John Warrow’s High Praise For Beane & McDermott Regime

[eball]

13 minutes ago, K-9 said:

And yet, there he is, weaving his practice in shorts magic with another team and getting praised for how good he looks. 

 

It's really quite remarkable, the magical spell Peterman casts upon his head coaches.

[SoTier]

15 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

How would today's Buffalo Bills, on June 20, 2019, look different if Beane had hired backup QB more quickly and McDermott had cut Peterman more quickly?   What is the practical consequence today if McBeane had acted differently last September?

 

I'd suggest that THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER.   The Bills' roster would be exactly the same as it is today.   

 

So we're talking about two isolated decisions that have no practical consequence today out of tens of thousands decisions McBeane made in 2018 .   

 

If you take those two decisions totally out of context and look only at the Bills roster today, you are absolutely right.  However, if you look at those two decisions along with all the other personnel decisions they've made since 2017,  they seem to point to a HC/FO that either discount the importance of offense or are terrible at judging offensive talent or both.  The Peterman decision just seems to me to reflect a belief on the part of McDermott that Peterman could overcome his obvious lack of talent by determination and practice.  QB is one position where it's virtually impossible to mask talent deficiencies, especially when they are as serious as Peterman's.

 

McDermott and Beane's offensive decisions have almost all been questionable.  Some have been outright bad.  From hiring assistant coaches to trading/signing offensive talent to drafting players, McDermott/Beane  seem to get it wrong much more than they get it right, and that doesn't spell success in the modern NFL.  Defense may win championships but defensive teams aren't going to ever get to the opportunity to contend for championships in the current NFL unless they have good offenses, and you can't build a good offense without more high end talent than just a promising first round QB prospect.   I'm not sure that McDermott/Beane realize and/or accept that because they seem willing to settle for surrounding Allen with middling talent and hoping that UDFAs and rookies unexpectedly play well. 

[SoTier]

16 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Bad hires get fired, true, but people get fired, true./   But most people at the higher levels of the NFL get fired because their teams didn't win.  Each season, three quarters of the teams in the league are unsuccessful, and upwards of half of their head coaches get fired.   Most of those teams had inadequate quarterbacking, but the coach still gets fired.   

 

There are very few guys hired as head coaches who are not qualified, who haven't had a lot of success for many years in the NFL or college.   They get fired because almost all coaches get fired, not because they aren't competent.  

 

NFL football teams are more like medieval fiefdoms complete with absolute rulers and trusted henchmen who practice rampant nepotism than modern corporations, organizations or governments that frequently try to give the image of hiring and firing on merit.  Except for Green Bay, owners are virtually answerable to no one for their hiring and firing decisions.  

 

Some owners act as their own GMs or their GMs are puppets -- Jerry Jones in Dallas and Dan Snyder in Washington come to mind.  Many owners use their teams to provide employment for their family and friends -- Ralph Wilson employed one of his daughters as a scout and his son-in-law was a long time exec with the team -- and had enough clout to get Bill Polian fired back in the 1990s. 

 

It's also pretty common for GMs and HCs to hire their relatives.  Rex Ryan hired his twin brother.  Mike Shanahan hired his son Brian.  Jon Gruden's son Deuce is the Raiders' strength coach.   Bill Polian's son succeeded him as the Indy GM.

 

The recycling of GMs, HCs, and assistant coaches is pretty routine.  Many who proved incompetent on one team get hired on another team in a lower title and then resurface elsewhere in the same/similar position from which they were fired a few years before.  

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

It's also pretty common for GMs and HCs to hire their relatives.  Rex Ryan hired his twin brother.  Mike Shanahan hired his son Brian.  Jon Gruden's son Deuce is the Raiders' strength coach.   Bill Polian's son succeeded him as the Indy GM.

 

Think you are getting your Shanahan mixed up with your Schottenheimer. Shanahan's son is Kyle (now head coach of the 49ers), Schottenheimer's son is Brian (now OC of the Seahawks).

[K-9]

11 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Bozak was critical to the O'Reilly trade........if not for him the Sabres wouldn't have netted what they did!

 

You can't remember that trade when I gave you 6 of the 7 pieces?  

 

Your recollection of recent events is not good..........you might be the first person to get CTE from working in a football ticket office.   

Ooh, another ticket office zinger! But, like so many of your takes around here, it’s as stale and inaccurate as can be. 

 

Yet another of our exchanges devolves because I won’t indulge your wild stretches to connect dots. 

 

This chapter is now closed. 

[SoTier]

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

And yet, there he is, weaving his practice in shorts magic with another team and getting praised for how good he looks. 

^^^

1 hour ago, eball said:

 

It's really quite remarkable, the magical spell Peterman casts upon his head coaches.

 

Not really magical at all.  He's what horsemen in the racing industry call a "morning glory" -- a young horse that looks so great working in the morning that its trainer starts thinking about Churchill Downs in early May or Saratoga in August.  The problem is, when that horse actually gets to the track in the afternoon, he fails miserably.  Maybe he doesn't like crowds.  Maybe he only runs well before he gets breakfast.  Maybe he only runs well with horses he knows (his stablemates).  Maybe he doesn't like dirt in his face.  Whatever, he sucks.

 

Peterman looks good in practice without pressure, without speed, without confusion -- all real time conditions.  He'll always fool coaches who don't objectively view his regular season game footage  ... and he's going to suck if he gets put into a real game.

16 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Think you are getting your Shanahan mixed up with your Schottenheimer. Shanahan's son is Kyle (now head coach of the 49ers), Schottenheimer's son is Brian (now OC of the Seahawks).

 

Yep, I did.  Thanks.

[Shaw66]

41 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

If you take those two decisions totally out of context and look only at the Bills roster today, you are absolutely right.  However, if you look at those two decisions along with all the other personnel decisions they've made since 2017,  they seem to point to a HC/FO that either discount the importance of offense or are terrible at judging offensive talent or both.  The Peterman decision just seems to me to reflect a belief on the part of McDermott that Peterman could overcome his obvious lack of talent by determination and practice.  QB is one position where it's virtually impossible to mask talent deficiencies, especially when they are as serious as Peterman's.

 

McDermott and Beane's offensive decisions have almost all been questionable.  Some have been outright bad.  From hiring assistant coaches to trading/signing offensive talent to drafting players, McDermott/Beane  seem to get it wrong much more than they get it right, and that doesn't spell success in the modern NFL.  Defense may win championships but defensive teams aren't going to ever get to the opportunity to contend for championships in the current NFL unless they have good offenses, and you can't build a good offense without more high end talent than just a promising first round QB prospect.   I'm not sure that McDermott/Beane realize and/or accept that because they seem willing to settle for surrounding Allen with middling talent and hoping that UDFAs and rookies unexpectedly play well. 

This is the kind of be argument style that makes it not worth talking to some people.  My comment was made in the context solely of the management of the QB situation.  Instead of responding, "you're right, the 2018 QB decisions have had no long-term impact, let's move on," you imply my comment was incorrct by saying the QB decisions have to be viewed in a broader context. The conversation in which I was participating had a context, and it was narrow.  It's bs to change the context and claim victory.  

 

Sure, there are all kinds of valid and interesting things to be said about the relative ineffective development of the offense since McBeane arrived.  I agree with many of them.  I think there are valid explanations for some decisions, not all.  I'm also willing to be patient with young first-time GM and coach.  None of that has anything to do with the point that was being discussed. 

 

GMs and coaches make thousands and thousands of decisions every year.  Many of those decisions turn out well, many turn out poorly.  It makes sense to me to examine and criticize decisions that turned out poorly, like how McBeane handled the o line last year.  It makes little sense to waste time on decisions that turned out well, like the QB decisions.  Those decisions didn't hurt the team in 2018 or 2019, so there's little point in dissecting them.  

 

Decisions fall into four categories:  theoretically good that turn out well, theoretically good that turn out bad, theoretically bad that turn out good and theoretically bad that turn out bad.  It seems in your mind it isn't enough for a decision to turn out well - you want the decision to have been made for the right reasons, too.  To be logically consistent, then people should stop complaining about the Benjamin trade, because it was made for the right reasons - it just didn't work. But no, McBeane gets beaten up just as badly for that deal.  They had bad luck on a good decision to get Benjamin.  They had good luck on some bad decisions at quarterback.  

 

You can't depend on luck to pull you through.  You have to get decisions right as much as possible, because that minimizes the impact luck has on you.  They got lucky at QB last season. Accept the luck and move on. 

 

 

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, SoTier said:

 

 

McDermott and Beane's offensive decisions have almost all been questionable.  Some have been outright bad.  From hiring assistant coaches to trading/signing offensive talent to drafting players, McDermott/Beane  seem to get it wrong much more than they get it right, and that doesn't spell success in the modern NFL.  Defense may win championships but defensive teams aren't going to ever get to the opportunity to contend for championships in the current NFL unless they have good offenses, and you can't build a good offense without more high end talent than just a promising first round QB prospect.   I'm not sure that McDermott/Beane realize and/or accept that because they seem willing to settle for surrounding Allen with middling talent and hoping that UDFAs and rookies unexpectedly play well. 

By the way, this narrative tells a nice story, but of course it paints a picture inconsistent with the facts.  The facts are that HALF of McBeane's picks at the top of the draft for the last two years were for the offense (Allen and Ford) and HALF of their big free agent signings in the past two years were for offense (Morse).  Plus, they have almost completely retooled the offensive line.  

 

Your comment suggests they've ignored obvious opportunities to stock up on high end offensive talent. It isn't true.  They've been building the talent on offense as much as, perhaps more than, the defense.  But your narrative sounds good because the offense wasn't good last season and is unproven so far this season.  Sounding good doesn't make it correct.  

[Shaw66]

51 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

NFL football teams are more like medieval fiefdoms complete with absolute rulers and trusted henchmen who practice rampant nepotism than modern corporations, organizations or governments that frequently try to give the image of hiring and firing on merit.  Except for Green Bay, owners are virtually answerable to no one for their hiring and firing decisions.  

 

Some owners act as their own GMs or their GMs are puppets -- Jerry Jones in Dallas and Dan Snyder in Washington come to mind.  Many owners use their teams to provide employment for their family and friends -- Ralph Wilson employed one of his daughters as a scout and his son-in-law was a long time exec with the team -- and had enough clout to get Bill Polian fired back in the 1990s. 

 

It's also pretty common for GMs and HCs to hire their relatives.  Rex Ryan hired his twin brother.  Mike Shanahan hired his son Brian.  Jon Gruden's son Deuce is the Raiders' strength coach.   Bill Polian's son succeeded him as the Indy GM.

 

The recycling of GMs, HCs, and assistant coaches is pretty routine.  Many who proved incompetent on one team get hired on another team in a lower title and then resurface elsewhere in the same/similar position from which they were fired a few years before.  

More fiction.  You cite a few exceptions and expect us to belive they represent the reality of how football teams are run.  You say its pretty common for people to hire their relatives.   There are probably 5000 people employed by NFL teams, probably 20,000 different people over the last 30 years.  You cite four or five examples over that period.  How does four or five out of 20,000 translate to "pretty common"?  

 

One perfect example:  you ask us to believe that Ralph Wilson had a BILLION DOLLARS invested in a football team so he could give his daughter job?  Sure thing.  You think Ralph couldn't find a less expensive way to get his daughter a job? 

 

Of course management of NFL teams make some bad decisions.  Everyone makes bad decisions; I'm making one right now wasting time responding to you.  The fact that you can point to bad decisions does NOT demonstrate that NFL teams are generally managed badly.  They aren't.  In a business where success is measured by wins and losses, less than a quarter of the teams can be successful; lack of success does not necessarily establish bad management.   You could have 32 perfectly managed teams and you'd still only have a few that win more than 10 games.  

[JohnC]

12 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

By the way, this narrative tells a nice story, but of course it paints a picture inconsistent with the facts.  The facts are that HALF of McBeane's picks at the top of the draft for the last two years were for the offense (Allen and Ford) and HALF of their big free agent signings in the past two years were for offense (Morse).  Plus, they have almost completely retooled the offensive line.  

 

Your comment suggests they've ignored obvious opportunities to stock up on high end offensive talent. It isn't true.  They've been building the talent on offense as much as, perhaps more than, the defense.  But your narrative sounds good because the offense wasn't good last season and is unproven so far this season.  Sounding good doesn't make it correct.  

Your last paragraph focuses on the issue that is at the core of this oscillating discussion. Will the moves that were made this offseason to upgrade the OL and receiving unit work out? Will the young qb continue with his development?  There are those who make the reflexive assumption that because this regime continues to implement their rebuild plan counter to their desired narrative that it will automatically fail. Some people believe that until it is proven that they are wrong they will insist that they are right. Their argument is that the past is a reflection of the future regardless of the transactions that have been made. Their mind-set is that the negative past is an established reality that spills into the future regardless of what has been done. 

 

The carousel goes around and around with the horse behind the one in front of it never being able to catch up to it. That's where we are at. It's a futile discussion. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

Your last paragraph focuses on the issue that is at the core of this oscillating discussion. Will the moves that were made this offseason to upgrade the OL and receiving unit work out? Will the young qb continue with his development?  There are those who make the reflexive assumption that because this regime continues to implement their rebuild plan counter to their desired narrative that it will automatically fail. Some people believe that until it is proven that they are wrong they will insist that they are right. Their argument is that the past is a reflection of the future regardless of the transactions that have been made. Their mind-set is that the negative past is an established reality that spills into the future regardless of what has been done. 

 

The carousel goes around and around with the horse behind the one in front of it never being able to catch up to it. That's where we are at. It's a futile discussion. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good synopsis.  I have used the term "wallow in misery" for this, and been criticized for it.  It seems fairly accurate though.

[JohnC]

10 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Good synopsis.  I have used the term "wallow in misery" for this, and been criticized for it.  It seems fairly accurate though.

Some people are afraid of success because it will run counter to their narrative. They will make the counter claim that our receptivity to possible success is a reflection of our captivity. Let's see how this actually plays out.  

[K-9]

25 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

More fiction.  You cite a few exceptions and expect us to belive they represent the reality of how football teams are run.  You say its pretty common for people to hire their relatives.   There are probably 5000 people employed by NFL teams, probably 20,000 different people over the last 30 years.  You cite four or five examples over that period.  How does four or five out of 20,000 translate to "pretty common"?  

 

One perfect example:  you ask us to believe that Ralph Wilson had a BILLION DOLLARS invested in a football team so he could give his daughter job?  Sure thing.  You think Ralph couldn't find a less expensive way to get his daughter a job? 

 

Of course management of NFL teams make some bad decisions.  Everyone makes bad decisions; I'm making one right now wasting time responding to you.  The fact that you can point to bad decisions does NOT demonstrate that NFL teams are generally managed badly.  They aren't.  In a business where success is measured by wins and losses, less than a quarter of the teams can be successful; lack of success does not necessarily establish bad management.   You could have 32 perfectly managed teams and you'd still only have a few that win more than 10 games.  

Nothing rankles me more than this bull crap narrative about Linda, may she RIP. Yes, she was advantaged to be the daughter of the owner, but nothing was handed to her as she worked her way up the scouting ladder. Being the daughter of the owner actually made it more difficult for her initially. She faced a ton of adversity but gradually earned the respect of her peers, including Bill Polian and John Butler. She had a direct hand in recommending many players for the draft, including some past greats on our roster. And she wasn’t afraid to pound the table for a player, either. 

 

Oh, and she could take a punch and deliver one when needed, too. Much is made of the argument between her and Polian that has now reached mythic proportions, but that wasn’t the first time Polian went off on her, other scouts, or anyone else in his path when he was on a rant. Far from it. But she could hand Polian and others their nuts if she had to. Some made it sound like she went running to daddy after being insulted. Nothing could be further from the truth. Which is one reason she earned so much respect in the room. 

 

[Shaw66]

45 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Your last paragraph focuses on the issue that is at the core of this oscillating discussion. Will the moves that were made this offseason to upgrade the OL and receiving unit work out? Will the young qb continue with his development?  There are those who make the reflexive assumption that because this regime continues to implement their rebuild plan counter to their desired narrative that it will automatically fail. Some people believe that until it is proven that they are wrong they will insist that they are right. Their argument is that the past is a reflection of the future regardless of the transactions that have been made. Their mind-set is that the negative past is an established reality that spills into the future regardless of what has been done. 

 

The carousel goes around and around with the horse behind the one in front of it never being able to catch up to it. That's where we are at. It's a futile discussion. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're correct.

 

And it's not that they're demonstrably wrong in their general point.  McBeane haven't proven anything yet, and the team could implode over the next two years.  

 

The problem we have with what they say is that it is far from obvious that they are correct and McBeane are wrong. 

[oldmanfan]

32 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Some people are afraid of success because it will run counter to their narrative. They will make the counter claim that our receptivity to possible success is a reflection of our captivity. Let's see how this actually plays out.  

Patience is a virtue.  One that I lack at times in this discussion admittedly, because it gets frustrating when narratives are changed as Shaw points out, or when logic flies out the window, as in continuing to cast the sins of previous regimes on the present regime.

 

Bottom line is we have a management team for the Bills that has a plan for how they want to build a consistent championship level team.  They are being loyal to that process, and it will either work or not.  Assuming it won't work is a meaningless as assuming they'll be champs.  Let's see how they do.

[Dr. Who]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

Good synopsis.  I have used the term "wallow in misery" for this, and been criticized for it.  It seems fairly accurate though.

Let's put them together -- it's a misery-go-round.

[eball]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

Patience is a virtue.  One that I lack at times in this discussion admittedly, because it gets frustrating when narratives are changed as Shaw points out, or when logic flies out the window, as in continuing to cast the sins of previous regimes on the present regime.

 

Bottom line is we have a management team for the Bills that has a plan for how they want to build a consistent championship level team.  They are being loyal to that process, and it will either work or not.  Assuming it won't work is a meaningless as assuming they'll be champs.  Let's see how they do.

 

If McBeane's process results in sustained success you can bet the "they shouldn't have torn it down" crowd will be quick with the rationale that the Bills are only good because they "lucked out" with Allen.

 

I'm still wondering why Shady is on this team, given McD's obvious fear and loathing of star players.  Oh, that's right -- they "bought" his buy-in. 

 

I guess they bought Mitch Morse's, John Brown's, Cole Beasley's, and Frank Gore's buy-in also.  

[BADOLBILZ]

4 hours ago, K-9 said:

Ooh, another ticket office zinger! But, like so many of your takes around here, it’s as stale and inaccurate as can be. 

 

Yet another of our exchanges devolves because I won’t indulge your wild stretches to connect dots. 

 

This chapter is now closed. 

 

Is this chapter like the rabbit hole that you say you aren't going down but then immediately go down?

 

Don't bring up your role with the Bills as if it's pertinent to the discussion and then refuse to discuss what your role was or why you were fired.

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

Is this chapter like the rabbit hole that you say you aren't going down but then immediately go down?

 

Don't bring up your role with the Bills as if it's pertinent to the discussion and then refuse to discuss what your role was or why you were fired.

My small role with the Bills was pertinent to the mention of Linda Bogdan in a previous post. So "as if" doesn't apply. 

 

Why I was fired. Good one. 

 

But your troll game sucks. 

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Patience is a virtue.  One that I lack at times in this discussion admittedly, because it gets frustrating when narratives are changed as Shaw points out, or when logic flies out the window, as in continuing to cast the sins of previous regimes on the present regime.

 

Bottom line is we have a management team for the Bills that has a plan for how they want to build a consistent championship level team.  They are being loyal to that process, and it will either work or not.  Assuming it won't work is a meaningless as assuming they'll be champs.  Let's see how they do.

The irony is that from a rebuild perspective this roster, cap structure and organization has dramatically changed in a short period of time. Go back and look at the roster inherited and at the current roster entering into the third year. If you factor in the fact that McDermott took over before he had control of the organizational apparatus then the change within that short time span has been even more dramatic and impressive.

 

Before he took over the Bills hadn't had a franchise qb in a quarter century. The McBeane tandem drafted their franchise qb (hopefully) in their second draft or in reality in their first full control draft. That's nothing to sneer at. While many in the  lamenting chorus are fixated on Peterman, a fifth round draft pick, that same discordant chorus avoids acknowledging the creative maneuvering it took to select Josh Allen.

 

My general point is that in a relatively short time span this organization has made emphatic moves that although in the short term have proven to be painful but also purposeful. No one is requiring anyone to agree with everything that has been done but not being open to the possibility, if not the probability, that this franchise is in a good position to succeed makes little sense to me.