John Warrow’s High Praise For Beane & McDermott Regime

[oldmanfan]

41 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

 

A more curious question ... why is the criticism limited to the post-Kelly years?

 

The Buffalo Bills have sucked in the vast majority of seasons they've been in the NFL.

 

They've had 18 winning seasons.  That's 38%.  And in four of those winning seasons, they didn't make the playoffs.

 

Now I'M MAD!!!!!!

 

 

It really comes down to Buster Ramsay.  The last 58 years are his fault.

[Augie]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

I doubt it's going  happen because Marrone is not the cuddly type of guy. 

 

I don’t know.....who’d have put Rex and a foot fetish together? 

 

We never, never know......

Edited June 19, 2019 by Augie

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, Augie said:

 

I don’t know.....who’s have put Rex and a foot fetish together? 

 

We never, never know......

Rex regularly gets his feet massaged and toes polished. Other than his mouth they are his biggest asset. 

[Augie]

3 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Rex regularly gets his feet massaged and toes polished. Other than his mouth they are his biggest asset. 

 

He also had the belly and the backwards running Bills truck......a man of depth! Lots of BIG assets! 

[BADOLBILZ]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Whether you look at numbers or tape Harrison Phillips outplayed Star. 

 

I believe this also. I also understand it. I had no issue with the Dareus trade even though it left us with the worst DT in the whole NFL (and one of the worst I have ever watched) playing significant snaps from thereon in. They couldn't build what they wanted to build while pandering to Dareus. 

 

 

No doubt on Phillips.

 

But on whether they could build on what they had with Dareus?

 

I believe the chief reason they used the salary cap and other excuses to clear the decks of prime age young players was because those tyes of players have enough leverage to not feign buy-in and want the coach to at least meet them half-way if not actually prove to them that they have a good plan and can make a difference from the sideline.     

 

McDermott wasn't comfortable convincing anyone because he knew he wasn't a McVay who could instantly turn around a moribund franchise with X's and O's and let the culture follow.

 

It's no coincidence that all of the big names moved or lost.......Gilmore, Woods, Watkins, Darby and Dareus..........could afford to take that stance.........and McBeane even doubled down by lining the pockets of McCoy and Wood to get them to pimp "the process".     

 

That summer of 2017 McBeane were really feeling their power...........I think they were too impatient with players like Sammy and Dareus..........I don't think it's too much to ask for a coach to understand that players with options are going to be more cautious about buying into an unproven regime.    You might be able to convince me the bleaching out of prime young talent was worth it if the team hasn't been so bad since the Dareus trade.    They have a 10-15 record since and their point differential actually indicates that that is a false read and they have been worse than that.

 

Ultimately, not many organizations would give that much freedom to tear down a roster.............but the Bills with desperate ownership were willing.

 

 That's happened before under Ralph when he was becoming frail and over-empowered Donahoe and Levy/Jauron and even Buddy/Gailey...........so it's not something we haven't seen...........but in this case it seems McBeane even had full control of the purse strings..........which lead to the biggest dead cap hit season by one in NFL history.

 

And those "too close" haircuts by all of the other regimes repeatedly set the roster too far back for each of their regimes to survive the build.

 

That's ultimately the issue here...........instead of working with what they had like most ownerships force new regimes to do.........the Bills are now playing catch up(again).

 

[Augie]

45 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

No doubt on Phillips.

 

But on whether they could build on what they had with Dareus?

 

I believe the chief reason they used the salary cap and other excuses to clear the decks of prime age young players was because those tyes of players have enough leverage to not feign buy-in and want the coach to at least meet them half-way if not actually prove to them that they have a good plan and can make a difference from the sideline.     

 

McDermott wasn't comfortable convincing anyone because he knew he wasn't a McVay who could instantly turn around a moribund franchise with X's and O's and let the culture follow.

 

It's no coincidence that all of the big names moved or lost.......Gilmore, Woods, Watkins, Darby and Dareus..........could afford to take that stance.........and McBeane even doubled down by lining the pockets of McCoy and Wood to get them to pimp "the process".     

 

That summer of 2017 McBeane were really feeling their power...........I think they were too impatient with players like Sammy and Dareus..........I don't think it's too much to ask for a coach to understand that players with options are going to be more cautious about buying into an unproven regime.    You might be able to convince me the bleaching out of prime young talent was worth it if the team hasn't been so bad since the Dareus trade.    They have a 10-15 record since and their point differential actually indicates that that is a false read and they have been worse than that.

 

Ultimately, not many organizations would give that much freedom to tear down a roster.............but the Bills with desperate ownership were willing.

 

 That's happened before under Ralph when he was becoming frail and over-empowered Donahoe and Levy/Jauron and even Buddy/Gailey...........so it's not something we haven't seen...........but in this case it seems McBeane even had full control of the purse strings..........which lead to the biggest dead cap hit season by one in NFL history.

 

And those "too close" haircuts by all of the other regimes repeatedly set the roster too far back for each of their regimes to survive the build.

 

That's ultimately the issue here...........instead of working with what they had like most ownerships force new regimes to do.........the Bills are now playing catch up(again).

 

Interesting. Many people like the direction, and don’t see this as catch up at all. Major overhaul at OLine, significant additions at WR a year before WR is supposed to be heavily WR oriented, added some hope at TE.....I’ll go with hopeful, thank you. 

[Augie]

 

 

Cordy, who was rarely available, and Dareus who was no longer interested were not great losses. I’m thrilled with what the FO got for what they cast off. The picks for Tyrod and AJ were pure theft, but sure, go ahead and hate. 

Edited June 19, 2019 by Augie

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

No doubt on Phillips.

 

But on whether they could build on what they had with Dareus?

 

I believe the chief reason they used the salary cap and other excuses to clear the decks of prime age young players was because those tyes of players have enough leverage to not feign buy-in and want the coach to at least meet them half-way if not actually prove to them that they have a good plan and can make a difference from the sideline.     

 

McDermott wasn't comfortable convincing anyone because he knew he wasn't a McVay who could instantly turn around a moribund franchise with X's and O's and let the culture follow.

 

It's no coincidence that all of the big names moved or lost.......Gilmore, Woods, Watkins, Darby and Dareus..........could afford to take that stance.........and McBeane even doubled down by lining the pockets of McCoy and Wood to get them to pimp "the process".     

 

That summer of 2017 McBeane were really feeling their power...........I think they were too impatient with players like Sammy and Dareus..........I don't think it's too much to ask for a coach to understand that players with options are going to be more cautious about buying into an unproven regime.    You might be able to convince me the bleaching out of prime young talent was worth it if the team hasn't been so bad since the Dareus trade.    They have a 10-15 record since and their point differential actually indicates that that is a false read and they have been worse than that.

 

Ultimately, not many organizations would give that much freedom to tear down a roster.............but the Bills with desperate ownership were willing.

 

 That's happened before under Ralph when he was becoming frail and over-empowered Donahoe and Levy/Jauron and even Buddy/Gailey...........so it's not something we haven't seen...........but in this case it seems McBeane even had full control of the purse strings..........which lead to the biggest dead cap hit season by one in NFL history.

 

And those "too close" haircuts by all of the other regimes repeatedly set the roster too far back for each of their regimes to survive the build.

 

That's ultimately the issue here...........instead of working with what they had like most ownerships force new regimes to do.........the Bills are now playing catch up(again).

 

This is ridiculous. Pure fiction.  Inconsistent with the facts.  Totally ignorant of who McDermott is and what he is doing. 

 

But it's creative. Congratulations on that.  

[eball]

5 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

This is ridiculous. Pure fiction.  Inconsistent with the facts.  Totally ignorant of who McDermott is and what he is doing. 

 

But it's creative. Congratulations on that.  

 

You say creative, I say delusional.  We now have the "players with options won't listen to coaches" explanation despite nearly every player who has come through the system praising McD and what he is trying to accomplish.  It is comical.

 

Some people will go to extreme lengths to support their dislike of a player or coach (or GM).

 

When the Bills are more than competitive this season there will be a lot of faces covered in egg yolk around here.

[Royale with Cheese]

14 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

As I've said many times regarding Star.....the eyeball test says he was sluggish, didn't impact OL on contact and was too slow to disengage to be able to make plays..............the woeful numbers only confirm the eyeball test.

 

As for the other question.........when Kelvin Benjamin was running with the first team until the week that he was cut was that proof that they liked or were satisfied with what he was doing on the field?    I don't think so.........I think we all know that the situation was complicated by the fact that they swung a trade to get a player they were familiar with and were paying him $8M.    

 

If he was that bad, he wouldn't have played and with all the cap room we had available, I would think they would want to have addressed this.....especially with Beane going on record and stating he wanted to improve the trenches.  

 

No they weren't satisfied and McDermott reduced his role.  Benjamin was on a WR that was the bottom/near bottom in the league (you said it as well)...they literally had no one else to play these spots.  We went out and signed a street FA in Deonte Thompson, claimed McKenzie off of waivers (waived twice in 2018 by the Broncos) just to get something.

https://billswire.usatoday.com/2018/12/01/sean-mcdermott-discusses-kelvin-benjamins-reduced-role-buffalo-bills-miami-dolphins/

Stars role was never reduced...if I'm wrong, let me know.

 

So now we enter the offseason, $50+ million dead cap comes off the books.  We go out and sign the most FA in the league with the extra money....no 1-tech drafted or signed.

We still have/had the money to try to improve the horribleness of Star....didn't do a thing.  We did however go after Ziggy Ansah so money isn't an issue and still looking to improve our DL....just not a Stars position.

 

If Star starts seeing a reduced role and/or he is a healthy scratch like you suggested is a possibility....then I'll start to believe you.  

 

Edited June 19, 2019 by Royale with Cheese

[GunnerBill]

10 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

If Star starts seeing a reduced role and/or he is a healthy scratch like you suggested is a possibility....then I'll start to believe you.  

 

 

He actually did play a slightly lower % of the snaps as the season went on. That might not, necessarily, mean that McDermott had reduced his snaps due to his largely ineffectual play and might just be evidence of that fact that they felt more comfortable rotating their DTs once they had both Phillips boys in the building as depth. But I do think if last season is repeated performance wise then I expect Harrison to continue to eat into Star's playing time. 

[GunnerBill]

8 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

But on whether they could build on what they had with Dareus?

 

So as you know I completely agree that everything they did was choice and they could have chosen to build on what they had. The tear down was not inevitable. It was their decision and the poor talent they fielded last year while carrying $50m of dead cap was a result of that decision. However, once they had asserted that they needed to address culture in the building they could not do that with Dareus. He is, and always was actually - even when he was performing on the field, the antethesis of the approach and personality McDermott wanted from his team. 

 

I have referenced before that I embarked on a culture change project as a semi-pro soccer coach about a decade or so ago now. Within 3 games I had come to the conclusion that I couldn't do it with the most talented player on my current squad. I had to move him on. I didn't tear down the entire squad - but he to me was like Dareus to McDermott. He was the guy who was just never, ever, even if in "bought in" mode going to represent what I wanted to acheive. Results did suffer for a short time. But I managed to get the culture I wanted and within 2 and a half seasons we went from pretty much the worst team in the league consistenly battling relegation to a team competing for promotion and only missing out on tiebreakers. I couldn't have done that with John. As talented as he was.

 

Of all the top end players that McDermott let go in that first year or so (Gilmore, Woods, Darby, Glenn, Watkins, Dareus...) Dareus was the one that I thought was the most inevitable and most necessary. 

[oldmanfan]

The stuff about Dareus, Watkins, etc.  kind of comes down to whether you are more on the side of the player or the coach in terms of how you see a team should be run.  To some here (who should be obvious) the players should be coddled, the coach should acquiesce to whatever the player wants.  It's on the coach to deal with recalcitrant guys and not the other way around.

Count me firmly on the coach side of this equation.  McD tried to get guys like Dareus especially to buy in, and when he didn't he let him go.  Sammy himself has been quoted about how bad his attitude was while here.  Beane and McD have a specific idea about how successful teams are constructed, and they are going to follow that plan.  I don't know if they will ultimately be successful, but I am glad they are holding players accountable.

 

What is it that Belichick preaches, his one thing he tells his players constantly?  Do your job.  Essentially that is what McD is doing. 

[Royale with Cheese]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

He actually did play a slightly lower % of the snaps as the season went on. That might not, necessarily, mean that McDermott had reduced his snaps due to his largely ineffectual play and might just be evidence of that fact that they felt more comfortable rotating their DTs once they had both Phillips boys in the building as depth. But I do think if last season is repeated performance wise then I expect Harrison to continue to eat into Star's playing time. 

Here's Star's game by game snap count.  I would say his line graph would be pretty consistent with just a few dips in 3 blow outs.

I think Phillips will get more snaps this year, I'm actually quite sure of it.  I still expect Star to get mid to high 40's% up to 50%.  Of course if he's not being effective...that will change.

 

You're a better X's and O's guy than I am.  We had all this money, we improved areas that really needed to be improved (or so we think) but I didn't see any commitment to replace Star.  There isn't any "news" from any insiders talking about Stars job could be in jeopardy....no indication unless I missed it.  

 

[Forward Progress]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I have referenced before that I embarked on a culture change project as a semi-pro soccer coach about a decade or so ago now. Within 3 games I had come to the conclusion that I couldn't do it with the most talented player on my current squad. I had to move him on. I didn't tear down the entire squad - but he to me was like Dareus to McDermott. He was the guy who was just never, ever, even if in "bought in" mode going to represent what I wanted to acheive. Results did suffer for a short time. But I managed to get the culture I wanted and within 2 and a half seasons we went from pretty much the worst team in the league consistenly battling relegation to a team competing for promotion and only missing out on tiebreakers. I couldn't have done that with John. As talented as he was.

 

Of all the top end players that McDermott let go in that first year or so (Gilmore, Woods, Darby, Glenn, Watkins, Dareus...) Dareus was the one that I thought was the most inevitable and most necessary. 

 

I had a very similar experience as part of the coaching staff of a hockey team.  

 

We had taken on a team of 16/17 yr-old boys of a AA midget hockey team.  In the previous season, this team had a terrible locker room with bullying issues, while on the ice they played as individuals.  They wouldn't pass the puck, lead the league in penalties and finished 10th in an 11-team league.

 

Through the off-season our head coach devoted hours and hours to get to know the players to find out what kind of people they were (sound like the drafting strategy of any teams you know?).  He spent time with their coaches of other sports, as many of them played lacrosse or soccer in the summer.  He needed to know if they were coachable and team-first players.  When training camp opened, there were 5 players from the previous season that were cut after the first practice.  These players were physically more talented than the 5 players who were ultimately promoted from the team below, but they had to go change the culture.

 

It shocked a lot of people to see the team gutted and many predicted that this team could not win a game with so little talent on the ice.  Remember, this team was almost last a year ago, so how could they compete with so many of the most talented players cut from the team?  The early practices were focused on building the player's individual skills needed to compete as a team.  These were the most efficient practices I had ever seen, without a moment of practice time wasted.  This team that wouldn't (couldn't) pass the puck effectively one season ago was now executing very challenging drills to drive a quick-passing and finesse style of hockey.  

 

This first month of the season was predictably tough, but the team-first culture was evident.  The locker room was healthy with a "team above all else" attitude permeating from every boy on the team.  By the end of the second month, it clicked and close losses turned into close wins.  The team got better and better as the year wore on, finishing in the middle of the standings.  In the playoffs the team won the first round easily, knocked off the 2nd best team in the second round and battled hard but couldn't take down the league champions in the finals.

 

In one year, the team went from second-last to second place with less individual talent because culture matters in team sports.

 

The Bills are on the right track.  Their culture is healthy.  Every player is driven to get better and determined to do whatever it takes to help the team win.  

 

 

Edited June 19, 2019 by Forward Progress

[K-9]

24 minutes ago, Forward Progress said:

 

I had a very similar experience as part of the coaching staff of a hockey team.  

 

We had taken on a team of 16/17 yr-old boys of a AA midget hockey team.  In the previous season, this team had a terrible locker room with bullying issues, while on the ice they played as individuals.  They wouldn't pass the puck, lead the league in penalties and finished 10th in an 11-team league.

 

Through the off-season our head coach devoted hours and hours to get to know the players to find out what kind of people they were (sound like the drafting strategy of any teams you know?).  He spent time with their coaches of other sports, as many of them played lacrosse or soccer in the summer.  He needed to know if they were coachable and team-first players.  When training camp opened, there were 5 players from the previous season that were cut after the first practice.  These players were physically more talented than the 5 players who were ultimately promoted from the team below, but they had to go change the culture.

 

It shocked a lot of people to see the team gutted and many predicted that this team could not win a game with so little talent on the ice.  Remember, this team was almost last a year ago, so how could they compete with so many of the most talented players cut from the team?  The early practices were focused on building the player's individual skills needed to compete as a team.  These were the most efficient practices I had ever seen, without a moment of practice time wasted.  This team that wouldn't (couldn't) pass the puck effectively one season ago was now executing very challenging drills to drive a quick-passing and finesse style of hockey.  

 

This first month of the season was predictably tough, but the team-first culture was evident.  The locker room was healthy with a "team above all else" attitude permeating from every boy on the team.  By the end of the second month, it clicked and close losses turned into close wins.  The team got better and better as the year wore on, finishing in the middle of the standings.  In the playoffs the team won the first round easily, knocked off the 2nd best team in the second round and battled hard but couldn't take down the league champions in the finals.

 

In one year, the team went from second-last to second place with less individual talent because culture matters in team sports.

 

The Bills are on the right track.  Their culture is healthy.  Every player is driven to get better and determined to do whatever it takes to help the team win.  

 

 

Great post. 

 

I can only imagine there are thousands of stories similar to yours and @GunnerBill's that paint similar pictures. It's pretty simple: when your best players have the worst attitudes, they have to go, otherwise the room gets poisoned and there is no possibility of cohesion. Especially when you're new as a coach and trying to establish a winning culture. And that's precisely why Dareus, even as our best player, had to go.

 

Which is why is can't be considered a bad move. Not sure why that escapes people. 

[BADOLBILZ]

2 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

If he was that bad, he wouldn't have played and with all the cap room we had available, I would think they would want to have addressed this.....especially with Beane going on record and stating he wanted to improve the trenches.  

 

No they weren't satisfied and McDermott reduced his role.  Benjamin was on a WR that was the bottom/near bottom in the league (you said it as well)...they literally had no one else to play these spots.  We went out and signed a street FA in Deonte Thompson, claimed McKenzie off of waivers (waived twice in 2018 by the Broncos) just to get something.

https://billswire.usatoday.com/2018/12/01/sean-mcdermott-discusses-kelvin-benjamins-reduced-role-buffalo-bills-miami-dolphins/

Stars role was never reduced...if I'm wrong, let me know.

 

So now we enter the offseason, $50+ million dead cap comes off the books.  We go out and sign the most FA in the league with the extra money....no 1-tech drafted or signed.

We still have/had the money to try to improve the horribleness of Star....didn't do a thing.  We did however go after Ziggy Ansah so money isn't an issue and still looking to improve our DL....just not a Stars position.

 

If Star starts seeing a reduced role and/or he is a healthy scratch like you suggested is a possibility....then I'll start to believe you.  

 

 

 

They drafted a 1 tech in Harrison Phillips in the third round in 2017.

 

For a run stuffing DT only that's most definitely a starting grade draft pick.

 

It's a passing league you don't pick backup 1's or 0's early.........those kinda' guys are late picks who are often inactives or practice squadders.

 

So why you keep ignoring Harrison Phillips and saying they haven't addressed the position with a replacement I don't understand..........you can only suit up 47 on game day Royale.........how many "2 down only" DT's do you think are required?

 

You basically need 1 of them plus a versatile DT who can play either...........a bill which a 6' 6" 340# Jordan Phillips might just be able to handle for the 15% of snaps or so.

 

Hence my take that Star could see some healthy scratches if he doesn't come to camp a changed player.

 

But he CERTAINLY isn't going to be cut even if he performs like KB...........not with close to $19M still guaranteed on the books.........I mean if they cut Star with $19M left AFTER already eating Dareus' $24M.........that would be a true feat of stupidity from a GM over a 1 Tech position.

 

 

Here is my outlook for the season at DT............if Ed Oliver is healthy HE will draw the double teams and Harrison Phillips should have a strong statistical season.

Edited June 19, 2019 by BADOLBILZ

[Rock-A-Bye Beasley]

11 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Great post. 

 

I can only imagine there are thousands of stories similar to yours and @GunnerBill's that paint similar pictures. It's pretty simple: when your best players have the worst attitudes, they have to go, otherwise the room gets poisoned and there is no possibility of cohesion. Especially when you're new as a coach and trying to establish a winning culture. And that's precisely why Dareus, even as our best player, had to go.

 

Which is why is can't be considered a bad move. Not sure why that escapes people. 

 

Thats because it’s nonsense. Every single one of the players they traded or let go besides Glenn have been to the championship game or super bowl. The other example in hockey recently is  Oreilly winning the cup and conn smyth. Evander Kane making the WCF. The same argument was made that they poison locker rooms. Turns out having a bad coach will do a lot more damage than a frustrated but talented player. 

 

Now I suppose this is where you’ll tell me they changed their attitude after leaving. Or that they weren’t the BEST player on their new team so it worked out somehow. 

 

 

Edited June 19, 2019 by Chemical

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, Chemical said:

 

Thats because it’s nonsense. Every single one of the players they traded or let go have been to the championship game or super bowl. The other example in hockey recently is  Oreilly winning the cup and conn smyth. Evander Kane making the WCF. The same argument was made that they poison locker rooms. Turns out having a bad coach will do a lot more damage than a frustrated but talented player. 

 

Now I suppose this is where you’ll tell me they changed their attitude after leaving. Or that they weren’t the BEST player on their new team so it worked out somehow. 

 

 

It isn't always about "this guy is a bad egg and will always be a bad egg." The guy I was specifically referring to in my example I worked with at another club where his attitude was exactly the same but it worked there because he was a fit for who we were and what we wanted to get done. And he was genuinely very talented. Not all situations are created equal. There isn't another of the talented group that the Bills lost in one way or another that I feel like couldn't with time and a bit of meeting in the middle have been a culture fit for what McDermott wanted to build. But I couldn't ever see Dareus being. I happen to agree with Gug that McDermott knew pretty much exactly when he took over that Dareus was not for him long term. 

[Shaw66]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

The stuff about Dareus, Watkins, etc.  kind of comes down to whether you are more on the side of the player or the coach in terms of how you see a team should be run.  To some here (who should be obvious) the players should be coddled, the coach should acquiesce to whatever the player wants.  It's on the coach to deal with recalcitrant guys and not the other way around.

Count me firmly on the coach side of this equation.  McD tried to get guys like Dareus especially to buy in, and when he didn't he let him go.  Sammy himself has been quoted about how bad his attitude was while here.  Beane and McD have a specific idea about how successful teams are constructed, and they are going to follow that plan.  I don't know if they will ultimately be successful, but I am glad they are holding players accountable.

 

What is it that Belichick preaches, his one thing he tells his players constantly?  Do your job.  Essentially that is what McD is doing. 

There are two different philosophies - the star player philosophy and the coach-driven team orientation philosophy.   Belichick is the extreme on the latter, and of course the most successful at it. 

 

The star player philosophy can work, too, but it can't be expected to be as effective for long-term excellence, because stars come and go, stars sometimes become disgruntled, stars sometimes lose their competitive advantage for one reason or another.

 

Whaley clearly was in the star-driven camp.   The Dareus history, the trade-up for Watkins, the trade for McCoy.   And who among us wasn't excited about that path.   Those are three enormously talented players.   Yeah, there were issues with the approach, and the Bills couldn't land a QB good enough to lead them, but talent like that gives you hope.   With the right head coach and the right QB, it's possible the Bills could be really good right now.   To take the simplest example, suppose in 2013 the Bills don't hire Doug Marrone and instead land Andy Reid as he left Philadelphia.   Play out everything the same in terms of personnel choices (except keep the stars), and in 2017 Reid takes Mahomes instead of trading back.   Last season you would have had Andy Reid coaching Mahomes, Watkins, McCoy and Dareus and it's quite possible that would have been a serious winner in the league.  

 

But Reid's coaching approach and philosophy is different from Belichick's and from McDermott's.   It's all well and good to say that there was another way to go with the team - of course there was.  There's always more than one way to go.  McBeane took the route that they believe leads to long-term, sustained success.   What we're seeing today is what it looks like to be on that route.   It's not as great - today - as things MIGHT have been, but it's also better than as bad as things MIGHT have been going the star route (Watkins might still be an underperforming #1, and Dareus might have run off the rails).   

 

The principal reason I'm fully on board with where McBeane are and what they're doing is that they TOLD us they were going to do this.  They TOLD us it was going to take several years.  They TOLD us 2018 likely would be worse than 2017.  They TOLD us what kind of players they want on the team.   It's not as though they intended to be great in year two and when they weren't great, they changed the story.  The story has been the same since the beginning, and it seems their process is going the way it should.   To get back to the fundamental argument here, this season is a critical season.   If they are succeeding at the process they are following, the Bills will be around .500 or better.   If they are 6-10 or worse, there have to be some serious questions asked about whether these men and this process are right for the team.  

[BADOLBILZ]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

So as you know I completely agree that everything they did was choice and they could have chosen to build on what they had. The tear down was not inevitable. It was their decision and the poor talent they fielded last year while carrying $50m of dead cap was a result of that decision. However, once they had asserted that they needed to address culture in the building they could not do that with Dareus. He is, and always was actually - even when he was performing on the field, the antethesis of the approach and personality McDermott wanted from his team. 

 

I have referenced before that I embarked on a culture change project as a semi-pro soccer coach about a decade or so ago now. Within 3 games I had come to the conclusion that I couldn't do it with the most talented player on my current squad. I had to move him on. I didn't tear down the entire squad - but he to me was like Dareus to McDermott. He was the guy who was just never, ever, even if in "bought in" mode going to represent what I wanted to acheive. Results did suffer for a short time. But I managed to get the culture I wanted and within 2 and a half seasons we went from pretty much the worst team in the league consistenly battling relegation to a team competing for promotion and only missing out on tiebreakers. I couldn't have done that with John. As talented as he was.

 

Of all the top end players that McDermott let go in that first year or so (Gilmore, Woods, Darby, Glenn, Watkins, Dareus...) Dareus was the one that I thought was the most inevitable and most necessary. 

 

 

Oh if it was just Dareus that they moved on from then fine...............your coaching situation was entirely different being just one player...........but when you extract that much talent to change a culture...........and then watch most of those players go elsewhere and excel and not in any way impede their teams SIGNIFICANTLY greater success...........well that's the issue.    

 

I am assuming John didn't go on to greater things with other teams but even if he did that's just one player............not 5 players ending up starters in championship games and 3 of them in Super Bowls while the Bills labored to a 10-15 record since the last one was pared off the Bills roster.

 

Dareus wasn't the most valuable of that group but it turned out that he was the last straw....................his trade undermined what should have been the Bills first double digit win season in almost two decades.   

 

I still have no clue why they made the deal in-season.............if you are sure he's going to hurt your process then you can't go into the season with him.............but to make the move in season in a playoff race was a dubious decision..........and the draft pick certainly wasn't worth the exposure to a cast of practice squad players manning that position.

 

Edited June 19, 2019 by BADOLBILZ

[oldmanfan]

8 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Oh if it was just Dareus that they moved on from then fine...............your coaching situation was entirely different being just one player...........but when you extract that much talent to change a culture...........and then watch most of those players go elsewhere and excel and not in any way impede their teams SIGNIFICANTLY greater success...........well that's the issue.    

 

I am assuming John didn't go on to greater things with other teams but even if he did that's just one player............not 5 players ending up starters in championship games and 3 of them in Super Bowls while the Bills labored to a 10-15 record since the last one was pared off the Bills roster.

 

Dareus wasn't the most valuable of that group but it turned out that he was the last straw....................his trade undermined what should have been the Bills first double digit win season in almost two decades.   

 

I still have no clue why they made the deal in-season.............if you are sure he's going to hurt your process then you can't go into the season with him.............but to make the move in season in a playoff race was a dubious decision..........and the draft pick certainly wasn't worth the exposure to a cast of practice squad players manning that position.

 

You don't know what might have been going on in the locker room.  None of us do.

[K-9]

1 minute ago, Chemical said:

 

Thats because it’s nonsense. Every single one of the players they traded or let go have been to the championship game or super bowl. The other example in hockey recently is  Oreilly winning the cup and conn smyth. Evander Kane making the WCF. The same argument was made that they poison locker rooms. Turns out having a bad coach will do a lot more damage than a frustrated but talented player. 

 

Now I suppose this is where you’ll tell me they changed their attitude after leaving. Or that they weren’t the BEST player on their new team so it worked out somehow. 

 

 

Kane and O'Reilly are crap examples, so I dismiss them out of hand. Both never gave less than 100% on the ice. Ever. Both have been dedicated professionals who pay the price in the off season to keep in shape. Other than Kane who missed one team meeting in Buffalo, both have been consummate professionals with their punctuality. Other than Kane's one game suspension for a cross check, neither have faced league punishment for multiple infractions and neither is one more infraction away from a season long suspension.  Kane also benefited from going to a great situation in San Jose with a strong, well established, veteran-led culture. 

 

The same simply can't be said about Dareus who had demonstrated a list of character concerns over the years. But that's been pointed out ad infinitum around here. You're just too intractable in your position to accept that.

 

Not only was getting rid of him the right move by a coach trying to establish a new culture early in his tenure, it was necessary for it to have any chance to succeed. 

 

Per the bold, this is where I tell you no such thing about a change in their attitude as none was required. Although when Berube was named HC in St Louis when they were in last place in the league on January 1st, he made it a point to talk to O'Reilly about the hang dog act after all the losing. Good for him and good for O'Reilly who took it to heart. O'Reilly was let go for several reasons, his locker cleanout day interview about his "lost love of the game" not being chief among them. 

 

[Forward Progress]

4 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Oh if it was just Dareus that they moved on from then fine...............your coaching situation was entirely different being just one player...........but when you extract that much talent to change a culture...........and then watch most of those players go elsewhere and excel and not in any way impede their teams SIGNIFICANTLY greater success...........well that's the issue.    

 

I am assuming John didn't go on to greater things with other teams but even if he did that's just one player............not 5 players ending up starters in championship games and 3 of them in Super Bowls while the Bills labored to a 10-15 record since the last one was pared off the Bills roster.

 

Dareus wasn't the most valuable of that group but it turned out that he was the last straw....................his trade undermined what should have been the Bills first double digit win season in almost two decades.   

 

I still have no clue why they made the deal in-season.............if you are sure he's going to hurt your process then you can't go into the season with him.............but to make the move in season in a playoff race was a dubious decision..........and the draft pick certainly wasn't worth the exposure to a cast of practice squad players manning that position.

 

 

The debate of culture vs. talent is an interesting one, to say the least.  I think that you need both to win in the NFL, because the league is so competitive.

 

The 2018 Bills had a good culture, that lacked talent, depth and competition at every position.  The next step in culture evolution for this team is real competition at every position which drives players to improve to keep their million dollar jobs.  It is essential that the best players are self-motivated individuals because their talent allows them to get by without a full effort.  To compete in the NFL the best players need to be your best players, and not be satisfied by staying above the backups on the depth chart.

 

Dareus was satisfied with with his situation and wasn't driven to be the best.  I think that Watkins could have been more if he hadn't landed in Club Rex.  Watkins was told he was the shiny Ferrari in the garage and he wasn't motivated to escalate his level of play to his highest possible level of play.

 

When Tre' White was told by GMFB that he may be the best CB in football.  He brushed the comment off and talked about how he's working hard every day to take his game to the next level.  This is the type of attitude you want from your best players.  He could be satisfied with his level of play today and has already done enough to position himself for a big second contract.  When Ed Oliver walks into a culture like this (where nothing is given, everything is earned and the leaders on the team set the kind of example that Tre' is),  he starts down the path of continuously improving his game instead of being content with his God-given talent.

[oldmanfan]

34 minutes ago, Chemical said:

 

Thats because it’s nonsense. Every single one of the players they traded or let go besides Glenn have been to the championship game or super bowl. The other example in hockey recently is  Oreilly winning the cup and conn smyth. Evander Kane making the WCF. The same argument was made that they poison locker rooms. Turns out having a bad coach will do a lot more damage than a frustrated but talented player. 

 

Now I suppose this is where you’ll tell me they changed their attitude after leaving. Or that they weren’t the BEST player on their new team so it worked out somehow. 

 

 

After trading Dareus and Watkins and after Gilmore leaving the Bills made the playoffs.  And by the way when a guy signs with another team in free agency you are not letting them go.  

 

Hockey I hope Krueger brings the same kind of approach as McD.  Set clear expectations, be willing to communicate expectations, and so on.

[BADOLBILZ]

13 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

It isn't always about "this guy is a bad egg and will always be a bad egg." The guy I was specifically referring to in my example I worked with at another club where his attitude was exactly the same but it worked there because he was a fit for who we were and what we wanted to get done. And he was genuinely very talented. Not all situations are created equal. There isn't another of the talented group that the Bills lost in one way or another that I feel like couldn't with time and a bit of meeting in the middle have been a culture fit for what McDermott wanted to build. But I couldn't ever see Dareus being. I happen to agree with Gug that McDermott knew pretty much exactly when he took over that Dareus was not for him long term. 

 

 

Oh absolutely.

 

I don't think for a minute that McDermott came into this job with an open mind about the personnel.

 

I think he was arrogant like most new HC's but also knew that he wasn't a game changing X and O guy...........and that his background wasn't that impressive so he wasn't going to have an easy time winning over prime age players in ANY locker room outside of Carolina...........and he found a job here in Buffalo where he would be given the freedom to build a roster in his image and jumped at the chance.  

 

 For an unsophisticated first time HC who has a lot of re-tread potential this is a very good opportunity..........plenty of built in excuses and if it doesn't work he can say he learned from his "honest" mistakes like trying to improve culture in the next interview.   

 

But I think he's already changed his tune about the sanctity of the process.............losing will do that............and that's why they were all over Antonio Brown who is anything but process when it comes to being a teammate.

 

If they don't win this year it could get ugly like the end of the Jauron era where Dickie went from Jauron Ball to trying to create a no-huddle offense and taking TO into the fold.

 

 

[eball]

 

Delusional, but hilarious.

[oldmanfan]

8 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Oh absolutely.

 

I don't think for a minute that McDermott came into this job with an open mind about the personnel.

 

I think he was arrogant like most new HC's but also knew that he wasn't a game changing X and O guy...........and that his background wasn't that impressive so he wasn't going to have an easy time winning over prime age players in ANY locker room outside of Carolina...........and he found a job here in Buffalo where he would be given the freedom to build a roster in his image and jumped at the chance.  

 

 For an unsophisticated first time HC who has a lot of re-tread potential this is a very good opportunity..........plenty of built in excuses and if it doesn't work he can say he learned from his "honest" mistakes like trying to improve culture in the next interview.   

 

But I think he's already changed his tune about the sanctity of the process.............losing will do that............and that's why they were all over Antonio Brown who is anything but process when it comes to being a teammate.

 

If they don't win this year it could get ugly like the end of the Jauron era where Dickie went from Jauron Ball to trying to create a no-huddle offense and taking TO into the fold.

 

 

So McD came into the job thinking his own background wasn't impressive.  You have got to be either joking or high on something.

[Dr. Who]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

So McD came into the job thinking his own background wasn't impressive.  You have got to be either joking or high on something.

Yeah, I don't see the desperation narrative at all. I think you consider Antonio Brown because you're confident in your locker room and think you can bring a fella like that in. Anyway, that's a counter-narrative. If they hit on Allen, they're going to be here a long time. If not, probably not. All the other speculation is peripheral.

 

[K-9]

13 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

After trading Dareus and Watkins and after Gilmore leaving the Bills made the playoffs.  And by the way when a guy signs with another team in free agency you are not letting them go.  

 

Hockey I hope Krueger brings the same kind of approach as McD.  Set clear expectations, be willing to communicate expectations, and so on.

Our friend likes to conflate every other player we let go or lost in free agency with the Dareus situation. Gilmore, Woods, Darby, Glenn, Watkins, et al are gone for different reasons than being an out of shape tub of goo with chronic tardiness issues facing a year long suspension for the next infraction while only giving minimum effort much of the time while indicating he has no interest in buying into a new coach's program. 

 

Apologies for the mother of all run on sentences. 

[BADOLBILZ]

15 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

You don't know what might have been going on in the locker room.  None of us do.

 

 

I know this much............I was embarrassed about how the organization handled the Dareus situation in preseason.

 

I literally sat in traffic on Transit listening to Chris Brown on the Bills network preseason pre-game dress down Dareus for not being more committed to excellence and use all of his dead family members to question why he couldn't appreciate his teammates more.    With all the people you've lost why can't you be a better teammate?   Ridiculous and way out of bounds for a Bills employee.

 

It was probably the most insulting thing I've heard from a team shill in any sport............and it was clearly being fed from management because that guy doesn't have the authority to speak like that without permission.

 

 At that point I was like please for chrissakes just cut the f*cking guy.    And I said it here then.

 

But they didn't have the balls to do it............they waited until he helped them to a good record and then pulled the rug out from under themselves and narrowly avoided a Dick Jauron/Chan Gailey-esque fast start first half and second half playoff collapse.

     

[Dr. Who]

2 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Apologies for the mother of all run on sentences. 

Yes, but rhetorically effective.

[Shaw66]

21 minutes ago, K-9 said:

The same simply can't be said about Dareus who had demonstrated a list of character concerns over the years. But that's been pointed out ad infinitum around here. You're just too intractable in your position to accept that.

 

I recall McDermott being asked about Dareus and his history of difficulties since arriving in the NFL.  McDermott said every player, including Marcel, starts with a clean slate with him.  He essentially said that what you do with McD as the coach is what he will judge you on.   

 

And McD kept Marcel around long to see what he brought to the game, purely physically and off the field.   What McD saw is what everyone saw - a super talented buy who was an absolute joy when things were going well and who sulked when they weren't.  He saw a player who made great plays and then disappeared.  I'm sure McD did with Dareus what he does with everyone - he told him what the expectations were, Dareus agreed with those expectations, and then Dareus didn't deliver.   McD will not keep anyone who doesn't genuinely work to meet expectations.  

 

I think Hughes is a great comparison.   Hughes wasn't a sulker, but Hughes was something of a gunslinger at his position.  He loved the big play, and from his arrival in Buffalo he demonstrated lousy gap control - he was a free-lancer whose talent allowed him to make some big plays and sometimes to recover from his mistakes.   I thought he'd be gone too, but Hughes got the message.  McD told him what he expected of Hughes and Hughes delivered.   Hughes is still a Bill, with a nice extension.  Marcel is off doing his thing.   It's quite simple, and it's quite obvious how it works.   

[K-9]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

I recall McDermott being asked about Dareus and his history of difficulties since arriving in the NFL.  McDermott said every player, including Marcel, starts with a clean slate with him.  He essentially said that what you do with McD as the coach is what he will judge you on.   

 

And McD kept Marcel around long to see what he brought to the game, purely physically and off the field.   What McD saw is what everyone saw - a super talented buy who was an absolute joy when things were going well and who sulked when they weren't.  He saw a player who made great plays and then disappeared.  I'm sure McD did with Dareus what he does with everyone - he told him what the expectations were, Dareus agreed with those expectations, and then Dareus didn't deliver.   McD will not keep anyone who doesn't genuinely work to meet expectations.  

 

I think Hughes is a great comparison.   Hughes wasn't a sulker, but Hughes was something of a gunslinger at his position.  He loved the big play, and from his arrival in Buffalo he demonstrated lousy gap control - he was a free-lancer whose talent allowed him to make some big plays and sometimes to recover from his mistakes.   I thought he'd be gone too, but Hughes got the message.  McD told him what he expected of Hughes and Hughes delivered.   Hughes is still a Bill, with a nice extension.  Marcel is off doing his thing.   It's quite simple, and it's quite obvious how it works.   

As good a summary of the situation as I've read, especially with the apt comparison between Dareus and Hughes. Spot on. 

[BADOLBILZ]

29 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Kane and O'Reilly are crap examples, so I dismiss them out of hand.

 

 

This is what I mean...........you got excuses up the cloaca if it justifies Sabres management being drawn and quartered.........but the Bills........well management was right about THOSE moves!

 

 

[GunnerBill]

39 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Oh if it was just Dareus that they moved on from then fine...............your coaching situation was entirely different being just one player...........but when you extract that much talent to change a culture...........and then watch most of those players go elsewhere and excel and not in any way impede their teams SIGNIFICANTLY greater success...........well that's the issue.    

 

I am assuming John didn't go on to greater things with other teams but even if he did that's just one player............not 5 players ending up starters in championship games and 3 of them in Super Bowls while the Bills labored to a 10-15 record since the last one was pared off the Bills roster.

 

Dareus wasn't the most valuable of that group but it turned out that he was the last straw....................his trade undermined what should have been the Bills first double digit win season in almost two decades.   

 

I still have no clue why they made the deal in-season.............if you are sure he's going to hurt your process then you can't go into the season with him.............but to make the move in season in a playoff race was a dubious decision..........and the draft pick certainly wasn't worth the exposure to a cast of practice squad players manning that position.

 

 

John did actually go on to play in the league above for a team where I assistant coached for a season and we had parted previously on good terms so there wasn't an issue. But that side was a different bunch of characters and personalities and had a totally different swagger and he fitted there much better than on a downtrodden team where losing was accepted. I am pretty clear I think culture fit is a thing. 

 

I totally take the point about timing. I'm not sure why having decided they were not going to do it before the season they did it when they did for a 5th round pick. If someone had offered a 1st or a 2nd that is different, but the 5th didn't move the needle in their future strategy. Maybe something happened we are not aware of but I remember waking up to the news at the time and thinking the timing was odd. 

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

This is what I mean...........you got excuses up the cloaca if it justifies Sabres management being drawn and quartered.........but the Bills........well management was right about THOSE moves!

 

 

Not sure how my post was a criticism of the Sabres at all. It pointed out how silly of a comparison between the Kane/O'Reilly situations to the Dareus situation really is; on multiple levels. 

 

For some reason you like to conflate my criticism of the Sabres with my criticism, or lack thereof (although there's been plenty over the years) of the Bills. I get that your style around here lends itself to extremes in order to stretch to make a point, but this is ridiculous even for you. 

[oldmanfan]

5 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

I know this much............I was embarrassed about how the organization handled the Dareus situation in preseason.

 

I literally sat in traffic on Transit listening to Chris Brown on the Bills network preseason pre-game dress down Dareus for not being more committed to excellence and use all of his dead family members to question why he couldn't appreciate his teammates more.    With all the people you've lost why can't you be a better teammate?   Ridiculous and way out of bounds for a Bills employee.

 

It was probably the most insulting thing I've heard from a team shill in any sport............and it was clearly being fed from management because that guy doesn't have the authority to speak like that without permission.

 

 At that point I was like please for chrissakes just cut the f*cking guy.    And I said it here then.

 

But they didn't have the balls to do it............they waited until he helped them to a good record and then pulled the rug out from under themselves and narrowly avoided a Dick Jauron/Chan Gailey-esque fast start first half and second half playoff collapse.

     

So when a guy can't show up to a bus on time, that's everyone else's fault.  When they got back there were pictures of Dareus on the practice field with McD talking to him, trying to reach him.  It is crap about folks not trying to help Dareus when he was a Bill.  Different coaching staffs tried to help him out , tried to motivate him after the big contract.  They  couldn't get through to him, or he wouldn't allow people to get through to him.  Marrone and Coughlin are trying and from my recollection there were off the field incidents with the Jags as well (I'll research that).

 

I felt for Dareus when his brother died.  That's a tough one, and if Brown used it the way you say that's flat out wrong.  But there is simply no denying that, after he signed his big contract, Dareus was not and has not been the same player.  And you just can't have your highest paid guy not putting out effort.  You look at the true stars, guys like a Bird or Jordan or Gretzky or whomever, they practiced harder than anyone, worked harder than anyone, held their teammates accountable to that level of commitment.  McD wants guys like that.  What coach wouldn't.

[Royale with Cheese]

1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

They drafted a 1 tech in Harrison Phillips in the third round in 2017.

 

For a run stuffing DT only that's most definitely a starting grade draft pick.

 

It's a passing league you don't pick backup 1's or 0's early.........those kinda' guys are late picks who are often inactives or practice squadders.

 

So why you keep ignoring Harrison Phillips and saying they haven't addressed the position with a replacement I don't understand..........you can only suit up 47 on game day Royale.........how many "2 down only" DT's do you think are required?

 

You basically need 1 of them plus a versatile DT who can play either...........a bill which a 6' 6" 340# Jordan Phillips might just be able to handle for the 15% of snaps or so.

 

Hence my take that Star could see some healthy scratches if he doesn't come to camp a changed player.

 

But he CERTAINLY isn't going to be cut even if he performs like KB...........not with close to $19M still guaranteed on the books.........I mean if they cut Star with $19M left AFTER already eating Dareus' $24M.........that would be a true feat of stupidity from a GM over a 1 Tech position.

 

 

Here is my outlook for the season at DT............if Ed Oliver is healthy HE will draw the double teams and Harrison Phillips should have a strong statistical season.

 

I've acknowledged Harrison Phillips and even said I am pretty confident he's going to have increased snaps.

 

This is not what I'm understanding.  According to you, Star was trash last year.  McDermott breaks down and watches film....he's going to notice it if it's that obvious where a message board member can see it on a broadcast view.  Yet, even after we bring on Jordan Phillips....Star's snaps remain consistent for the next 11 weeks.

Harrison Phillips who I think was solid as a rookie....did not take away snaps from Star.

 

I just have a hard time believing, McDermott seeing Star being manhandled both live on game days and on film didn't send him to the sidelines....he kept playing him.

 

Here's my outlook,

 

Star remains the starter opposite Oliver with the first team.  He plays roughly 45-48% of the defensive snaps throughout the season.  His stat line will probably be about 25 or so combined tackles.  I think you'll start seeing more of a reduced role in his 3rd year in Buffalo when he's 31....which might be his last in Buffalo.

 

[BADOLBILZ]

17 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

I've acknowledged Harrison Phillips and even said I am pretty confident he's going to have increased snaps.

 

This is not what I'm understanding.  According to you, Star was trash last year.  McDermott breaks down and watches film....he's going to notice it if it's that obvious where a message board member can see it on a broadcast view.  Yet, even after we bring on Jordan Phillips....Star's snaps remain consistent for the next 11 weeks.

Harrison Phillips who I think was solid as a rookie....did not take away snaps from Star.

 

I just have a hard time believing, McDermott seeing Star being manhandled both live on game days and on film didn't send him to the sidelines....he kept playing him.

 

Here's my outlook,

 

Star remains the starter opposite Oliver with the first team.  He plays roughly 45-48% of the defensive snaps throughout the season.  His stat line will probably be about 25 or so combined tackles.  I think you'll start seeing more of a reduced role in his 3rd year in Buffalo when he's 31....which might be his last in Buffalo.

 

 

 

Lotulelei played 67% of defensive snaps under McDermott in Carolina in 2016.............if you think the intention was for him to play less than 50% of snaps and that would remotely justify $10M per year then I don't know what to tell ya'.    That really doesn't make any sense.   

 

He just didn't play well enough.........that's why he didn't play more.......simple as that.    

 

Gunner and I think he played like garbage but regardless of how sub-par he played he was not good and is being paid like the best run stopper in football......... his contract is awful.

Edited June 19, 2019 by BADOLBILZ