John Warrow’s High Praise For Beane & McDermott Regime

[Coach Tuesday]

7 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

To lighten the mood here, John, you should really listen to the lyrics to this song. I have a hunch you'll dig it: 

 

 

I've seen Art Brut in concert a couple of times - that was enough.  Their schtick is entertaining but wears old after repeated listens.  Not sure that's what you're citing them for in this thread but it might work...

Edited June 4, 2019 by Coach Tuesday

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

 

I look into this thread from time to time and have been tempted to add my two cents worth.

 

This is post is a nice statement of some of what I've been thinking as I've read the criticism that McBeane could have and should have done something different.  The question with any GM and any coach is whether he succeeded.   If he succeeded, it's not relevant that he might have taken a different path to success.  It isn't even relevant if some other path might have gotten him there more quickly.  All that matters is winning.  

 

It isn't possible to know yet whether McBeane will succeed.  Discussion about other things they might have done may be interesting to some, but unless you think the the Bills are in a bad place or heading in the wrong direction, discussion of other things that might have been done isn't very to interesting to most people. 

 

I very much like the point that McDermott came in with some very well defined ideas about how to run a football team, and Beane did too.  It makes little sense to criticize them for making decisions based on those ideas - they were hired BECAUSE they had those ideas, and to criticize for not acting contrary to the ideas is stupid.  

 

I think people also tend to forget that McDermott is young, had never been a head coach before and decided (probably) that he was going to go slowly in the beginning.  He was going to get his feet wet and understand the lay of the land before he took major steps.  That's a prudent thing for someone to do when he's new at a job.  So, for example, I will not fault him for not going after Mahomes or Watson.  He didn't know what he had in Taylor, he didn't know the extent to which he could trust Whaley's judgment or the scouting staff, he probably knew he would be getting a new GM.   He wasn't going to make the single most important player personnel decision in that kind of environment.   

 

As for decisions other than QB, he wanted to evaluate players before he decided whether he had the guys he wanted to work with.  That takes time.  

 

His oft-stated philosophy, one that Beane shares, is that it's better to build a team right than to build it quickly.   They want long-term success, which in their view has to be built on a solid foundation.  McDermott first want to evaluate what he had, then make changes accordingly.   If that meant taking a year or two more to put up some winning seasons, they were willing to wait.  And I am sure they explained that the Pegulas, who bought the program.  McBeane weren't intending quick fixes, and the Pegulas agreed. 

 

None of that means that there weren't other ways to go about running the team and building a winner.   What it does mean is that they had and they have a process, and criticizing them for doing things that would have been inconsistent with the process is foolish.   What matter is long term results, and that story hasn't been told yet.   And, by the way, the Allen vs. Watson and Mahomes story hasn't been told yet, either.   

You are astute, perspicacious and adroit. ?

[dave mcbride]

56 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

I've seen Art Brut in concert a couple of times - that was enough.  Their schtick is entertaining but wears old after repeated listens.  Not sure that's what you're citing them for in this thread but it might work...

Ha. JW loves the Replacements, and this thread is getting grim, so ... . (I saw Art Brut once about a decade ago and thought they were pretty good. I was blown away when I first heard them (the lyrics are so great), but don't listen to them anymore, probably for the same reasons as you.)

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

And you might be right about all of the above John. Lets hope so.

 

Otoh I thought that Rob Johnson would be a franchise QB. You (at one time) thought that Spiller was a great draft pick.

 

My entire point is that differing opinions are a good thing, interesting, and I think a vital element of what makes this board a good place to be.

I not only thought Rob Johnson was going to be a good qb but I also thought Trent Edwards was going to be our long term franchise qb. And admittingly was wrong about Spiller. That's not the point of the discussions in this topic. I'm probably more wrong on my opinions that I am right. That's not the issue. 

 

No one is arguing that presenting different opinions is a bad thing. Quite the contrary considering opposing views is the best way to learn and expand one's knowledge base. What I do find objectionable is having people (primarily Badol) question one's integrity and professionalism (jw) because of what he presents. That type of scurrilous posting is not acceptable. The one attribute that I much detest in a person is condescension. He reeks it to the extent that I find him to be an insufferable bore. He is knowledgeable about football but his dismissive conduct towards others and their views is tiresome. 

 

 

 

 

[GunnerBill]

3 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

 

I look into this thread from time to time and have been tempted to add my two cents worth.

 

This is post is a nice statement of some of what I've been thinking as I've read the criticism that McBeane could have and should have done something different.  The question with any GM and any coach is whether he succeeded.   If he succeeded, it's not relevant that he might have taken a different path to success.  It isn't even relevant if some other path might have gotten him there more quickly.  All that matters is winning.  

 

It isn't possible to know yet whether McBeane will succeed.  Discussion about other things they might have done may be interesting to some, but unless you think the the Bills are in a bad place or heading in the wrong direction, discussion of other things that might have been done isn't very to interesting to most people. 

 

I very much like the point that McDermott came in with some very well defined ideas about how to run a football team, and Beane did too.  It makes little sense to criticize them for making decisions based on those ideas - they were hired BECAUSE they had those ideas, and to criticize for not acting contrary to the ideas is stupid.  

 

I think people also tend to forget that McDermott is young, had never been a head coach before and decided (probably) that he was going to go slowly in the beginning.  He was going to get his feet wet and understand the lay of the land before he took major steps.  That's a prudent thing for someone to do when he's new at a job.  So, for example, I will not fault him for not going after Mahomes or Watson.  He didn't know what he had in Taylor, he didn't know the extent to which he could trust Whaley's judgment or the scouting staff, he probably knew he would be getting a new GM.   He wasn't going to make the single most important player personnel decision in that kind of environment.   

 

As for decisions other than QB, he wanted to evaluate players before he decided whether he had the guys he wanted to work with.  That takes time.  

 

His oft-stated philosophy, one that Beane shares, is that it's better to build a team right than to build it quickly.   They want long-term success, which in their view has to be built on a solid foundation.  McDermott first want to evaluate what he had, then make changes accordingly.   If that meant taking a year or two more to put up some winning seasons, they were willing to wait.  And I am sure they explained that the Pegulas, who bought the program.  McBeane weren't intending quick fixes, and the Pegulas agreed. 

 

None of that means that there weren't other ways to go about running the team and building a winner.   What it does mean is that they had and they have a process, and criticizing them for doing things that would have been inconsistent with the process is foolish.   What matter is long term results, and that story hasn't been told yet.   And, by the way, the Allen vs. Watson and Mahomes story hasn't been told yet, either.   

 

If discussing alternatives isn't of interest to most people I genuinely ask of those people - why isn't it? To me it is fascinating. It is what I said earlier in the thread. The journey is as important as the destination. And hypothesising on the routes to success and understanding the strategic thinking that led to certain choices being taken is as much what interests me as the Xs and Os and the catches and the tackles. 

 

It is why to me (even though I always was and remain a big McDermott fan and I am coming around on Beane too) this thread or more precisely the debate it has provoked has a very real value. 

 

The only thing I really dispute in your thread Shaw is "he didn't know what he had in Taylor". I submit he absolutely knew what he had in Taylor because he has eyes and a brain. The reason he hitched his waggon to him for a year is because while his GM of choice had been scouting corners and tackles and receivers and could tip him off on who to pick he was on a team that had not scouted Quarterbacks. So I, like you, totally get the reason for not taking Watson or Mahomes and waiting until Beane was by his side. But it doesn't mean the Bills had to do business that way.

[Delete This Account]

1 hour ago, ScottLaw said:

I dont disagree that there was different avenues John. 

 

But that isn't what JW did. As the thread progressed he suggested those moves were a necessity while making excuses for those moves along the way. 

 

no, i was actually providing informed context behind why the moves were made.

you can call them excuses, if you will, but i'm merely citing why they were made as they were being made.

some might call them reasons.

 

but if you care to shoot the messenger here, sure, go ahead.

they're all my fault

 

jw

[BillsVet]

6 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

K-9, you think that he owes JW an apology and that this poster should be banned.

 

I think that we should leave decisions about who is banned in the hands of SDS who built this site and the mods who run it. If we all start calling for the banning posters because we dislike their views or even style of delivery, we will be "telling on each other" and resemble a first grade class.

 

This site didn't become great by all of us sitting around spewing the same views over and over. I have good relationships with posters (one in particular who is in this thread) who I have disagreed with on numerous issues for years. And ya know what? Sometimes I was dead ass wrong and other times I was 100% on the money.

 

Its all good.

 

At which point did it become acceptable to demand people with contrarian opinions be banned from speaking?  It's akin to a toddler throwing a fit when their parent(s) say no to their demand for a cookie.  

 

Then again, maybe these are just grown up toddlers demanding silence, but I don't know for sure. 

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

You are astute, perspicacious and adroit. ?

I don't come her to be insulted!  ?

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

If discussing alternatives isn't of interest to most people I genuinely ask of those people - why isn't it? To me it is fascinating. It is what I said earlier in the thread. The journey is as important as the destination. And hypothesising on the routes to success and understanding the strategic thinking that led to certain choices being taken is as much what interests me as the Xs and Os and the catches and the tackles. 

 

It is why to me (even though I always was and remain a big McDermott fan and I am coming around on Beane too) this thread or more precisely the debate it has provoked has a very real value. 

 

The only thing I really dispute in your thread Shaw is "he didn't know what he had in Taylor". I submit he absolutely knew what he had in Taylor because he has eyes and a brain. The reason he hitched his waggon to him for a year is because while his GM of choice had been scouting corners and tackles and receivers and could tip him off on who to pick he was on a team that had not scouted Quarterbacks. So I, like you, totally get the reason for not taking Watson or Mahomes and waiting until Beane was by his side. But it doesn't mean the Bills had to do business that way.

Agreed, I like discussing alternatives, but I like discussing the alternatives either while the decision remains to be made or after the results of the decision are known.  For example, I like talking about whether to trade up when the Bills had a shot at Watkins, and I like talking about it now that we know what Watkins is, but talking about it as a good or bad decision a year after draft bores me.  

 

I think McDermott came in not knowing what he had in Taylor in the same sense that he didn't know what he had in anyone else.  The most important thing to McDermott, as he has said multiple times, are the issues we sometimes lump together under the heading "character."  Is the guy a total team player?  Is the guy an intense competitor?  Does the guy live to work at his craft every day?  Is the guy a locker room presence?   McDermott wanted the answers to those questions about every one of his players, and he especially wanted those answers about his quarterback.  

 

If you remember, when he came McD was asked about Marcell's various problems in the past.   McD said he wasn't concerned about the past; everyone starts with a clean slate.  I think Taylor did, too.   You know when McD decided Taylor wasn't his guy?  When he started Peterman mid-season.   That's when McD said to everyone "Taylor isn't the long-term answer." 

 

Whatever.  As I've said many times, and many people agree, I like how things are going.   

[GunnerBill]

51 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Agreed, I like discussing alternatives, but I like discussing the alternatives either while the decision remains to be made or after the results of the decision are known.  For example, I like talking about whether to trade up when the Bills had a shot at Watkins, and I like talking about it now that we know what Watkins is, but talking about it as a good or bad decision a year after draft bores me.  

 

I think McDermott came in not knowing what he had in Taylor in the same sense that he didn't know what he had in anyone else.  The most important thing to McDermott, as he has said multiple times, are the issues we sometimes lump together under the heading "character."  Is the guy a total team player?  Is the guy an intense competitor?  Does the guy live to work at his craft every day?  Is the guy a locker room presence?   McDermott wanted the answers to those questions about every one of his players, and he especially wanted those answers about his quarterback.  

 

If you remember, when he came McD was asked about Marcell's various problems in the past.   McD said he wasn't concerned about the past; everyone starts with a clean slate.  I think Taylor did, too.   You know when McD decided Taylor wasn't his guy?  When he started Peterman mid-season.   That's when McD said to everyone "Taylor isn't the long-term answer." 

 

Whatever.  As I've said many times, and many people agree, I like how things are going.   

 

I honestly think you are wrong on Taylor. I think McDermott knew from day 1 he was not in his long term plan. 

[Dr. Who]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

I honestly think you are wrong on Taylor. I think McDermott knew from day 1 he was not in his long term plan. 

I think you're right and I sure hope you're right. Not knowing about Taylor would be a bad sign.

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

I don't come her to be insulted!  ?

When you enter this raucous room you have to be prepared to be on guard from the wayward arrows. 

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I honestly think you are wrong on Taylor. I think McDermott knew from day 1 he was not in his long term plan. 

Fair enough.

 

So far as I know, McD's said nothing public about it either way.  My view is one more reason why he would it have gone after Mahomes. 

[GunnerBill]

8 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Fair enough.

 

So far as I know, McD's said nothing public about it either way.  My view is one more reason why he would it have gone after Mahomes. 

 

There was the famous Beane quote "we think he is our franchise Quarterback......... for now"

[Nihilarian]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Agreed, I like discussing alternatives, but I like discussing the alternatives either while the decision remains to be made or after the results of the decision are known.  For example, I like talking about whether to trade up when the Bills had a shot at Watkins, and I like talking about it now that we know what Watkins is, but talking about it as a good or bad decision a year after draft bores me.  

 

I think McDermott came in not knowing what he had in Taylor in the same sense that he didn't know what he had in anyone else.  The most important thing to McDermott, as he has said multiple times, are the issues we sometimes lump together under the heading "character."  Is the guy a total team player?  Is the guy an intense competitor?  Does the guy live to work at his craft every day?  Is the guy a locker room presence?   McDermott wanted the answers to those questions about every one of his players, and he especially wanted those answers about his quarterback.  

 

If you remember, when he came McD was asked about Marcell's various problems in the past.   McD said he wasn't concerned about the past; everyone starts with a clean slate.  I think Taylor did, too.   You know when McD decided Taylor wasn't his guy?  When he started Peterman mid-season.   That's when McD said to everyone "Taylor isn't the long-term answer." 

 

Whatever.  As I've said many times, and many people agree, I like how things are going.   

I agree on Tyrod Taylor as some coaches do want to see how a player performs in their circumstances, their coaches, their scheme, their system. While I don't think they looked at Taylor as the long term solution at QB, they wanted to see how he play for them.

 

The reason Taylor was benched after that NO Saints game was he was mostly ineffectual by going 16 of 28 for 135 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT. It wasn't just him though as the run game disappeared too. The Saints dominated the clock 41 min to 18. 

 

Still, Taylor was sacked 2x in his last drive and he went out with an injury? That blowout game week 10 by the Saints 47-10. Out of 10 Bills offensive drives, FG, punt, punt, punt, punt, INT, punt, punt, Downs, TD. 

Peterman entered the with 4:53 left in the fourth quarter with the Bills down 40-3 and led the Bills to a 6 play, 75 yard TD. So, I can see why the Bills coaches wanted to give him a shot the next week against San Diego

 

 

[Bill from NYC]

4 hours ago, JohnC said:

I not only thought Rob Johnson was going to be a good qb but I also thought Trent Edwards was going to be our long term franchise qb. And admittingly was wrong about Spiller. That's not the point of the discussions in this topic. I'm probably more wrong on my opinions that I am right. That's not the issue. 

 

No one is arguing that presenting different opinions is a bad thing. Quite the contrary considering opposing views is the best way to learn and expand one's knowledge base. What I do find objectionable is having people (primarily Badol) question one's integrity and professionalism (jw) because of what he presents. That type of scurrilous posting is not acceptable. The one attribute that I much detest in a person is condescension. He reeks it to the extent that I find him to be an insufferable bore. He is knowledgeable about football but his dismissive conduct towards others and their views is tiresome. 

 

 

 

 

If you met him in person you would change your mind in 5 minutes. He went out of his way to be polite, kind, and gracious to my crew that I came up with for years. These guys would actually save football questions for the trip and he would answer them, without ANY condescension John.  We all can be a tad brusque at times.

 

I suggest that you start anew and talk some football with the man.

 

[Rico]

9 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

If you met him in person you would change your mind in 5 minutes. He went out of his way to be polite, kind, and gracious to my crew that I came up with for years. These guys would actually save football questions for the trip and he would answer them, without ANY condescension John.  We all can be a tad brusque at times.

 

I suggest that you start anew and talk some football with the man.

 

Badol's just having fun, no big deal.

 

Whether you like it or don't like it, he is still the biggest must-read poster on this board.

[Bill from NYC]

40 minutes ago, Rico said:

Badol's just having fun, no big deal.

 

Whether you like it or don't like it, he is still the biggest must-read poster on this board.

Oh absolutely! Wawrow and Graham are good professional writers but the truth is Badol is clearly superior. He knows football better than either of them and again, they are the best out there imo wrt the Bills.

 

 

[Rico]

4 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

Oh absolutely! Wawrow and Graham are good professional writers but the truth is Badol is clearly superior. He knows football better than either of them and again, they are the best out there imo wrt the Bills.

 

 

I firmly believe scorched earth was the way to go, and I don't miss any of the losers (in the office or on the field) that left town. Before that and other than that, I can't remember too many times that I haven't agreed with his takes. Maybe that's why he's must-read.

[John from Riverside]

1 hour ago, Bill from NYC said:

If you met him in person you would change your mind in 5 minutes. He went out of his way to be polite, kind, and gracious to my crew that I came up with for years. These guys would actually save football questions for the trip and he would answer them, without ANY condescension John.  We all can be a tad brusque at times.

 

I suggest that you start anew and talk some football with the man.

 

Then his in person persona is much different then what he posts on a message board....

 

 

[Bill from NYC]

3 minutes ago, Rico said:

I firmly believe scorched earth was the way to go, and I don't miss any of the losers (in the office or on the field) that left town. Before that and other than that, I can't remember too many times that I haven't agreed with his takes. Maybe that's why he's must-read.

I don't really agree with his take on drafting Cody Ford early. Imo we needed a RT JUST SO BAD!!! I watched the playoff game over and over vs. Alabama and the kid looked good!

 

Let's see who is "right" about this issue LOL. The odds are not on my side but I will stick to my prediction that he will be a fine RT who will (most importantly) win us football games.

4 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

Then his in person persona is much different then what he posts on a message board....

 

 

This is what I am saying John!

 

[Jauronimo]

49 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

Then his in person persona is much different then what he posts on a message board....

 

 

Fwiw, I am the exact same person whether its online or in the flesh or in the sheets.

[Coach Tuesday]

1 hour ago, Bill from NYC said:

I don't really agree with his take on drafting Cody Ford early. Imo we needed a RT JUST SO BAD!!! I watched the playoff game over and over vs. Alabama and the kid looked good!

 

Let's see who is "right" about this issue LOL. The odds are not on my side but I will stick to my prediction that he will be a fine RT who will (most importantly) win us football games.

This is what I am saying John!

 

 

I think his point about Ford, and he has convinced me with this take, is that in Brady’s division you can’t afford to hit singles and doubles on draft day - you’ve got to hit early on premium positions or you’re dead out of the gate.  I’m afraid he’s right.

[Thurman#1]

21 hours ago, Nihilarian said:

Thanks 

 

As for the rebuilding, I seem to recall some media posts from 2017 where they both stated they didn't want to rebuild.

 

"As a first-year coach facing the NFL's fifth-hardest schedule, the odds are stacked against McDermott succeeding in the short term, but he refuses to use the word "rebuild" to describe the philosophy being embraced by him and new general manager Brandon Beane. "That's not it at all. It's about winning football games," 

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/83848/buffalo-bills-coach-sean-mcdermott-avoiding-rebuilding-label-in-2017

 

Bills not ready to talk rebuild

https://www.lockportjournal.com/sports/bills-not-ready-to-talk-rebuild/article_5d109a32-d307-5e51-83ba-fe986288aa00.html

 

 

I think you're right on the tank vs rebuild thing as those two links were all I could find. 

 

 

Yeah, and the Wawrow story, "Bills Not Ready To Talk Rebuild," has "rebuild" in the headline but not the story. And the headline seems to be based on a statement from Eric Wood that they want to win this year.

 

In the first story, you can't tell how the question was phrased but essentially McDermott is talking there about wanting to win. He's not addressing whether they are going to turn over the roster, whether they are going to accumulate draft capital like crazy to bring in a QB, or whether they are going hell-for-leather to get the cap in shape (though as has been pointed out several times, Beane promised the Pegulas in his job interview that he'd get the cap in shape by this year).

 

That's a rebuild, whether you use the word or not.

 

Here's specifically what McDermott said, "... the odds are stacked against McDermott succeeding in the short term, but he refuses to use the word "rebuild" to describe the philosophy being embraced by him and new general manager Brandon Beane. "That's not it at all. It's about winning football games," McDermott said in June. "Our goals are to win now, because winning now helps you sustain success down the road." He's denying a tank.

[Thurman#1]

7 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I honestly think you are wrong on Taylor. I think McDermott knew from day 1 he was not in his long term plan. 

 

 

 

Yup. I don't think it was a mistake that McDermott started accumulating draft capital for a QB well before Beane arrived and far far before McDermott benched Taylor for Peterman.

[Thurman#1]

5 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

If you met him in person you would change your mind in 5 minutes. He went out of his way to be polite, kind, and gracious to my crew that I came up with for years. These guys would actually save football questions for the trip and he would answer them, without ANY condescension John.  We all can be a tad brusque at times.

 

I suggest that you start anew and talk some football with the man.

 

 

 

We have talked football with him. Online.

 

Where he's doing pretty close to the opposite of going out of his way to be polite, kind and gracious. That's fine that in person he's a great guy. But he's still responsible for what he says here, including the insults and the undeserved condescension. I might indeed like him in person. I'm pretty different - much mellower and less argumentative and sarcastic - in person myself. But I'm responsible for both of my "selves," the in person and the online persona. And I expect to be judged on what I say as both.

[SinceThe70s]

6 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

If you met him in person you would change your mind in 5 minutes. He went out of his way to be polite, kind, and gracious to my crew that I came up with for years. These guys would actually save football questions for the trip and he would answer them, without ANY condescension John.  W

e all can be a tad brusque at times.

 

I suggest that you start anew and talk some football with the man.

 

 

"If you met him in person you would change your mind in 5 minutes" suggests to me that either he is incapable of presenting himself as polite/kind/gracious through his posts or he is not being polite/kind/gracious intentionally.

 

I could care less either way, just think that 'If you met him in person" is weak.

[Gugny]

13 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I honestly think you are wrong on Taylor. I think McDermott knew from day 1 he was not in his long term plan. 

 

Totally agree.  I also think he knew he wanted to get rid of Dareus from day 1.

[oldmanfan]

27 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Totally agree.  I also think he knew he wanted to get rid of Dareus from day 1.

I recall seeing pictures of McD on the field one on one with Dareus, talking with him and (I guess) trying to get through to him.  I think he really tried to get Dareus to understand the level of commitment he wanted and Dareus just refused.  Turned out to be a good decision.

[Royale with Cheese]

1 hour ago, Gugny said:

 

Totally agree.  I also think he knew he wanted to get rid of Dareus from day 1.

 

I also think he wanted to get rid of Leger Douzable from day 1.

[Bill from NYC]

10 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

I think his point about Ford, and he has convinced me with this take, is that in Brady’s division you can’t afford to hit singles and doubles on draft day - you’ve got to hit early on premium positions or you’re dead out of the gate.  I’m afraid he’s right.

I don't know Coach. Actually having a good right tackle could conceivably keep Brady off the field more often in terms of T.O.P. The Bills now have two big strong running backs (Gore and Yeldon) and could be better at sustaining scoring drives.

 

I know that the above is old school thinking, but Ford really should offer Allen more protection as well. It seems to me that the offensive line is the real hope for the team.....this year. 2020 would appear to be the time to load up on quality receivers.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Bill from NYC

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

35 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

I also think he wanted to get rid of Leger Douzable from day 1.

 

.....but we should have brought in Ruvell "My Favorite" Martin in his place..............

[Royale with Cheese]

3 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

.....but we should have brought in Ruvell "My Favorite" Martin in his place..............

 

Should have kept Jordan Palmer.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

2 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Should have kept Jordan Palmer.

 

....LOL....."The Professor"..........

[JohnC]

15 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I honestly think you are wrong on Taylor. I think McDermott knew from day 1 he was not in his long term plan. 

Not only did McDermott know about Taylor so did the rest of the league. He was not a hidden gem waiting to be placed in a situation where he would thrive. As a starter he was not a starting caliber qb. His utility is as a holding pattern qb and as a backup.

 

I don't want to be a basher. We were fortunate to have him at the time. He served as an adequate  bridge qb. He is the type of qb that you are always looking to replace as a starter. When all is said and done he is carving out an extended and lucrative career. Good for him.  

[Royale with Cheese]

3 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Not only did McDermott know about Taylor so did the rest of the league. He was not a hidden gem waiting to be placed in a situation where he would thrive. As a starter he was not a starting caliber qb. His utility is as a holding pattern qb and as a backup.

 

I don't want to be a basher. We were fortunate to have him at the time. He served as an adequate  bridge qb. He is the type of qb that you are always looking to replace as a starter. When all is said and done he is carving out an extended and lucrative career. Good for him.  

 

Which is why Hue Jackson had to constantly defend Taylor and repeat over and over that he was going to be our starting QB.  

[Gugny]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

Not only did McDermott know about Taylor so did the rest of the league. He was not a hidden gem waiting to be placed in a situation where he would thrive. As a starter he was not a starting caliber qb. His utility is as a holding pattern qb and as a backup.

 

I don't want to be a basher. We were fortunate to have him at the time. He served as an adequate  bridge qb. He is the type of qb that you are always looking to replace as a starter. When all is said and done he is carving out an extended and lucrative career. Good for him.  

 

No problems bashing, here.  He was never even close to adequate.  He was a selfish, terrible QB and teammate.  Flutie 2.0.  The day he was traded was one of the greatest days in my entire Bills fandom history.  Good riddance to bad rubbish. 

[eball]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

Not only did McDermott know about Taylor so did the rest of the league. He was not a hidden gem waiting to be placed in a situation where he would thrive. As a starter he was not a starting caliber qb.

 

And Beane deserves that much more credit for getting a top of the 3rd round pick from Cleveland for him!

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

No problems bashing, here.  He was never even close to adequate.  He was a selfish, terrible QB and teammate.  Flutie 2.0.  The day he was traded was one of the greatest days in my entire Bills fandom history.  Good riddance to bad rubbish. 

Having TT at QB was also a factor in Woods leaving, too, imo. 

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, eball said:

 

And Beane deserves that much more credit for getting a top of the 3rd round pick from Cleveland for him!

Getting a third round pick for a qb that we no longer wanted was a heist. The truth about that transaction is not that Beane outmaneuvered anyone so much as Cleveland was stupid.