What would need to occur to extend or fire McDermott?

[GunnerBill]

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. 

[XABI64]

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

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

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....

[LSHMEAB]

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.

[Ronin]

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.  

 

 

 

 

[Ronin]

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.  

[BigBuff423]

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.

[Ronin]

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.  

 

[Ronin]

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.  

[GunnerBill]

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. 

[Ronin]

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?  

[Ethan in Cleveland]

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.  

[Ronin]

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.  

[Happy]

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.

[Buffalo03]

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 

[Ronin]

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.  

[GunnerBill]

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. 

 

[GunnerBill]

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. 

[Ronin]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

You mean Dillard. 

 

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. 

 

 

LOL, yes, Dillard, I do that all the time.  I'm sure I'll keep doing it.  

 

Keep in mind that teams are still, unless something has changed, built from the lines outward.  A great secondary is good to have, but it's no replacement for an equally good front-7.  Otherwise, the players that you mention, A, were here last season so there's no change.  Sure, we can expect improvement form Edmunds, as I've chimed in, I fully expect Edmunds to be Kuechly-like in a couple of seasons and a premier MLB.  Milano, who knows, but if we had a dollar for every time we heard that a player was going to improve upon a rookie or soph year and didn't, ...   Those could very well be offset by dimishment in Lorax's and Hughes' play, we don't know, but it's fairly safe to say that that group overall isn't going to be a huge difference on its own.  We definitely need an infusion of talent and a pass rush.  Absolutely none of McBeane's players brought in have added to that signiifcantly and to levels that will make out pass-rush above-average much less stellar. 

 

Also, there's a whole lot of talk about Milano and how great he is, look, he's good, I'd put him at above-average, and he was a fantastic 5th-round pick, but let's not get ahead of ourselves, he's hardly Von Miller either.  A pleasant surprise but still, no premier or impact player.  In two seasons, 18 starts, he's got 1 sack, so he hasn't really been a boon to our pass-rush either.  He seems to be good in pass coverage however.  He's been a very pleasant surprise, but let's also see if he can keep it up.  Maybe he'll improve, maybe he'll stay the same, or perhaps he'll not keep it up.  We don't know.  

 

Either way, that core was here last season, we'll see how it develops.  But I'm not sure it's wise to assume that it's going to propel us to correct what was a 30th ranked Red Zone D and 18th ranked scoring D.  Do you?  

 

I'm optimistic in Edmunds and Milano, hugely so in Edmunds per above and possibly more so than anyone here, but not at all about Lorax who's been as inconsistent as can possibly be during his stint here.  I've pointed this out numerous times before, but Lorax came on with a bang for us logging 10 sacks in his first 9 games here, but after that he finished that season with 2.5 sacks in his last 7 games.  In '17 he posted 3 sacks in 16 games for 5.5 sacks in his last 23 games at the time.  He began last season with 1 sack in his first 5 games for 6.5 sacks in that stretch of 28 games.  He then had a stretch where he posted 5.5 sacks in 7 games again before finishing the season with 0 sacks in any of his last four games.  Inconsistency has been the operative term regarding him.  And remember, he was considering retirement last season, I'm not sure that there's much basis for optimism at the age of 36.  He's trending downard, not upward like Edmunds.  So is Hughes.  

 

As far as Hughes, if we're living in 2013 & 2014, yes, perhaps I'm optimistic, but we're not.  For a DE that's averaged a mere 5.5 sacks/season over the past four seasons, and with that as his primary role, I'm not sure I'd say I'm "optimistic."   He'll nail down one DE position with still a huge weakness at the other DE position, and he'll do it until his contract expires following the 2021 season.  

 

That's how I view it.  

[Ronin]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

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. 

 

Yeah, who knows right now and we haven't studied that changes that they've all made either.  Some will be better than we think while others won't.  Which bring up something else, McDermott. 

 

Last season of the 6 games we won, I'd say that we were better than the Jets, Jags, and Fins but comparable to the Titans, Lions, and Vikes.  The best team we beat in terms of record was the Titans at 9-7 which was probably overachievement for them.  Unless you're a Mariotta believer they didn't have much better talent than we did, perhaps worse.  Their top-3 WRs were Corey Davis, Taywan Taylor, and Tajae Sharpe.  Hardly inspiring.  

 

On the flip side, we also lost to the Jets, the Fins, and Green Bay which wasn't good last season.  So you never know who we'll beat and who we won't.  But if we assume that we're capable of beating teams that finish with 9 wins or fewer, as we did last season, and using last season's records, we could win 12 games, it's an easy schedule.  Besides the Pats the only two teams on our schedule that won 10 or more games were Dallas and Baltimore, both at 10-6.  It couldn't possibly, literally, be any easier.  Only 5 of our opponents ranked above-average in sack production including Denver, Washington, and Philly, and only 6 ranked above-average in INT production including Miami, Washington, Giants, and Denver.  

 

Re: McD, keep in mind that we beat the Titans and Lions by merely a point and the Jags by only 3, all three of those games were home games.  We averaged 17 points in those three games.  

 

Who knows what's going to change this season, which is why IMO predicting record is among the most difficult things to do except for teams like the Pats.  

 

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by Ronin