has a good chance to be better is that this year they finally spent a lot of resources on the offense.

Edited June 11, 2019 by Thurman#1

[K-9]

7 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Overdorf has never managed the cap. That was up to Whaley, who did a very poor job. Overdorf did the contracts, yes, but the GM decided whether to sign the players based on the contract terms. Overdorf gave Whaley cap advice and info, without a doubt. We have no idea whether that advice was good or bad. The GM decides whether to pull the trigger, and he likewise gets the credit, or in Whaley's case, the blame.

 

Overdorf clearly can get this done when given good direction from above, as the terrific cap situation this year (and on into the future as well) shows.

 

 

 

 

It does indeed suggest it because McDermott and Beane chose not to spend significant resources on the offense the first two years while he built up the defense, bringing in Josh Allen excepted.

 

You don't spend resources on an offense that was already at best mediocre, of course you're not going to be good on offense.

 

What suggests that McDermott has a good chance to be better is that this year they finally spent a lot of resources on the offense.

Per the bold, this is inaccurate. JO has been our cap guru since 2008, when he was promoted to a senior VP position. And it makes sense to have your chief contract negotiator in that role since the two elements are so closely related. 

 

Given Beane’s own cap management experience in Carolina, I was surprised Overdorf remained in that role when he was hired, but he has, which indicates he is still highly valued in that regard. 

[Shaw66]

31 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Per the bold, this is inaccurate. JO has been our cap guru since 2008, when he was promoted to a senior VP position. And it makes sense to have your chief contract negotiator in that role since the two elements are so closely related. 

 

Given Beane’s own cap management experience in Carolina, I was surprised Overdorf remained in that role when he was hired, but he has, which indicates he is still highly valued in that regard. 

I think you're incorrect about this.  Thurm was clear in what he said, and he is almost certainly correct.   No GM would give Overdorf or anyone else control over spending on players.  The GM decides how far into or away from cap hell he wants his team to be, and guys like Overdorf help the GM understand his options.  Overdorf tells the GM the consequences of paying or not paying a guy this or that.   The GM decides whether he's going to pay it. 

[GunnerBill]

37 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I think you're incorrect about this.  Thurm was clear in what he said, and he is almost certainly correct.   No GM would give Overdorf or anyone else control over spending on players.  The GM decides how far into or away from cap hell he wants his team to be, and guys like Overdorf help the GM understand his options.  Overdorf tells the GM the consequences of paying or not paying a guy this or that.   The GM decides whether he's going to pay it. 

 

I think JO had a MUCH bigger say in spending previously though because the responsibility for deciding what we spent was not delegated to the GM. We had an organisational policy to pursue a cash to cap model and it was JO's job to police that. I think that has been lifted since the Pegulas arrived - so the FA splurge of 2015 was most definitely not a cash to cap methodology at work for instance - and JO's role is, likely, diminished as a result. But there was a period where I believe JO most definitely was telling GMs "sorry not letting you go there."

[Shaw66]

12 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think JO had a MUCH bigger say in spending previously though because the responsibility for deciding what we spent was not delegated to the GM. We had an organisational policy to pursue a cash to cap model and it was JO's job to police that. I think that has been lifted since the Pegulas arrived - so the FA splurge of 2015 was most definitely not a cash to cap methodology at work for instance - and JO's role is, likely, diminished as a result. But there was a period where I believe JO most definitely was telling GMs "sorry not letting you go there."

Thanks.  We don't know, of course, but I'm not sure you're correct.   What you say is what the fans SAID was going on during that period, but I don't recall the team ever saying anything like that.    Thurm's view is, I believe, the correct one.   It wan't Overdorf who decided whether the Bills would be cash to cap - it was the owner or the Brandon or the GM.   Overdorf wasn't making that policy, because so far as I know he's never been responsible for the financial successful of the franchise.  And even in the cash to cap days, Overdorf wasn't deciding how much money to spend on which players and what the deals would look like.   He may have been proposing possible deal structures, but there never was even a hint that Overdorf was telling Nix or Whaley that, within whatever restraints may have been imposed, he couldn't spend money on this player or that.  If Nix wanted to spend all of his available cash on one player, Overdorf didn't have the authority to tell him he couldn't.  

[oldmanfan]

17 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think JO had a MUCH bigger say in spending previously though because the responsibility for deciding what we spent was not delegated to the GM. We had an organisational policy to pursue a cash to cap model and it was JO's job to police that. I think that has been lifted since the Pegulas arrived - so the FA splurge of 2015 was most definitely not a cash to cap methodology at work for instance - and JO's role is, likely, diminished as a result. But there was a period where I believe JO most definitely was telling GMs "sorry not letting you go there."

I agree.  This was what I understood in the pre-Beane era. And likely driven by Littman, who I believe may have had more to do with the Bills dysfunction for so many years than many of us grasp.

 

 I can't imagine Beane being told by Overdorf who he can and cannot sign. or how he is going to spend his salary dollars.

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

Thanks.  We don't know, of course, but I'm not sure you're correct.   What you say is what the fans SAID was going on during that period, but I don't recall the team ever saying anything like that.    Thurm's view is, I believe, the correct one.   It wan't Overdorf who decided whether the Bills would be cash to cap - it was the owner or the Brandon or the GM.   Overdorf wasn't making that policy, because so far as I know he's never been responsible for the financial successful of the franchise.  And even in the cash to cap days, Overdorf wasn't deciding how much money to spend on which players and what the deals would look like.   He may have been proposing possible deal structures, but there never was even a hint that Overdorf was telling Nix or Whaley that, within whatever restraints may have been imposed, he couldn't spend money on this player or that.  If Nix wanted to spend all of his available cash on one player, Overdorf didn't have the authority to tell him he couldn't.  

I think it was all driven by Littman, to protect his percentage ownership.  But we'll likely never know everything that went on behind the scenes.

[GunnerBill]

18 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Thanks.  We don't know, of course, but I'm not sure you're correct.   What you say is what the fans SAID was going on during that period, but I don't recall the team ever saying anything like that.    Thurm's view is, I believe, the correct one.   It wan't Overdorf who decided whether the Bills would be cash to cap - it was the owner or the Brandon or the GM.   Overdorf wasn't making that policy, because so far as I know he's never been responsible for the financial successful of the franchise.  And even in the cash to cap days, Overdorf wasn't deciding how much money to spend on which players and what the deals would look like.   He may have been proposing possible deal structures, but there never was even a hint that Overdorf was telling Nix or Whaley that, within whatever restraints may have been imposed, he couldn't spend money on this player or that.  If Nix wanted to spend all of his available cash on one player, Overdorf didn't have the authority to tell him he couldn't.  

 

Ah hang on.... I never said JO decided that was policy. Not at all. That came from ownership and senior management above JO. JO was responsible for delivering on the policy though. Nor was I ever suggesting that Overdorf was deciding which players got the cash - that was never his remit. But I do believe he was telling General Managers, whether Modrak (in all but name GM), Nix, or Whaley "I'm sorry you can't offer that specific contract because we can't make it fit within policy."

 

The post of yours I responded to said that it was the GMs who were deciding how close the Bills should get into cap hell. I reject that. It wasn't the GMs deciding that. Those decisions were being taken by Ralf and his advisors - Littman, Brandon and others - and then being policed by JO in the way he constructed contracts and allowed the GM to spend money.

[Shaw66]

31 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Ah hang on.... I never said JO decided that was policy. Not at all. That came from ownership and senior management above JO. JO was responsible for delivering on the policy though. Nor was I ever suggesting that Overdorf was deciding which players got the cash - that was never his remit. But I do believe he was telling General Managers, whether Modrak (in all but name GM), Nix, or Whaley "I'm sorry you can't offer that specific contract because we can't make it fit within policy."

 

The post of yours I responded to said that it was the GMs who were deciding how close the Bills should get into cap hell. I reject that. It wasn't the GMs deciding that. Those decisions were being taken by Ralf and his advisors - Littman, Brandon and others - and then being policed by JO in the way he constructed contracts and allowed the GM to spend money.

I don't think we disagree.   I think "policing" is a good way to think of Overdorf's role.   

 

There's a reason Overdorf is still there and the others aren't, and that's that Overdorf is good at his job.   The others weren't good at theirs.  

[K-9]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I think you're incorrect about this.  Thurm was clear in what he said, and he is almost certainly correct.   No GM would give Overdorf or anyone else control over spending on players.  The GM decides how far into or away from cap hell he wants his team to be, and guys like Overdorf help the GM understand his options.  Overdorf tells the GM the consequences of paying or not paying a guy this or that.   The GM decides whether he's going to pay it. 

I know what I know, what can I say? I get that this is an anonymous Internet forum and people range from being completely full of crap to knowing with 100% certainty what they’re talking about, so I can understand you’re not taking my word for it and I’m cool with that.

 

There is a big difference between control over spending on players and control over how to structure a contract to mitigate cap impacts. It’s a dynamic, fluid process that looks several years into the future.