John Warrow’s High Praise For Beane & McDermott Regime

[SWATeam]

2 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

 

 

But hey, what do Reid and McVay know?

How not to win championships?

[teef]

8 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

 

Stay with me here.  Perhaps great offensive coaches know more than bitter Bills fans? ?.   It’s like some Bills fans laughed at stupid Belichick for paying Gilmore all that money!  

 

We are fans of a team that get excited when a qb throws for 200 yards! 

stay with me here...you keep bringing up mcvay, yet the guy decided to move on from him.  reid has had sammy for one year, and sammy wildly under performed.  i'm willing to be if he has another down year like he had this one, sammy will be looking for a new team again.  

 

so...let's stop naming names.  do you think sammy's production is where it should have been?  stay with me now...this has nothing to do with the bills.

[Shaw66]

55 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think even after that they were keeping him. I believe the point when the decided they weren't keeping him was when he disagreed on strategy with their new favourite son McDermott at some point in that offseason. I suspect they decided Whaley's fate at some time during February of that year (though I believe McDermott was intending to get rid of him and make room for his own guy from day 1). 

 

As for the press conference... I still say as much as Whaley was not a great public speaker some of that was on the Pegulas. Rex was THEIR choice, he was THEIR guy.... when they admitted inside two years it was a massive error it should have been THEM who were up infront of the press to explain the decision. That is how leadership and accountaility work. I always compare it back to the Jeff Lurie example in Philly when he fired his handpicked coach Chip Kelly. He fronted up. He was the first person from the organisation infront of a camera. He spent 45 minutes taking questions from journalists. He owned his decision and was ultimately accountable for it. The Pegulas' approach was for their interim Head Coach to go first and get an absolute grilling that left the poor guy so fried he couldn't remember which of his two bad Quarterbacks he was being ordered to start in the finale (said Cardale when he meant EJ) and then the next person out in front was their GM who was clearly not seeing eye to eye with the Head Coach but whose role in the firing was ambiguous at best to get asked questions that the man who made the decision - Terry Pegula - should have been explaining. 

 

It is my biggest black mark against the Pegulas so far. It was an abdication of their responsibility. And they then ended up doing a one on one phone interview with JW afterwards to try and smooth things over. I don't care whether they "wanted" to do it. I don't care if Pegula doesn't like being in front of the media. It was his responsibility to do so. 

I dont remember all these details bit it sou.ds mostly correct.  As I wrote yesterday, I think McD essentially had an option to pull the trigger on Whaley.  McD worked with him for a while and decided he wanted a new guy.  Also decided he would wait to get a QB. 

 

I think you're absolutely correct about Terry not getting out in front of the entire mess surrounding the.coaching change.  I think the Pegulas got their PR education during that month.   I think they saw how important PR is to maintaining an environment within which the coach and GM can do their jobs.  So they put on their big boy pants and straightened things out, including going to the Buffalo News and telling them they'd had enough.  McDermott obviously worked hard to develop relationships with the press and Beane did, too, when he arrived.  And the Pegulas became more visible as the people in charge. 

 

It all seemed to me to be a good example of the Pegs growing into their jobs. 

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I dont remember all these details bit it sou.ds mostly correct.  As I wrote yesterday, I think McD essentially had an option to pull the trigger on Whaley.  McD worked with him for a while and decided he wanted a new guy.  Also decided he would wait to get a QB. 

 

I think you're absolutely correct about Terry not getting out in front of the entire mess surrounding the.coaching change.  I think the Pegulas got their PR education during that month.   I think they saw how important PR is to maintaining an environment within which the coach and GM can do their jobs.  So they put on their big boy pants and straightened things out, including going to the Buffalo News and telling them they'd had enough.  McDermott obviously worked hard to develop relationships with the press and Beane did, too, when he arrived.  And the Pegulas became more visible as the people in charge. 

 

It all seemed to me to be a good example of the Pegs growing into their jobs. 

 

Yea - I agree they learned a lot during that period. I get that they are generally shy people.... but if you are going to run sport franchises then you either need to hire a figurehead (which I believe they tried with mixed results with the Sabres) or you need to be willing to front up yourself when called for. I hope they don't need to fire a coach or GM for a very long time with the Bills but if they do they have to do a better job of it.  

[Royale with Cheese]

2 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Nope.  I never would fault a team for doing everything to help a young QB.  I didn’t love the Sammy trade but they were trying to help a young qb. We don’t have a number 1 receiver.  The only reason Zay is somewhat close to Sammy (and Sammy’s numbers are better) is because SW has a broken foot.

 

Bills fans look at blanket numbers.  Julio Jones had 3 tds one year.  But his presence opens everything up for other players, Watkins isn’t Julio but the reason why great offensive coaches keep getting him, is because he’s a threat.  No team fears Zay. No one fears Jordan Matthews (he’s just as good as SAmmy!).  No one fears Benjamin but a buffet table.  

 

Again, we lack a number 1 receiver. Brown is too small.  Beasley is a slot guy.  Foster is a guy who couldn’t play at Bama who we cut.  Sammy on a broken foot is more of a threat than any player on the Bills.   No one fears our playmakers and it’s a huge problem.  

 

But hey, what do Reid and McVay know?

 

To the bolded....McVay chose not to retain him.  He traded for him, played one year and then let him walk.  

I think it's really funny that you use McVay as ammo for your arguments only when he acquired him but it doesn't mean anything that he didn't retain him.

 

Oh yeah, Andy Reid.  He's never made a bad decision before.  

 

The Chicago Bears lack a #1 WR and they are terrible....especially on offense.

Seattle lacks a #1 WR and they are terrible....especially on offense.  

NE lacks a #1 WR and they are terrible....especially on offense.  Don't try and use Edelman....you already discounted slot guys.

 

 

[Shaw66]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yea - I agree they learned a lot during that period. I get that they are generally shy people.... but if you are going to run sport franchises then you either need to hire a figurehead (which I believe they tried with mixed results with the Sabres) or you need to be willing to front up yourself when called for. I hope they don't need to fire a coach or GM for a very long time with the Bills but if they do they have to do a better job of it.  

Absolutely.  They don't have to be media darlings.  But they need to be able to stand up there and handle the questions that legitimately must be answered by the CEO.  They fell down badly in those couple of months.  

[thebandit27]

1 hour ago, Magox said:

 

Of course it doesn't because it goes against your narrative.  Comparing Watkins to Cooks production is extremely relevant and telling, doesn't matter if it does much for you or not.  Cooks put up more receptions and yards in one season with the Goff than Watkins did with a whole season with Goff and 2/3 of a season with Mahomes.   Fact.

 

Also, what you stated was indeed not a  "Fact".  Facts are not opinion based, that "aggressive" attempt is a characterization by an NFL insider.  However, what is a fact is that for the same amount of money that they signed Cooks with they decided to not pay Sammy with.    Now, that is a fact.

 

And in regards to the "Let's see how well these posts age" comment.  That's kind of humorous considering that for those of us who said a couple years back that Sammy's open market value would very likely not be matched with his on-the-field production and potential injury risks and for those that were whining incessantly how it was a bad decision to not have paid him top dollar have aged extremely well for some of us and not so much for his defenders.

 

To be fair, those of us that wanted to keep him recognized that the team had his rights for at least 3 more seasons (4 in reality) before they had to make any kind of long-term commitment to him.

 

They had a 4th season of his rookie deal, his 5th year option, and another year during which they could transition tag him.  All with no long-term commitment.

 

That, for me, was the rub.

[eball]

1 hour ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

 

1) if Sammy was here, you’d make every excuse for him.

 

 

Dude, please stop with the "you're a homer, you'll support everything" agenda because that is clearly not what I do.  I simply look for positives and don't harp upon negatives.  You know the old saying, "don't show me a problem, show me a solution?"  That's me.  Sammy has been a failed #4 pick, whether here, in LA, or in KC.  He has not produced the sort of return expected for that kind of investment at this point in his career.

[Thurman#1]

2 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

Yea. I got flammed for calling the Pegulas incompetent, but this speaks to that. 

 

Its why you hire your GM before your head coach....

 

 

Absolutely. That's why it was such a horrible job for Kraft to hire Belichick as coach and allow him to bring in Pioli and then promote him to GM later. And why making Howie Roseman the GM well after hiring Andy Reid has been such a disaster. And why bringing in Tomlin before making Colbert has been such a dreadful move for the Steelers.

 

Yup, always hire your GM before your head coach.  . . . . . . . . . .   Oh, wait.

 

In the real world, you do it either way. It's worked great both ways and it's also been a disaster both ways.

Edited June 26, 2019 by Thurman#1

[oldmanfan]

To catch up on a few things:

 

1.  I wish we still had Sammy, but Sammy also admitted his attitude sucked.  Like it or not that doesn't work with our management.  And his production does not merit the huge contract.

2.  Reid and MacVay know offense but neither have proved they are great HCs.  MacVay has time, but Reid has one SB loss and several playoff losses as a HC.  I don't get the mad love for Reid, much like I don't get Marv being a HOFer.

[Royale with Cheese]

46 minutes ago, teef said:

names!  what point are you trying to prove?

 

Reid once made Demetress Bell one of the highest paid LT's....released him one season later.  

Since Reid is a good offensive mind, that was a great signing.

[Coach Tuesday]

1 hour ago, Magox said:

 

Of course it doesn't because it goes against your narrative.  Comparing Watkins to Cooks production is extremely relevant and telling, doesn't matter if it does much for you or not.  Cooks put up more receptions and yards in one season with the Goff than Watkins did with a whole season with Goff and 2/3 of a season with Mahomes COMBINED.   Fact.

 

Also, what you stated was indeed not a  "Fact".  Facts are not opinion based, that "aggressive" attempt is a characterization by an NFL insider.  However, what is a fact is that for the same amount of money that they signed Cooks with they decided to not pay Sammy with.    Now, that is a fact.

 

And in regards to the "Let's see how well these posts age" comment.  That's kind of humorous considering that for those of us who said a couple years back that Sammy's open market value would very likely not be matched with his on-the-field production and potential injury risks and for those that were whining incessantly how it was a bad decision to not have paid him top dollar have aged extremely well for some of us and not so much for his defenders.

 

You have two of the best offensive programs in the NFL in a bidding war over his services, with the Chiefs willing to pay him a huge contract just to be their #2.  The ONLY legitimate gripe about Sammy is his injury history.  If he can't stay healthy this year, he's probably toast.  If he can, I predict he's going to put up monster numbers and the Anti-Vaxxers like you will be scarcely heard from.

[Royale with Cheese]

1 minute ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

You have two of the best offensive programs in the NFL in a bidding war over his services, with the Chiefs willing to pay him a huge contract just to be their #2.  The ONLY legitimate gripe about Sammy is his injury history.  If he can't stay healthy this year, he's probably toast.  If he can, I predict he's going to put up monster numbers and the Anti-Vaxxers like you will be scarcely heard from.

 

That's not true.  The Rams decided not to tag him and let him walk.  Then they traded for another WR (Cooks)and gave him the same $16 million a year average deal.

They could have kept him but they didn't.  The Rams could have extended him after trading for him....but they didn't. 

 

His injuries aren't his only legitimate gripe.  His production is.  

[teef]

1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Reid once made Demetress Bell one of the highest paid LT's....released him one season later.  

Since Reid is a good offensive mind, that was a great signing.

the logic is insane.  i don't have anything against sammy either.  the reality is he just isn't worth the money thus far.  did the bills do a decent job replacing sammy?  no, but it doesn't excuse sammy's lack of production.  

 

i just find it particular that the people who try so hard to discount or down play anything the bills do, are the same ones making excuses for a guy who just hasn't lived up to his billing.  if sammy was on this team, being paid that much with similar production, those same people would be the first ones on here, screaming how awful our gm is for wasting money on a contract like that.  

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, teef said:

the logic is insane.  i don't have anything against sammy either.  the reality is he just isn't worth the money thus far.  did the bills do a decent job replacing sammy?  no, but it doesn't excuse sammy's lack of production.  

 

i just find it particular that the people who try so hard to discount or down play anything the bills do, are the same ones making excuses for a guy who just hasn't lived up to his billing.  if sammy was on this team, being paid that much with similar production, those same people would be the first ones on here, screaming how awful our gm is for wasting money on a contract like that.  

 

This is the truth. An anti-beane agenda masked by a pro-sammy post list.

[K-9]

6 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

To be fair, those of us that wanted to keep him recognized that the team had his rights for at least 3 more seasons (4 in reality) before they had to make any kind of long-term commitment to him.

 

They had a 4th season of his rookie deal, his 5th year option, and another year during which they could transition tag him.  All with no long-term commitment.

 

That, for me, was the rub.

You know I’ve loved SW since his freshman year in college. And I’ve repeated the story several times how my friends in the scouting community would rave about his feet more than his other readily apparent attributes as a wideout prospect. I was totally on board with the trade to get the best WR prospect in the draft by a mile because it would help their second year QB prospect. 

 

I love Sammy Watkins and truly hope he breaks out in a big way this year. 

 

That said and per the bold text, in addition to the leverage the Bills had with their options to keep him, they also had Sammy’s self-admitted immaturity and the lingering foot issues that had severely limited his availability. Those two factors made their decision not to exercise his 5th year option an understandable one in my mind. 

 

I did not want to see him traded and was bummed when they did, but if I’m a new coach seeking to establish my own culture with my own philosophies and “process” I need complete buy in from everybody. ESPECIALLY the most talented players on the team. It’s essential that your best players serve as the best leaders and Sammy just wasn’t ready to be that guy, again, as he himself has alluded to. So the trade, even though it further depleted the talent level, made sense from that aspect. 

 

We can all act as though all good coaches find ways to reach their most challenging players and find ways to work with them in order to keep them and maybe that’s true for some good coaches. Other good coaches won’t tolerate a lack of buy in from anyone. It’s a mixed bag. But I can’t fault McD for running things the way he sees fit. That’s his prerogative as a head coach and no matter how much I may disagree with his decisions at times, I can respect them. Trading Sammy is one of those decisions.

[Shaw66]

1 minute ago, eball said:

 

Dude, please stop with the "you're a homer, you'll support everything" agenda because that is clearly not what I do.  I simply look for positives and don't harp upon negatives.  You know the old saying, "don't show me a problem, show me a solution?"  That's me.  Sammy has been a failed #4 pick, whether here, in LA, or in KC.  He has not produced the sort of return expected for that kind of investment at this point in his career.

I think it's kind of funny that people don't see this simple fact.   

 

Sammy was one of the most coveted receivers in the draft in the last 20 years.   He was as much of a can't-miss receiver prospect as the league sees.   Other than an occasional flash, he hasn't performed.  Robert Foster's occasional flashes in 2018 were as good and as numerous as Sammy's.  

 

The problem with the NFL, something some fans have trouble recognizing, is that the NFL doesn't give you anything as a player - you have to earn everything you get.  And it doesn't matter how good you were in college, you have to earn it in the NFL.  Sammy never earned it.   He had the talent, but he never did the work to be as good as he could have been.   He admitted it a year after he left Buffalo.  

 

People are still in love with the IDEA of Sammy.   Sammy the guy with speed, great moves, punt-returner type elusiveness, excellent hands, tackle breaking ability.  He had it all.   He just never put in the work to be what he could have been.   Now, like a lot of guys after five years in the league, those really top-end attributes have been muted by age and injury.   He still has enough to be a really valuable receiver, if the work-ethic and commitment to team and excellence finally emerge.  

 

I can understand the logic of complaining when you trade away a high pick, an identifiable talent who later becomes a star elsewhere, like a Marshawn Lynch.   There reasons he had to go, but maybe he could have been salvaged in Buffalo.   But I just scratch my head when people try to prove that a coach and a GM are doing a bad job when they give up on a failed superstar who can't become a consistent starting receiver for the best QBs in the league.   Do we think Julio Jones would be the number 3 guy in Kansas City?  

 

The simple fact is that through this point in his career, Sammy has underperformed his promise - badly - and has done nothing more than dozens of journeymen NFL receivers.   He just happens to get paid more than those others.  

 

 

[Magox]

30 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

To be fair, those of us that wanted to keep him recognized that the team had his rights for at least 3 more seasons (4 in reality) before they had to make any kind of long-term commitment to him.

 

They had a 4th season of his rookie deal, his 5th year option, and another year during which they could transition tag him.  All with no long-term commitment.

 

That, for me, was the rub.

 

I get that and I know they could have had him that option year for, what?  I can't remember exactly, $13M or something like that.  

 

The thinking for his departure and reasonably so was three fold.  A) He didn't fit their culture, its well known and he even self-admits he was not a team first kind of guy that didn't get along with people including players in the organization.  I can feel the collective eye roll from some quarters about the "culture" thing, but it's real and even more so for a brand new coach and system that is being put in place where it is paramount that they establish that culture.  B) That they didn't value him as high as others.  They didn't believe his consistency, attitude and his susceptibility to injuries warranted the sort of contract that he would seek in the open market.  And C) The trade value for him was never going to be higher than what it was at that point and if they had already made the decision that he was not a long-term piece, it's best to cut bait and get the most that you could out of him, it wasn't as if the Bills were going anywhere anytime soon.  So they could live with the drop off in talent over the near term.

 

This was all very logical.

17 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

You have two of the best offensive programs in the NFL in a bidding war over his services, with the Chiefs willing to pay him a huge contract just to be their #2.  The ONLY legitimate gripe about Sammy is his injury history.  If he can't stay healthy this year, he's probably toast.  If he can, I predict he's going to put up monster numbers and the Anti-Vaxxers like you will be scarcely heard from.

It's as if you are trying to rewrite history.

By the way, I also happen to believe he is prime to break out this year. Specially if Tyreek doesn't play.  With that said, I thought he was going to break out the last two years, I really honestly did.   

[Shaw66]

3 minutes ago, K-9 said:

 

I did not want to see him traded and was bummed when they did, but if I’m a new coach seeking to establish my own culture with my own philosophies and “process” I need complete buy in from everybody. ESPECIALLY the most talented players on the team. It’s essential that your best players serve as the best leaders and Sammy just wasn’t ready to be that guy, again, as he himself has alluded to. So the trade, even though it further depleted the talent level, made sense from that aspect. 

 

We can all act as though all good coaches find ways to reach their most challenging players and find ways to work with them in order to keep them and maybe that’s true for some good coaches. Other good coaches won’t tolerate a lack of buy in from anyone. It’s a mixed bag. But I can’t fault McD for running things the way he sees fit. That’s his prerogative as a head coach and no matter how much I may disagree with his decisions at times, I can respect them. Trading Sammy is one of those decisions.

I have referred often to what Ernie Accorsi says in his book GM.   It's something like "you cannot win with three prima donnas on your team, it's possible but not likely with two prima donnas, and it's possible with one."  The evidence of that is on view year after year in the NFL.   Who trades an OBJ?   A coach and a GM who understand that they need to build a team, and guy with OBJ's attitude makes it very difficult.  Th stories earlier this year about Aaron Rodgers and Mike McCarthy are another example.  Rodgers has made it very difficult to win in Green Bay.  

 

So bashing McBeane for unloading Watkins and Dareus, particularly, doesn't make sense to me.  It's bad for the team to ask the coach to focus his attention on the personal wants and needs of individual players.   Coaches need those players to show everyone else how to behave.   Those have both to be the MOST talented and have the best work ethics, not the worst.  

[oldmanfan]

11 minutes ago, K-9 said:

You know I’ve loved SW since his freshman year in college. And I’ve repeated the story several times how my friends in the scouting community would rave about his feet more than his other readily apparent attributes as a wideout prospect. I was totally on board with the trade to get the best WR prospect in the draft by a mile because it would help their second year QB prospect. 

 

I love Sammy Watkins and truly hope he breaks out in a big way this year. 

 

That said and per the bold text, in addition to the leverage the Bills had with their options to keep him, they also had Sammy’s self-admitted immaturity and the lingering foot issues that had severely limited his availability. Those two factors made their decision not to exercise his 5th year option an understandable one in my mind. 

 

I did not want to see him traded and was bummed when they did, but if I’m a new coach seeking to establish my own culture with my own philosophies and “process” I need complete buy in from everybody. ESPECIALLY the most talented players on the team. It’s essential that your best players serve as the best leaders and Sammy just wasn’t ready to be that guy, again, as he himself has alluded to. So the trade, even though it further depleted the talent level, made sense from that aspect. 

 

We can all act as though all good coaches find ways to reach their most challenging players and find ways to work with them in order to keep them and maybe that’s true for some good coaches. Other good coaches won’t tolerate a lack of buy in from anyone. It’s a mixed bag. But I can’t fault McD for running things the way he sees fit. That’s his prerogative as a head coach and no matter how much I may disagree with his decisions at times, I can respect them. Trading Sammy is one of those decisions.

And sometimes it's a wake up call that helps the next team, when the player gets he needs to straighten up.