John Warrow’s High Praise For Beane & McDermott Regime

[Coach Tuesday]

Just now, teef said:

they decided to move on from him...that's really the point.  they used a draft pick to get him, and still let him walk, only to use another pick to replace him, and give him the same kind of money.  if they thought sammy was worth it, i'm sure they would have kept him.  

 

Stick to the comedy. 

[teef]

Just now, Coach Tuesday said:

 

Maybe they wanted injury protections and the Chiefs were more flexible?  Maybe they didn’t want to commit the $30 MILLION guaranteed that the Chiefs ponied up?  The Rams (and other teams, including I believe the Cowboys) also were bidders.

so your saying is there are multiple teams that would have been disappointed with sammy last year?

Just now, Coach Tuesday said:

 

Stick to the comedy. 

what did i say that was wrong?  nothing at all.  you just can't cope with it for some reason.

[mannc]

1 minute ago, teef said:

they decided to move on from him...that's really the point.  they used a draft pick to get him, and still let him walk, only to use another pick to replace him, and give him the same kind of money.  if they thought sammy was worth it, i'm sure they would have kept him.  

If I'm not mistaken, they got a third round comp pick when Sammy signed with the Chiefs--not a lot less than what they paid the Bills for him.

[Royale with Cheese]

1 minute ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

Maybe they wanted injury protections and the Chiefs were more flexible?  Maybe they didn’t want to commit the $30 MILLION guaranteed that the Chiefs ponied up?  The Rams (and other teams, including I believe the Cowboys) also were bidders.

 

So you don't know then.  

[Coach Tuesday]

1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

So you don't know then.  

 

I know it was widely reported that the Rams aggressively tried to keep him and multiple teams tried to get him and the Chiefs gave him a monster contract.  Nevertheless your little sidecar Teef is opining that the Rams “let him go” because he underperformed.  It’s an incredibly weak take.

5 minutes ago, teef said:

so your saying is there are multiple teams that would have been disappointed with sammy last year?

what did i say that was wrong?  nothing at all.  you just can't cope with it for some reason.

 

I like you better as “The Funny Gugny.”  

[SWATeam]

6 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

I know it was widely reported that the Rams aggressively tried to keep him and multiple teams tried to get him and the Chiefs gave him a monster contract.  Nevertheless your little sidecar Teef is opining that the Rams “let him go” because he underperformed.  It’s an incredibly weak take.

 

I like you better as “The Funny Gugny.”  

So the Rams decided to pay Cooks more than Sammy got, and to give up a 1st for the right to do so.  Yeah, seems like they were real aggressive going after Sammy...

[reddogblitz]

Since Beane in all his brilliance dumped Sammy, going on 3 years later I'm still trying to figure out who on our team can do this?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qObCK9t0vc

[teef]

11 minutes ago, mannc said:

If I'm not mistaken, they got a third round comp pick when Sammy signed with the Chiefs--not a lot less than what they paid the Bills for him.

but then they still used a first to get another wr.  if sammy was their guy, wouldn't it have been easier just to give him the contract and keep the first rounder?

9 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

I know it was widely reported that the Rams aggressively tried to keep him and multiple teams tried to get him and the Chiefs gave him a monster contract.  Nevertheless your little sidecar Teef is opining that the Rams “let him go” because he underperformed.  It’s an incredibly weak take.

 

I like you better as “The Funny Gugny.”  

again, how am i wrong.  what's weak about my take.  i'd like to hear a real answer.

[Coach Tuesday]

2 minutes ago, SWATeam said:

So the Rams decided to pay Cooks more than Sammy got, and to give up a 1st for the right to do so.  Yeah, seems like they were real aggressive going after Sammy...

 

They valued Cooks more.  That doesn’t mean they “let Sammy go” because he “sucked.”  You people bad argue.

[teef]

Just now, Coach Tuesday said:

 

They valued Cooks more.  That doesn’t mean they “let Sammy go” because he “sucked.”  You people bad argue.

they let sammy go because he wasn't productive enough.  they used a pick on sammy, he didn't produce, so they used a first round pick to snag a wr that actually worked out for them.  if sammy was their guy, why were they willing to use more capital to grab cooks?  they loved cooks so much more?  ok.  at least cooks is earning his salary.  sammy is stealing his.   you just don't like what you're hearing, so you're telling us we're bad at arguing.  take of the blinders bud.  they moved on from sammy for a reason, and it wasn't just because they were so enamored with cooks.

[Coach Tuesday]

4 minutes ago, teef said:

but then they still used a first to get another wr.  if sammy was their guy, wouldn't it have been easier just to give him the contract and keep the first rounder?

again, how am i wrong.  what's weak about my take.  i'd like to hear a real answer.

 

By your “logic” Cooks sucks because the Patriots were willing to trade him.  

1 minute ago, teef said:

they let sammy go because he wasn't productive enough.  they used a pick on sammy, he didn't produce, so they used a first round pick to snag a wr that actually worked out for them.  if sammy was their guy, why were they willing to use more capital to grab cooks?  they loved cooks so much more?  ok.  at least cooks is earning his salary.  sammy is stealing his.   you just don't like what you're hearing, so you're telling us we're bad at arguing.  take of the blinders bud.  they moved on from sammy for a reason, and it wasn't just because they were so enamored with cooks.

 

Stop being so dense.  From the horse’s mouth.  Sammy was Plan A.

[CommonCents]

I tried looking up Sammy Watkins so I could best remember how everything played out but all the search results came back talking about injuries. Foot, head, ribs, chest. Etc.

 

My breaks over, I won’t ever find the reason why this guy can’t stick with a team. 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2019 by CommonCents

[teef]

16 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

By your “logic” Cooks sucks because the Patriots were willing to trade him.  

no actually.  that's not my logic at all.  i'm not sure how a person can actually come up with that conclusion.  

 

all i'm saying is that if sammy did what he should have with his one (yes only one) year with the rams, i'm sure they would have done what was needed to keep him.  sammy didn't live up to expectations, so they decided to look for wr help elsewhere.  that's the reality.  you can turn it into a scenario where the rams where so in love with cooks that they just needed to use a first on him, but that would be trying too hard.  

 

 

Edited June 26, 2019 by teef

[reddogblitz]

I don't care what other teams did or did not do with Sammy.  He WAS the best WR we had in a very long time and better than anyone else we've had since.  I'd take him for only 8 games over Foster, Zay, Kaelin Clay, Deonte Thompson, Ray Ray McCloud, McKenzie, Kelvin Benjamin, Jordan Matthews ...

 

I like some of the things Beane and McDermott have done, but their handling or lack thereof the WR position is NOT one of them.  Especially when one is trying to develop a young QB.

Edited June 26, 2019 by reddogblitz

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

46 minutes ago, teef said:

maybe.  i don't care.  all i know is sammy hasn't lived up to his athletic ability. 

Talking that stuff that they don't know

[K-9]

28 minutes ago, mannc said:

What's your opinion of the decision to decline Watkins's fifth-year option?  I think it's a pretty tough decision to defend. 

I've answered it up thread but I'll say that in addition to all the positives he brings, he also brought his self admitted immaturity and the injuries that limited his availability to a new coach seeking to create his own culture with his own philosophies and his own "process" which is his prerogative as a head coach. And a new coach trying to do that requires total buy in from everyone, especially his best players, and Sammy wasn't about a team first mentality which, again, he admitted to. So while I would have preferred to keep Sammy, I can totally understand why he was traded and even though I didn't like it, I can respect the decision. 

[Royale with Cheese]

4 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

I know it was widely reported that the Rams aggressively tried to keep him and multiple teams tried to get him and the Chiefs gave him a monster contract.  Nevertheless your little sidecar Teef is opining that the Rams “let him go” because he underperformed.  It’s an incredibly weak take.

 

 

There are a lot of things that get widely reported that just aren't true or stretched.  I think 3 years/$48 million is a good contract, it's not a monster contract.

Since the Rams went after Cooks, we know they had the money to sign Sammy.  They could have tagged him as well in which didn't.  

 

Is it really a weak take?  Sammy's numbers are just slightly better than Chris Hogan's.  Not saying they are the same level player but to pay a "monster" contract, you shouldn't have pedestrian numbers.  As I pointed out before, you can have two WR on a team with good numbers so that's not a good excuse.

[Rock-A-Bye Beasley]

2 hours ago, teef said:

Do you really not understand how foolish this sounds?  What exactly did Sammy do to help these fantastic offenses?  

 

https://www.chiefs.com/video/patrick-mahomes-makes-back-foot-54-yard-pass-to-sammy-watkins

 

https://www.chiefs.com/video/patrick-mahomes-makes-on-the-run-38-yard-pass-to-sammy-watkins

 

these two plays alone are worth 16 mil considering the circumstances. 

[Gugny]

44 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

I like you better as “The Funny Gugny.”  

 

If I didn't know any better, I'd interpret this as you calling me unfunny.

[Coach Tuesday]

25 minutes ago, teef said:

no actually.  that's not my logic at all.  i'm not sure how a person can actually come up with that conclusion.  

 

all i'm saying is that if sammy did what he should have with his one (yes only one) year with the rams, i'm sure they would have done what was needed to keep him.  sammy didn't live up to expectations, so they decided to look for wr help elsewhere.  that's the reality.  you can turn it into a scenario where the rams where so in love with cooks that they just needed to use a first on him, but that would be trying too hard.  

 

 

 

Now I know you're just Teefing my Gugny.  Read the article I linked.  It quotes actual first-hand sources.  It's pretty clear what happened.  The Rams' Plan A was to keep Sammy.  They tried.  KC offered him $30M guaranteed and he bolted.  They then turned to using their #23 pick to acquire a replacement and reached out to the Patriots about Cooks.  At that point their options were more limited and they did what they had to do.  Doesn't mean Sammy "didn't live up to expectations, so they decided to look for wr help elsewhere."  You're pushing a false narrative (a) because you find it fun, and (b) because you don't really follow football too closely.  

[teef]

2 minutes ago, Chemical said:

 

https://www.chiefs.com/video/patrick-mahomes-makes-back-foot-54-yard-pass-to-sammy-watkins

 

https://www.chiefs.com/video/patrick-mahomes-makes-on-the-run-38-yard-pass-to-sammy-watkins

 

these two plays alone are worth 16 mil considering the circumstances. 

you think 2 pays are worth 16 mill?  oh my.  sammy has such outstanding talent that he makes it look easy at times.  it just doesn't happen enough.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

I'm kinda amused by this thread because generally, this board criticizes writers when they talk negatively about the Bills.  I mean Rodak was hated on here because of his negativity.  Same with Sullivan.

 

Now, we have a writer saying good things and he's getting the same treatment!

 

From the same five complainers who are ALWAYS complaining.

 

[SoTier]

5 hours ago, SWATeam said:

How not to win championships?

 

That's the Bills' specialty, junior.  Reid and McVay have been a whole closer to winning championships than any of the Bills teams since the last time the Bills got routed in a Super Bowl, more than 25 years ago.

 

4 hours ago, 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.  

 

The correct word is "peculiar" not "particular".

 

Actually, it's neither peculiar nor particular, though, because you have absolutely no proof that there's any correlation between those being critical of the current Bills regime and  those "making excuses" for Sammy Watkins.  My objection to the Watkins trade -- and I think it's the same objection that at least a couple of other posters have voiced here -- is that it left the Bills without any viable downfield receiving threat for almost two seasons.   It's still questionable if they'll have one in 2019.

 

 

4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

That's not me "choosing to gut a team." 

 

It's the universal understanding that they rebuilt. And that you simply can't intelligently judge a rebuild by wins in the first two years.

 

You wanted to reload, not rebuild? Fine. IMO, a really horrible decision, but whatever. A team in a horrible cap situation, with low to middling personnel built around a defensive system that only Rexy uses and a quirky offensive system designed by a coach, Roman, who'd left mid-season, a system built to compensate for no passing game by a good run game, and on top of that they had no franchise QB and no top five pick in a draft that people at the time felt was a bad one for QBs ... is in an absolutely dreadful position to reload. It's hard to imagine a worse situation to reload.

 

And it's very clear that not only don't you get this but you're aggressively against trying to get it. But I'll do what I can. Again, those coaches you're talking about were on reloading teams, teams that had had a GM in place putting a foundation together. More, the coaches you're talking about inherited these QBs: Goff going into his second year. Wentz going into his second year. Bledsoe/Brady. Trubisky in his 2nd year.

 

Whereas the Bills had Tyrod going into his sixth year. See the tiny little difference there? "Reload?" I can only shake my head and roll my eyes in pity.

 

Excuses, excuses, excuses.   

 

3 hours ago, S2 hours ago, Rico said:

Some people just naturally gravitate to losers.

 

You  do realize that you're describing every Bills fan ever, right?

 

The Bills have not only never won a Super Bowl, they've only had 23 winning seasons in their entire 59 years of existence (38.9%) -- and 5 of those winning seasons occurred during their ten years in the old AFL.  Since 1970 -- 49 years -- the Bills have only won more games than they lost in 36.7% of their seasons.

 

 

 

[BillsVet]

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:

It seems like this FO is being criticized for not winning with Rex Ryan/Doug Whaley's team.  They obviously didn't like the make up of the team so they cleaned house, cleaned the cap.  They are taking the "you gotta break a couple eggs to make an omelette approach".  If they feel that was the best approach, then do it.  We weren't winning before, so why continue going down the old regimes path?

 

Except no one in the NFL does a complete tear-down when it's not required. 

 

This reminds me of a Bum Phillips quote about Bear Bryant: "Bryant can take his'n and beat your'n, aand then he can turn around and take your'n and beat his'n."  Yet, in Buffalo McD couldn't win long term without eliminating all the difficult personalities from OBD. 

 

Most fans don't get that taking 2 years to get ready to compete is a waste as evidenced by the fact that solid organizations simply don't do it.  They take what they've got and make the most of it, using roster tweaks and changing the roster over time.  No one blows it up and then sells the fan base on how necessary it was to shed so much salary so quickly. 

 

22 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

From the same five complainers who are ALWAYS complaining.

 

Let us "complainers" know when you're going to have a decent take. 43k+ posts and I can't remember the last good one. 

Edited June 26, 2019 by BillsVet

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, BillsVet said:

 

Let us "complainers" know when you're going to have a decent take. 43k+ posts and I can't remember the last good one. 

 

Really, now that's ironic. How ya been little buddy? Still pining for Tryhard and Rex?

[Rock-A-Bye Beasley]

24 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

From the same five complainers who are ALWAYS complaining.

 

 

I see a lot more than 5.

 

I also only ever see you complain about the “complainers”. It brings nothing to the table. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Chemical said:

 

I see a lot more than 5.

 

I also only ever see you complain about the “complainers”. It brings nothing to the table. 

 

Because you, and people who think like you, simply aren't worth the effort, man. You formed your opinions two years ago and aren't moving off it. Why bother?

[Royale with Cheese]

12 minutes ago, BillsVet said:

 

Except no one in the NFL does a complete tear-down when it's not required. 

 

This reminds me of a Bum Phillips quote about Bear Bryant: "Bryant can take his'n and beat your'n, aand then he can turn around and take your'n and beat his'n."  Yet, in Buffalo McD couldn't win long term without eliminating all the difficult personalities from OBD. 

 

Most fans don't get that taking 2 years to get ready to compete is a waste as evidenced by the fact that solid organizations simply don't do it.  They take what they've got and make the most of it, using roster tweaks and changing the roster over time.  No one blows it up and then sells the fan base on how necessary it was to shed so much salary so quickly. 

 

 

Let us "complainers" know when you're going to have a decent take. 43k+ posts and I can't remember the last good one. 

 

Well Beane and McDermott felt it was needed.

Just because you as a fan with very little information of what’s really taking place inside those doors, feels the rebuild wasn’t necessary doesn’t mean you’re right.

[eball]

21 minutes ago, BillsVet said:

 

Except no one in the NFL does a complete tear-down when it's not required. 

 

This reminds me of a Bum Phillips quote about Bear Bryant: "Bryant can take his'n and beat your'n, aand then he can turn around and take your'n and beat his'n."  Yet, in Buffalo McD couldn't win long term without eliminating all the difficult personalities from OBD. 

 

Most fans don't get that taking 2 years to get ready to compete is a waste as evidenced by the fact that solid organizations simply don't do it.  They take what they've got and make the most of it, using roster tweaks and changing the roster over time.  No one blows it up and then sells the fan base on how necessary it was to shed so much salary so quickly. 

 

 

 

Title:  THE AGENDA

 

Subtitle:  "Why I don't care if the Bills become good because they didn't do it the way I wanted them to!"

[teef]

53 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

Now I know you're just Teefing my Gugny.  Read the article I linked.  It quotes actual first-hand sources.  It's pretty clear what happened.  The Rams' Plan A was to keep Sammy.  They tried.  KC offered him $30M guaranteed and he bolted.  They then turned to using their #23 pick to acquire a replacement and reached out to the Patriots about Cooks.  At that point their options were more limited and they did what they had to do.  Doesn't mean Sammy "didn't live up to expectations, so they decided to look for wr help elsewhere."  You're pushing a false narrative (a) because you find it fun, and (b) because you don't really follow football too closely.  

coach...some on.  let's put it this way.  do you think if sammy put up the same kind of number cook did, they'd let him walk?

[teef]

52 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

 

 

 

The correct word is "peculiar" not "particular".

 

Actually, it's neither peculiar nor particular, though, because you have absolutely no proof that there's any correlation between those being critical of the current Bills regime and  those "making excuses" for Sammy Watkins.  My objection to the Watkins trade -- and I think it's the same objection that at least a couple of other posters have voiced here -- is that it left the Bills without any viable downfield receiving threat for almost two seasons.   It's still questionable if they'll have one in 2019.

 

 

 

 

fair enough.  and yes it is peculiar.  the ones who have complained the most about sammy are absolutely the ones who leaning towards the side of constant drama and negativity.  you are one of those posters.  they're the same ones that refuse to admit that sammy has been nothing but a disappointment, and still lament letting sammy go wan't a mistake.  the mistake was not properly replacing sammy.  they tried but failed.  still doesn't mean they should have paid sammy an absurd amount of cash for such little production.   on top of that...let's be honest.  if sammy was on this team with the numbers he put up, you're the exact type of poster who would be on her pounding the table how this team doesn't know how to spend.  

Edited June 26, 2019 by teef

[K-9]

29 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Because you, and people who think like you, simply aren't worth the effort, man. You formed your opinions two years ago and aren't moving off it. Why bother?

That’s a valid point. Some just aren’t worth the give and take. Intractable myopia is impossible to have honest give and take with. 

[Rico]

55 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

You  do realize that you're describing every Bills fan ever, right?

 

The Bills have not only never won a Super Bowl, they've only had 23 winning seasons in their entire 59 years of existence (38.9%) -- and 5 of those winning seasons occurred during their ten years in the old AFL.  Since 1970 -- 49 years -- the Bills have only won more games than they lost in 36.7% of their seasons.

 

 

 

No, I’m specifically describing the ones who miss anyone from or anything about the 2001-2016 teams: any of the teams who could’ve, would’ve, and should’ve made the playoffs, but DIDN’T. Their beloved chumps couldn’t get the job done, yet they slam McBeane, who couldn’t have, wouldn’t have, and shouldn’t have made the playoffs but DID. 

[reddogblitz]

4 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

there is no evidence that having kept Sammy would have changed the fortunes of the Bills in any material way

 

while you are right there is no proof (How can there be?) I suspect that if we had Sammy in there instead of Thompson who dropped a key pass and didn't get a first down cuz he ran behind the sticks, We win that playoff game.  That would be material.

Edited June 26, 2019 by reddogblitz

[Shaw66]

14 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

while you are right there is no proof (How can there be?) I suspect that if we had Sammy in there instead of Thompson who dropped a key pass and didn't get a first down cuz he ran behind the sticks, We win that playoff game.  That would be material.

Well sure.  We can always bring it down to one play like that.   

 

I'm sure you understand the point.  

[Coach Tuesday]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

Well sure.  We can always bring it down to one play like that.   

 

I'm sure you understand the point.  

 

The point?  That no one can prove what would’ve happened in an alternative universe where Sammy wasn’t dealt?  I mean...

[teef]

18 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

while you are right there is no proof (How can there be?) I suspect that if we had Sammy in there instead of Thompson who dropped a key pass and didn't get a first down cuz he ran behind the sticks, We win that playoff game.  That would be material.

well, in my made up scenario, sammy was hurt and wasn't available for that play, ultimately couldn't help the bills win the game.  see how that works?

Just now, Coach Tuesday said:

 

The point?  That no one can prove what would’ve happened in an alternative universe where Sammy wasn’t dealt?  I mean...

considering he was on two teams with superior qbs than the bills, and still didn't produce, it's kinda safe to say that his number likely wouldn't have been impressive.

Edited June 26, 2019 by teef

[reddogblitz]

4 minutes ago, teef said:

well, in my made up scenario, sammy was hurt and wasn't available for that play, ultimately couldn't help the bills win the game.  see how that works?

considering he was on two teams with superior qbs than the bills, and still didn't produce, it's kinda safe to say that his number likely wouldn't have been impressive.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I call 100+ yards in the AFC Conference game as producing.

 

And as far as your scenario and mine is we don't know, so they both have the same odds of being right. To each his/her won.

 

Sometimes the difference between winning and losing is very small and can come down to one guy on one play.

[teef]

8 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Maybe it's just me, but I call 100+ yards in the AFC Conference game as producing.

 

And as far as your scenario and mine is we don't know, so they both have the same odds of being right. To each his/her won.

 

Sometimes the difference between winning and losing is very small and can come down to one guy on one play.

Very true and well put. 

[reddogblitz]

20 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

nWell sure.  We can always bring it down to one play like that.   

 

I'm sure you understand the point.  

 

I understand where you're coming from sort of but just disagree.  You win with studs.  Sammy was a stud.  I understand the injury concern, but WRs get hurt. That's why you need 2 or 3 top notch ones.  Sadly now we don't have any even after the Cole and Brown signings.

 

To my way of thinking if you want to develop a young QB you surround him with quality pass catching WRs/TEs that can catch footballs not perfectly throw and are expert route runners as opposed to surrounding him with Zay "Drop Zone" Jones, Ray Ray McCloud, McKenzie, Foster etc.  This is my #1 beef with Beane.

Edited June 26, 2019 by reddogblitz