Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ethan in Portland

What would need to occur to extend or fire McDermott?

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, BigBuff423 said:

 

To your point, here's an entire list of other teams, many of which were worse than the Bills were in 2017, that made the playoffs (pay attention to the last one):

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/958403-the-25-worst-playoff-teams-in-nfl-history#slide25

 

You can now let this sleeping dog lie, or you can keep poking at something where we can agree to disagree.

 

The Dolphins team that made it the year before us was at least as bad as we were. 

  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he's on a 5 yr contract there's absolutely no reason to extend him unless he wins a super bowl 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2019 at 10:56 PM, Ronin said:

 

I'll be absolutely jacked if Allen puts together a nice season.  I'll be jacked if he does that and we go only 8-8 and miss the playoffs.  As a personality Allen's tops.  You couldn't ask for a better team leader.  

 

As to positive posts, when there's something that I consider to be positive to such an extent that it warrants keeping this coach or GM I'll be among the first to say so.  Just not seeing it at this point.  

 

What I"m curious about is how all of the people here that insist that Allen's going to be among the best this year, that Oliver's going to be the next Darnold, that Singletary's going to replace Shady, that our WRs are finally a good batch, that Knox and/or Kroft will not be injured this season, ditto for Morse, etc., are going to react if/when that all turns out to not be the case.  

 

Oh wait, I know how that'll look, we see it every three years or so.  As you were.  

 

Sorry that my takes bother you.  Not sure why.  It's only discussion.  Sounds like a personal problem to me.  

 

 

They have a lot to prove.

 

Im not as confident in the offense as most seem to be. WRs are still subpar, TEs are worse. The hope is the offensive line comes together fast and Allen improved a lot in his 2nd year. They didn't do him any favors at the skills position. 

 

Ill be happy if they are competitive game in and game out and aren't getting their asses handed to the Patriots again.... I still see the Patriots and Jets as better teams in the division. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2019 at 9:24 PM, Rico said:

Sure, during and after 2020 if no big improvement. 

Three straight years with no playoffs > breaking the drought.

 

...FAR more reasonable.....plenty of new personnel, coaching changes, and with the battle cry in 2018 that Daboll had no talent to work with, some pretty good offensive potential in 2019 for HIM to step up HIS game IMO....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2019 at 6:20 PM, reddogblitz said:

 

Right.  I give 'em credit because the team in 2017 came up big when needed to win a few games like Tampa Bay and Indianapolis that past teams seemed to find a way to lose.

 

Win a playoff game and we can start talking about maybe considering an extension. 

That was the first season in a LONG time that we found a way to win a few of those games. The most impressive game from my perspective was the KC win at Arrowhead. The team appeared to be on the verge of collapse and they went INTO KC and came away with a win. KC was struggling at the time, but the Bills DID find a way to win. McDermott as a HC has generally been solid in close games. As a Bills fan, that's important. I've seen enough meltdowns. At least when McD loses, he doesn't want his team giving any of that false hope leading up to the last second heartbreak. When he loses, he LOSES.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2019 at 10:56 AM, BigBuff423 said:

 

To your point, here's an entire list of other teams, many of which were worse than the Bills were in 2017, that made the playoffs (pay attention to the last one):

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/958403-the-25-worst-playoff-teams-in-nfl-history#slide25

 

You can now let this sleeping dog lie, or you can keep poking at something where we can agree to disagree.

 

Yaaay, you found one.  

 

Really?  

 

And your point, what, to show that you found ONE?  

 

Follow up on that tho, they didn't go anywhere and the following season with even better rankings they failed to make the playoffs.  Seems like that reinforces what my global point was.  

 

So let's stay focused, shall we, the point is that teams like that aren't playoff caliber teams.  If  you think they are, then you might think that McBeane are  doing a good job. That's fine, we'll simply have to agree to disagree then.   I'd strongly suggest however that you'll be disappointed if they don't budge much from those rankings.  I find that people that didn't go thru those years have a completely different perspective and notably lower standard for what a good team actually is.  

 

When we were good our offense consistently ranked in the top-10 and our D top half, sometimes top-10 in scoring.  That's what we're looking for.  Not getting lucky hoping to shatter odds because we're in a weak division w/o any single team in the division finishing even .500 much less with a winning record.  I would personally like to seem a team like we had in the '90s, where we'd go to games not hoping to win, but expecting to win, not watching some other game not even involving us hoping for an upset from a lucky play so that we can "make the playoffs."  

 

"Making the playoffs" and being a playoff competitive team are two totally different things.  The team that you just cited couldn't even score more points than they allowed by nearly a 100, their division rivals won 7, 6, and 5 games.  

 

Their division rival 7-9 Rams were just as close to making the playoffs.  The difference between the two 7-9 teams was that Seattle beat the 5-11 Cards twice while the Rams only beat them once, which I believe was the tiebreaker.  5 other teams that failed to make the playoffs that season had better records.  

 

It's one thing to attempt to disprove someone's position, but you failed to do that.  Don't let your emotional disposition get in the way of any overall points you're trying to make.  

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2019 at 10:03 PM, Rico said:

“Stats are for losers.”

- Bill Belichick

 

Funny, I've heard several people say that. 

 

Must be why Belichick leans so hard on his great buddy Ernie Adams who's been with Belichick in an analytical role since Belichick's been the coach of NE.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ronin said:

 

Yaaay, you found one.  

 

Really?  

 

And your point, what, to show that you found ONE?  

 

Follow up on that tho, they didn't go anywhere and the following season with even better rankings they failed to make the playoffs.  Seems like that reinforces what my global point was.  

 

So let's stay focused, shall we, the point is that teams like that aren't playoff caliber teams.  If  you think they are, then you might think that McBeane are  doing a good job. That's fine, we'll simply have to agree to disagree then.   I'd strongly suggest however that you'll be disappointed if they don't budge much from those rankings.  I find that people that didn't go thru those years have a completely different perspective and notably lower standard for what a good team actually is.  

 

When we were good our offense consistently ranked in the top-10 and our D top half, sometimes top-10 in scoring.  That's what we're looking for.  Not getting lucky hoping to shatter odds because we're in a weak division w/o any single team in the division finishing even .500 much less with a winning record.  I would personally like to seem a team like we had in the '90s, where we'd go to games not hoping to win, but expecting to win, not watching some other game not even involving us hoping for an upset from a lucky play so that we can "make the playoffs."  

 

"Making the playoffs" and being a playoff competitive team are two totally different things.  The team that you just cited couldn't even score more points than they allowed by nearly a 100, their division rivals won 7, 6, and 5 games.  

 

Their division rival 7-9 Rams were just as close to making the playoffs.  The difference between the two 7-9 teams was that Seattle beat the 5-11 Cards twice while the Rams only beat them once, which I believe was the tiebreaker.  5 other teams that failed to make the playoffs that season had better records.  

 

It's one thing to attempt to disprove someone's position, but you failed to do that.  Don't let your emotional disposition get in the way of any overall points you're trying to make.  

 

 

 

 

Your condescending attitude is noted. Additionally, I’m not the one who made wide-sweeping statements as I quoted you, be more upset that you attempted to demonstrate a knowledge base you don’t have and accept that your intent is to denigrate a coach and FO who don’t do the things you think they should or the way you think they should, despite a first year of inexplicable success. That said, continue ramming away at an argument only you seem to be having as I’m done with this nonsense. 

 

Enjoy your Sunday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2019 at 2:22 PM, ScottLaw said:

They have a lot to prove.

 

Im not as confident in the offense as most seem to be. WRs are still subpar, TEs are worse. The hope is the offensive line comes together fast and Allen improved a lot in his 2nd year. They didn't do him any favors at the skills position. 

 

Ill be happy if they are competitive game in and game out and aren't getting their asses handed to the Patriots again.... I still see the Patriots and Jets as better teams in the division. 

 

They have everything to prove.  

 

Also, not sure that the TEs are worse, but again, I challenge narratives.  Knox hasn't caught a TD in his collegiate career.  He's yet another player that this staff has plucked that has serious injury issues.  You can't continue to grab guys that are oft hurt and think that for some unbeknownst reason they'll all of a sudden no longer have injury issues here.  Makes no sense to think like that, to the contrary in fact.  

 

But, if you meant with Kroft now out until the regular season, I'd agree with that.  And if Knox for whatever reason doesn't stay healthy and justify their faith in him, I fully agree and they'll be a lot worse in fact.  

 

I was just reading another article this morning about how our WRs are finally above average starters.  I'm not sure how people come to that conclusion.  To start, Brown has started just over half of his 72 games in five seasons, he was really only a full-time starter last season for one or more reasons.  Either way, and I've laid this out before, but he's averaged 646 yards and 4.4 TDs/season, which is only slightly below what he got last season starting 15 games.  Was that above-average starting WR production?  If so, is is something to be so optimistic about?  Are those average starting WR stats much less above-average?  All I can do is look at the numbers.  So if some think that's average I can't say, but technically it's not average for starting WRs, much less above-average.  So again, not sure where this narrative comes from. 

 

Even worse for Beasley.  He's started 22 games out of  103, barely over 20%, so if that's the standard it's not true.  He's averaged 469 yards and 3.3 TDs/season, even fewer than Brown.  I mean is that average much less above average for a starting WR?  I don't see it, and again, even if it is in one or two ways, is that cause for such hope based simply on Brown & Beasley?  They'll both have to match their best seasons ever to render it so this season.  

 

Needless to say that I agree with you, we're subpart as you said with the WRs, we simply have a few more subpar WRs to choose from.  There's hope that Foster breaks out and sheds his injury concerns, but until that happens.  

 

And I fully agree with you, they didn't do nearly what they could have at the skills for Allen, or the OL.  IMO instead of focusing on the D as they did, Oliver in particular, they should have done more to help Allen.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, BigBuff423 said:

Your condescending attitude is noted. Additionally, I’m not the one who made wide-sweeping statements as I quoted you, be more upset that you attempted to demonstrate a knowledge base you don’t have and accept that your intent is to denigrate a coach and FO who don’t do the things you think they should or the way you think they should, despite a first year of inexplicable success. That said, continue ramming away at an argument only you seem to be having as I’m done with this nonsense. 

 

Enjoy your Sunday.

 

LMAO 

 

My condescending attitude?  Did you read your own post that my response was in regard to?  LOL  

 

And listen, I'm not denigrating anyone, I'm analyzing their methods.  And what, you take it personally that I say what I say about their methods?  ... and you think I have problems?  LOL 

 

I made a point based upon a reasonably stated argument.  You picked one aspect of it to attack while ignoring the greater argument altogether, almost as if to suggest that there are no worries having a 30th ranked scoring offense and an average or slightly below average D is just fine to get your team where they need to go.  

 

I don't see anything at all condescending about my post.  Sorry you see it that way.  I'm guessing that it's because again, I simply pointed out that you leap-frogged the greater point to nitpick one entirely irrelevant point that was completely out of context otherwise.  If that's the way you're going to attempt to make points, I'm not sure what to say.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ronin said:

 

They have everything to prove.  

 

Also, not sure that the TEs are worse, but again, I challenge narratives.  Knox hasn't caught a TD in his collegiate career.  He's yet another player that this staff has plucked that has serious injury issues.  You can't continue to grab guys that are oft hurt and think that for some unbeknownst reason they'll all of a sudden no longer have injury issues here.  Makes no sense to think like that, to the contrary in fact.  

 

But, if you meant with Kroft now out until the regular season, I'd agree with that.  And if Knox for whatever reason doesn't stay healthy and justify their faith in him, I fully agree and they'll be a lot worse in fact.  

 

I was just reading another article this morning about how our WRs are finally above average starters.  I'm not sure how people come to that conclusion.  To start, Brown has started just over half of his 72 games in five seasons, he was really only a full-time starter last season for one or more reasons.  Either way, and I've laid this out before, but he's averaged 646 yards and 4.4 TDs/season, which is only slightly below what he got last season starting 15 games.  Was that above-average starting WR production?  If so, is is something to be so optimistic about?  Are those average starting WR stats much less above-average?  All I can do is look at the numbers.  So if some think that's average I can't say, but technically it's not average for starting WRs, much less above-average.  So again, not sure where this narrative comes from. 

 

Even worse for Beasley.  He's started 22 games out of  103, barely over 20%, so if that's the standard it's not true.  He's averaged 469 yards and 3.3 TDs/season, even fewer than Brown.  I mean is that average much less above average for a starting WR?  I don't see it, and again, even if it is in one or two ways, is that cause for such hope based simply on Brown & Beasley?  They'll both have to match their best seasons ever to render it so this season.  

 

Needless to say that I agree with you, we're subpart as you said with the WRs, we simply have a few more subpar WRs to choose from.  There's hope that Foster breaks out and sheds his injury concerns, but until that happens.  

 

And I fully agree with you, they didn't do nearly what they could have at the skills for Allen, or the OL.  IMO instead of focusing on the D as they did, Oliver in particular, they should have done more to help Allen.  

 

 

Just on the Beasley point the numbers are deceptive. He was Dallas's starting slot receiver. But starts are only categorised by who is on the field for the first offensive or defensive play. So if they line up in 21 personnel for the first play of the game Beasley isnt counter as a starter no matter how many snaps he plays after that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Ronin said:

 

They have everything to prove.  

 

Also, not sure that the TEs are worse, but again, I challenge narratives.  Knox hasn't caught a TD in his collegiate career.  He's yet another player that this staff has plucked that has serious injury issues.  You can't continue to grab guys that are oft hurt and think that for some unbeknownst reason they'll all of a sudden no longer have injury issues here.  Makes no sense to think like that, to the contrary in fact.  

 

But, if you meant with Kroft now out until the regular season, I'd agree with that.  And if Knox for whatever reason doesn't stay healthy and justify their faith in him, I fully agree and they'll be a lot worse in fact.  

 

I was just reading another article this morning about how our WRs are finally above average starters.  I'm not sure how people come to that conclusion.  To start, Brown has started just over half of his 72 games in five seasons, he was really only a full-time starter last season for one or more reasons.  Either way, and I've laid this out before, but he's averaged 646 yards and 4.4 TDs/season, which is only slightly below what he got last season starting 15 games.  Was that above-average starting WR production?  If so, is is something to be so optimistic about?  Are those average starting WR stats much less above-average?  All I can do is look at the numbers.  So if some think that's average I can't say, but technically it's not average for starting WRs, much less above-average.  So again, not sure where this narrative comes from. 

 

Even worse for Beasley.  He's started 22 games out of  103, barely over 20%, so if that's the standard it's not true.  He's averaged 469 yards and 3.3 TDs/season, even fewer than Brown.  I mean is that average much less above average for a starting WR?  I don't see it, and again, even if it is in one or two ways, is that cause for such hope based simply on Brown & Beasley?  They'll both have to match their best seasons ever to render it so this season.  

 

Needless to say that I agree with you, we're subpart as you said with the WRs, we simply have a few more subpar WRs to choose from.  There's hope that Foster breaks out and sheds his injury concerns, but until that happens.  

 

And I fully agree with you, they didn't do nearly what they could have at the skills for Allen, or the OL.  IMO instead of focusing on the D as they did, Oliver in particular, they should have done more to help Allen.  

 

Yea. They are really counting on Allen to improve in year 2 and raise the level of play of everyone else.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Yea. They are really counting on Allen to improve in year 2 and raise the level of play of everyone else.

 

Indeed, and on defense, given that they could have had an LT like Hilliard, they went with Oliver, so they're really counting on Oliver to improve the D too in Kyle's absence.  

 

I mean think about it, if Oliver doesn't do that, then there's no way this D is as good as last year's w/o Kyle, with Lorax at 36 and with Hughes aging, whom all pre-dated McBeane.  

 

But where will they be if Allen doesn't do that?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ronin said:

 

Indeed, and on defense, given that they could have had an LT like Hilliard, they went with Oliver, so they're really counting on Oliver to improve the D too in Kyle's absence.  

 

I mean think about it, if Oliver doesn't do that, then there's no way this D is as good as last year's w/o Kyle, with Lorax at 36 and with Hughes aging, whom all pre-dated McBeane.  

 

But where will they be if Allen doesn't do that?  

Kyle was not good last year. Edmunds should be better. And even though I think he is terrible waste of money, Murphy might give them some pass rush. Lorax will be a situational DE most of the time. He won't play any of the nickel downs as a LB. He probably only sees the field as a two down SLB against two TE sets.  

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

Kyle was not good last year. Edmunds should be better. And even though I think he is terrible waste of money, Murphy might give them some pass rush. Lorax will be a situational DE most of the time. He won't play any of the nickel downs as a LB. He probably only sees the field as a two down SLB against two TE sets.  

 

I thought that Kyle played pretty well given the circumstances.  I don't think that he was much worse than most of our defensive players.  Either way, to log 5 sacks, and not all agasint sorry teams and QBs, in his farewell season, that's an accomplishment.  

 

Love Edmunds, he will be better but he's still young, remember, he was the youngest player in the league last season.  Murphy was a waste of money and a contract.  Lorax will be 36 for whatever that means.  

 

Oliver's the wild-card in the D this season.  There's not a whole lot of reason for hope after him on D.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ronin said:

 

Indeed, and on defense, given that they could have had an LT like Hilliard, they went with Oliver, so they're really counting on Oliver to improve the D too in Kyle's absence.  

 

I mean think about it, if Oliver doesn't do that, then there's no way this D is as good as last year's w/o Kyle, with Lorax at 36 and with Hughes aging, whom all pre-dated McBeane.  

 

But where will they be if Allen doesn't do that?  

 

Probably 6-10 or 7-9.  A lot is riding on Allen, and more than on Oliver, IMO.  Wouldn't be good for McD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get to the playoffs and win at least ONE playoff game which we haven't done since 1995 give him a 3 year extension. If we go to the Super Bowl, give him a 5 year extension. If we win the Super Bowl, give him a 10 year extension. If we have 6 wins or less especially if it's 4 games or less, then fire him 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Happy Gilmore said:

 

Probably 6-10 or 7-9.  A lot is riding on Allen, and more than on Oliver, IMO.  Wouldn't be good for McD.

 

No, it wouldn't be, I'm not sure how they can survive in their roles if Allen doesn't work out.  They won't be given another three years and after that Peterman debacle, people would really challenge their ability to even effectively address the QB situation. 

 

I can see us logging anywhere from 3 or 4 wins to maybe as many as 7 or 8 given the ease of the schedule and with some fortune in terms of injuries (going both ways) and circumstances otherwise.  The Pats have the second easiest schedule in the league, which means that after playing them twice ours is even easier.  The NFCE isn't exactly formidable, the AFCN is good, but Denver and Tennessee are not.   

 

The thing is that we typically split with the Fins and Jets, over the past four seasons we're a perfect .500 against them, under McD we're 5-3 with the extra win coming at Miami's expense.  So figure a split there again in every likelihood, dropping two against the Pats, figuring a split against the NFCE, and I'm thinking 1-3 vs. the AFCN.  That's 5-9 with games vs. Tennessee and Denver otherwise.  

 

The teams that I'd say are better than us are the Pats, Steelers, Bengals, Browns, Ravens, Dallas, and the Eagles.  Teams that I'd say are about where we are or worse are the Jets, Fins, Denver, Titans, Giants, and Skins.  Obviously you don't always beat those teams or lose to the former group.  

 

We'll see.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ronin said:

 

Indeed, and on defense, given that they could have had an LT like Hilliard, they went with Oliver, so they're really counting on Oliver to improve the D too in Kyle's absence.  

 

I mean think about it, if Oliver doesn't do that, then there's no way this D is as good as last year's w/o Kyle, with Lorax at 36 and with Hughes aging, whom all pre-dated McBeane.  

 

But where will they be if Allen doesn't do that?  

 

You mean Dillard. 

13 hours ago, Ronin said:

Oliver's the wild-card in the D this season.  There's not a whole lot of reason for hope after him on D.  

 

What about still having one of the best secondaries in the NFL? What about having young talent in Edmunds and Milano at linebacker? No reasons for optimism there? The ageing of the edge rushers - Hughes and Lorax is a legitimate concern, as is the lack of depth behind them, but beyond that there is a lot to like on defense. 

 

I don't disagree with you that a lot is riding on Josh. And if they turn out to have got the Josh Allen decision wrong it will ultimately get them fired (whether after this season or next) That is the NFL. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ronin said:

The teams that I'd say are better than us are the Pats, Steelers, Bengals, Browns, Ravens, Dallas, and the Eagles.  Teams that I'd say are about where we are or worse are the Jets, Fins, Denver, Titans, Giants, and Skins.  Obviously you don't always beat those teams or lose to the former group.  

 

We'll see.  

 

I am certain we will be better than the Bengals. I think they will be one of the worst teams in the NFL. I think we are probably better than the Ravens this year too (though Harbaugh is such a good coach he often gets more than he should out of that team). The Eagles are better than us but we get them at home and I think that is a 50-50 game. Pats x2 and then Steelers, Browns and Cowboys on the road are the ones I have circled as the 5 most likely losses. I think Bengals, Fish x2, Giants and Skins are the 5 most likely wins. Then the other games are the ones that are in the pot and will ultimately decide our fate. 

 

Of course it is never that easy. But that is the way I see the schedule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...