What Did McDermott Mean By Saying “We Let Too Many Leaders Out of The Building” in Carolina

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

2 minutes ago, Bob in STL said:

Probably more than a few.  Leadership should never be underestimated.   It would be great if the leadership came from the core starting players but the Bills team development is just 3 years and not there yet.  Think back to Kelly, Hull, Talley, Smith - it took years for them to fully take the reins as leaders.    
 

Allen, Edmunds and other in the young core are still very young to take that role on.   They learn it from guys like Lorenzo, DiMarco, Gore, etc.  

 

..good points......respect/leadership MUST be earned and not commanded...Management 101.........

[jkeerie]

1 hour ago, ScottLaw said:

It’s also a coaching staff that forced Nathan Peterman into the lineup numerous times. 

You are correct.  No one will argue that Peterman was bad.   However, we all saw that Peterman looked great in the preseason.  You would think the Peterman we saw the previous season in San Diego had matured.  Josh wasn't ready.  We traded McCarron.

 

Peterman was given the opportunity to shine and it was a disaster.  McD knew.  He just wasn't going to throw the guy under the bus in front of the press.  So Josh played and learned on the job.

 

I trust McD and I trust Beane.  They are learning from mistakes and have put together a solid team.  I have no doubt they will find the right blend of players.

[Happy]

2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Look, Smith wouldn't be on the field for 30% of the offensive snaps if Daboll didn't believe he contributed value in games - at least, more value than anyone else on the team right now, he wouldn't be on the field.  It's that simple.  His value does not lie in his catch percentage (80%, 4 of 5) his TD (1) or his 1st downs (2).  He's also on the field for ~1 of 5 ST snaps.

 

Dimarco's snap counts have fallen on ST (>50% last year, 37% in 2019) but that's principally why he's on the team.  He played 17% of the offensive snaps.  Again,  if the coaches didn't think he brought value to the field, he wouldn't be on it.

 

If lining DiMarco up as a wide out and sending him on routes 20 or 30 yards down field to act as a WR is value...I'm at a loss as to what value is.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

7 minutes ago, Happy Gilmore said:

 

If lining DiMarco up as a wide out and sending him on routes 20 or 30 yards down field to act as a WR is value...I'm at a loss as to what value is.

 

Excuse me.  You are responding to a post pointing out that DiMarco's value in the team is ST.  Don't you think it's a little disingenous to mention WR then say "I'm at a loss as to what value is"?  It was just explained: 50% of the snaps on ST last year, ST captain.  37% this year. 

 

You're sticking your fingers in your ears going "LALALAL" and fixating on one or two plays which are fine examples of Daboll being too cute IMO and trying to make a play happen by trying to fake out the defense, using a player in an unexpected way.  Sometimes it works (Brown pass to Allen, Brown pass to Singletary, TD to Dawkins, TD to Smith), but Crennel and Houston clearly weren't fooled and then the poor outcome is having a lesser skilled player positioned to make a play that our best skill players might have managed.

 

But those aren't DiMarco's value to the team and that was just explained, so why you're "at a loss" is a mystery.

[Mr. WEO]

55 minutes ago, Bob in STL said:

Probably more than a few.  Leadership should never be underestimated.   It would be great if the leadership came from the core starting players but the Bills team development is just 3 years and not there yet.  Think back to Kelly, Hull, Talley, Smith - it took years for them to fully take the reins as leaders.    
 

Allen, Edmunds and other in the young core are still very young to take that role on.   They learn it from guys like Lorenzo, DiMarco, Gore, etc.  

 

no one is underestimating leadership.  The opposite is happening.  

[Happy]

3 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Excuse me.  You are responding to a post pointing out that DiMarco's value in the team is ST.  Don't you think it's a little disingenous to mention WR then say "I'm at a loss as to what value is"?  It was just explained: 50% of the snaps on ST last year, ST captain.  37% this year. 

 

You're sticking your fingers in your ears going "LALALAL" and fixating on one or two plays which are fine examples of Daboll being too cute IMO and trying to make a play happen by trying to fake out the defense, using a player in an unexpected way.  Sometimes it works (Brown pass to Allen, Brown pass to Singletary, TD to Dawkins, TD to Smith), but Crennel and Houston clearly weren't fooled and then the poor outcome is having a lesser skilled player positioned to make a play that our best skill players might have managed.

 

But those aren't DiMarco's value to the team and that was just explained, so why you're "at a loss" is a mystery.

 

I was separating DiMarco on offense and DiMarco on SpT.  DiMarco may be fine on SpT, but he shouldn't even get the one or two chances for Daboll to get too cute, that is my point; though you rephrased it.  I don't think I am being disingenuous at all when implying that DiMarco shouldn't be on offense, hence the WR comment.

[Bob in STL]

13 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Excuse me.  You are responding to a post pointing out that DiMarco's value in the team is ST.  Don't you think it's a little disingenous to mention WR then say "I'm at a loss as to what value is"?  It was just explained: 50% of the snaps on ST last year, ST captain.  37% this year. 

 

You're sticking your fingers in your ears going "LALALAL" and fixating on one or two plays which are fine examples of Daboll being too cute IMO and trying to make a play happen by trying to fake out the defense, using a player in an unexpected way.  Sometimes it works (Brown pass to Allen, Brown pass to Singletary, TD to Dawkins, TD to Smith), but Crennel and Houston clearly weren't fooled and then the poor outcome is having a lesser skilled player positioned to make a play that our best skill players might have managed.

 

But those aren't DiMarco's value to the team and that was just explained, so why you're "at a loss" is a mystery.

Right on.  Most Bills fans know that Dimarco’s value was ST play,  locker room leadership,  and professional manner in which he prepares himself.   
 

You can’t blame the player for the decision to throw a bomb to the fullback.  
 

I trust McD to decide if DiMarco can still contribute enough to earn a spot on the roster.  
 

Edited January 18, 2020 by Bob in STL

[Billl]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

It's obvious McD thinks that these guys bring value.  The discussion is whether that thinking is useful anymore, given the results.  This is a coaching staff that didn't think their most dynamic player not named Josh Allen only deserved 13 touches in a playoff game.

Who is that?  Singletary had 19 touches when you include his season high 6 receptions.  He averaged just under 14 per game on the season.

[Ga boy]

3 hours ago, Niagara Dude said:

The problem with that comment is that team went to the Super Bowl and his team has not even won a playoff game so we don't have the talent at this point.  You need to gas loser players like Kroft/Muphy/Dimarco/Lee Smith.  These are Sean type of players,  good guys with zero talent and not going to help you win against good teams.

 

Sign a couple of high end free agents and win some playoff games,  right the Bills are a team that had very easy schedule and still needs show they can beat playoff good teams.  

 

Yes i agree,  Sean needs to look at the teams they beat this season and the teams they lost to.  He needs better talent to beat the better teams.  

Very simple fix to beat Ravens, Texans, Chiefs, and Pats:  keep everyone (except Gore), add edge rusher, right tackle, and more of Singletary.  Also, add a #1 WR if we want to get to the Super Bowl.  Drop the mic.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Leaders do bring value when they are in the prime of their careers.  
 

It’s a Captain obvious moment 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 minutes ago, Happy Gilmore said:

 

I was separating DiMarco on offense and DiMarco on SpT.  DiMarco may be fine on SpT, but he shouldn't even get the one or two chances for Daboll to get too cute, that is my point; though you rephrased it.  I don't think I am being disingenuous at all when implying that DiMarco shouldn't be on offense, hence the WR comment.

 

Fair enough, though you didn't state that or mention "value on offense" just "value".  DiMarco's value on offense would be blocking, though he has had a couple good plays.

 

It's not on DiMarco if Daboll does Dumb Things in his playcalling at times.   If he didn't have DiMarco, he'd have just found another player to do Dumb Things with.  The thing is, his gadgets have worked for us in some key situations and games.

 

It's my hope that Daboll is using gadgets to compensate for a lack of depth in skill position talent, and that if he gets more of the latter he'll do less of the former.  I only hope that Beane will successfully Make it So.

[Lurker]

4 hours ago, eball said:

I think in order to interpret McD's remark about Carolina one would need to look specifically at the roster changes from the Super Bowl year to the next and then see what conclusions might be drawn.  I'm not willing to do that but it seems like the logical place to start.

 

 

 

Doing a quick eyeball, the 2016 Pathers starting defense lost DE Jared Allen (33 yrs old, 187 NFL games), LB Charles Tilman (34 yrs old, 168 NFL games), SS Roman Harper (33 yrs old, 156 NFL games) and, as somebody else mentioned, CB Josh Norman (28 yrs old, 111 NFL Games).   That's a lot of veteran leadership...

[Punching Bag]

2 hours ago, Dave Allen said:

Veteran leaders/ process guys have a value that extends past what we see them do on the field. If they're in the locker room teaching the young'uns how to be process guys also, then they are worth the extra money. There were several other teams that had more talent (on paper) and couldn't/wouldn't step up because they had no culture, no leadership (coughcoughdallascough). That's what leadership is worth. 

 

I agree about leadership (coughcoughbrownscough).

[Happy]

3 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Fair enough, though you didn't state that or mention "value on offense" just "value".  DiMarco's value on offense would be blocking, though he has had a couple good plays.

 

It's not on DiMarco if Daboll does Dumb Things in his playcalling at times.   If he didn't have DiMarco, he'd have just found another player to do Dumb Things with.  The thing is, his gadgets have worked for us in some key situations and games.

 

It's my hope that Daboll is using gadgets to compensate for a lack of depth in skill position talent, and that if he gets more of the latter he'll do less of the former.  I only hope that Beane will successfully Make it So.

 

My post wasn't clearly worded, something I need to keep in mind.

 

Second paragraph is very true.

 

We should ALL hope that better skill position talent leads to fewer DiMarco (and whoever else) cute/gimmick plays.  I really believe these cute/gimmick (to the point of being dumb) are all Daboll.  McD doesn't seem like the type of coach that would come up with that himself, even if he knew offense.  For example, I honestly believe John Harbaugh reigned in Greg Roman and told him how the offense should look like and what he wants to see regarding Lamar Jackson.  As a HC, McD needs to get to that point so he can tell Daboll what the offense should look like (i.e. identity); McD is no where close to being able to do this.  So it is going to come down to Josh Allen's development in conjunction with better talent to make the offense more viable.  Maybe that's the plan, though the stupid cutesie plays need to go away...McD can at least do that. 

[snafu]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

How many process (only) guys are on the 49ers?  Chiefs?  Titans?

 

 

Conversely, there are teams with talent that could probably use process (only) guys.  Cleveland and Dallas are two examples I can think of. 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

What other coaching staff would have looked at Smith ans DiMarco and thought they were still capable of producing?

 

Swap these guys out of their spotless game day unis and put them in Underarmour polo shirts and khakis and call them Offensive Efficiency Assistant Coaches.

 

Go get some playmakers.

 

 

 

If you’re a young kid or a fresh FA, are you going to listen more to the guy wearing khakis and a polo shirt, or more to the guys who are practicing alongside you and traveling with you to road games, etc.?  These process guys don’t need to be playmakers.  There’s enough room on the roster for both.  Eventually, if you have playmakers at every position, you’ve got to leave many of them on the sideline.

 

I agree that it would be better to have process guys who have more talent, but that’s a luxury. You’d have to pay them more money and then be left with less to spend on more talented playmakers.

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

17 minutes ago, Billl said:

Who is that?  Singletary had 19 touches when you include his season high 6 receptions.  He averaged just under 14 per game on the season.

Sorry.  Meant carries.  In a game where the D was pitching a shutout more than halfway through the 3rd, the coaching staff decided they would shut Singletary down. For the rest of the 3rd, 4th and OT, Singletary touched the ball 3 times 

 

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

 

Conversely, there are teams with talent that could probably use process (only) guys.  Cleveland and Dallas are two examples I can think of. 

 

 

 

 

If you’re a young kid or a fresh FA, are you going to listen more to the guy wearing khakis and a polo shirt, or more to the guys who are practicing alongside you and traveling with you to road games, etc.?  These process guys don’t need to be playmakers.  There’s enough room on the roster for both.  Eventually, if you have playmakers at every position, you’ve got to leave many of them on the sideline.

 

I agree that it would be better to have process guys who have more talent, but that’s a luxury. You’d have to pay them more money and then be left with less to spend on more talented playmakers.

 

 

Dallas has lots of leaders/vets.  They didn’t have adequate coaching. Most teams probably do.  Few of any others import them just for that. Hire is the exception.  He’s a HOFer.  Smith and DiMarco are JAGs.  Better vets could lead as well I bet.

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

It’s also a coaching staff that forced Nathan Peterman into the lineup numerous times. 

I was having mercy on them not to bring up that legendary head scratcher.

[snafu]

6 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Better vets could lead as well I bet.

 

That presumes that any vet is a leader. 

 

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

That presumes that any vet is a leader. 

 

it also presumed Smith and DiMarco are

[snafu]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

it also presumed Smith and DiMarco are

 

I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say they’re not. Im presuming that they’re leaders if their talent level is lower than most replacements. Otherwise they have zero value, yet have been retained on this team.  I agree that each guy could be upgraded, talent-wise.  It will be a lot easier to upgrade them once the young players become young veterans and can take over whatever leadership roles that Smith and DiMarco bring.  It’s a process.

 

[Formerly Allan in MD]

12 hours ago, Phil The Thrill said:

The danger there of course, is that at times late in the season and playoffs Frank Gore was hurting this football team.  While he made many big contributions off the field (most with Singletary), there were times that many of us groaned  each time he slammed into the pile for a 1 yard gain on 1st and 10.  Gore reminds me of another process guy Mike “Pooh Bear” Tolbert.   

Gore is deeply insulted that you'd compare him to Mike Tolbert.

[Mr. WEO]

4 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say they’re not. Im presuming that they’re leaders if their talent level is lower than most replacements. Otherwise they have zero value, yet have been retained on this team.  I agree that each guy could be upgraded, talent-wise.  It will be a lot easier to upgrade them once the young players become young veterans and can take over whatever leadership roles that Smith and DiMarco bring.  It’s a process.

 

Honestly,  what would anyone on the team say otherwise? “I don’t know why these guys are still on the team”?

 

one of the points being made is that this coaching staff doesn’t make the best decisions regarding offensive roster and play calling.  

2 minutes ago, Formerly Allan in MD said:

Gore is deeply insulted that you'd compare him to Mike Tolbert.

lol...Mike Tolbert.  Jeez 

[Marvlevydraftdaygenius]

12 hours ago, Phil The Thrill said:

One line from McDermott’s press conference seemed to stick with me.  When asked about the past with Carolina, he said this:
 

“On of the things that happened when we came off the Super Bowl in Carolina was, lessons that we learned… we let too many of the leaders out of the building. Some of that happens with retirement and other reasons that come with age. But overall, that’s part of what I meant with keeping as much of this team in-tact as possible. Each year and each team is different, but you give yourself a better chance with the more that you keep a team in-tact.”

How do you interpret that quote?

 

To me, it says that he wants as many process guys on the team as possible.  And while fans may complain about the Frank Gores, Lee Smiths, and Patrick DiMarcos - I don’t think any of these players (sans Gore) are going anywhere.

 

The danger there of course, is that at times late in the season and playoffs Frank Gore was hurting this football team.  While he made many big contributions off the field (most with Singletary), there were times that many of us groaned  each time he slammed into the pile for a 1 yard gain on 1st and 10.  Gore reminds me of another process guy Mike “Pooh Bear” Tolbert.    
 

I think the larger point is that he wants to keep this team together, but to what extent? Clearly he can’t keep everyone and there are some positions that need upgrades.  What do you make of his speech?

 

Gore is at the same stage as Eddie George was when the cowboys picked up Eddie he was on the downside of his career and I remember when they would had the ball off to George to end games even with the crowd yelling Eddie, Eddie he would just get tackled in the backfield or run into the line for 1 yard same as Gore.

[snafu]

3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Honestly,  what would anyone on the team say otherwise? “I don’t know why these guys are still on the team”?

 

one of the points being made is that this coaching staff doesn’t make the best decisions regarding offensive roster and play calling.  

 

Play calling is irrelevant to the discussion, though it is important to use the players correctly. This is really only about the roster. 

Less talented, role-playing “leaders” on a team aren’t a bad thing. They’re better to have around than less talented “followers” (or worse).

 

[Cripple Creek]

1 hour ago, Billl said:

Who is that?  Singletary had 19 touches when you include his season high 6 receptions.  He averaged just under 14 per game on the season.

How many carries did he have after the Bills lead was its largest?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

27 minutes ago, Happy Gilmore said:

We should ALL hope that better skill position talent leads to fewer DiMarco (and whoever else) cute/gimmick plays.  I really believe these cute/gimmick (to the point of being dumb) are all Daboll.  McD doesn't seem like the type of coach that would come up with that himself, even if he knew offense.  For example, I honestly believe John Harbaugh reigned in Greg Roman and told him how the offense should look like and what he wants to see regarding Lamar Jackson.  As a HC, McD needs to get to that point so he can tell Daboll what the offense should look like (i.e. identity); McD is no where close to being able to do this.  So it is going to come down to Josh Allen's development in conjunction with better talent to make the offense more viable.  Maybe that's the plan, though the stupid cutesie plays need to go away...McD can at least do that. 

 

Just curious: why do you say this? 

 

Any good defensive coach with a clear vision of a defense he wants to build (and McDermott is that) should have a vision of an offense he doesn't want to see across from him.

 

I think McDermott believes the coaches he's hired have earned the right to succeed at their roles.  He steps in only when he sees it going down a wrong road. 

 

I think he did intervene after the Cleveland game, which saw a career-high number of pass attempts and a season-low number of rushing yards.  I think they had a discussion which was probably not McD saying "do this, do that" but probably more like McDermott asking questions.  As a result of that, Daboll moved to the booth, the Bills came out for the next 4 weeks in a hurry-up offense keeping the same personnel on the field, and the result was a season-high 3 game rolling average of 28 ppg.

 

Then we hit the Ravens game where the same strategy was a dismal fail, and probably there was a discussion yeah, OK, you do need to mix in the better blocking receivers and such, and McDermott stepped back again.

 

Hopefully all 3 are in lockstep that they need a significant upgrade in offensive talent, and we'll get that.  Hopefully also McDermott will make time to sit down with Daboll, not to give him orders on what the offense should look like (because he should bring in another OC if that's what he needs to do) but to go over the offensive play calling giving him the perspective of a defensive coach, to help him improve his sequence and strategies.

 

[Phil The Thrill]

12 hours ago, mattynh said:

Lee smith is a leader. ..... in penalties per play

Your joke is actually sport on.  He led all TE’s in penalties with 8

[Phil The Thrill]

3 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

It’s also a coaching staff that forced Nathan Peterman into the lineup numerous times. 

Scott loves living in the past

[Hapless Bills Fan]

16 minutes ago, Phil The Thrill said:

Your joke is actually sport on.  He led all TE’s in penalties with 8

 

This is actually very interesting when you look under the hood. 

 

Smith's penalties this year are almost evenly split between false start and offensive holding (he actually had 9 penalties, but one was declined by the D).  His most recent penalties were vs. Cleveland, week 10.  Was not assessed a penalty since that time.

 

So I looked at his snap count - I knew he had scarcely played on offense during the hurry-up games, and his snap count did drop. 

But he played 20% of the snaps vs Dallas, 48% vs NE, 23% vs NYJ, and 29% vs Hou, which is getting back towards what he played mid-season.  He also played substantial ST snaps.

 

No penalties at all.

[Ethan in Cleveland]

The process won't matter if they don't win games. Keeping Gore over McCoy was a mistake. McCoy was a fine team guy. What leadership does a fullback bring to a team? Who is he going to lead? Smith might have some value to a young Knox but he has no place in modern NFL. Much better to keep an extra swing tackle than a blocking TE. 

[ColoradoBills]

14 hours ago, Phil The Thrill said:

One line from McDermott’s press conference seemed to stick with me.  When asked about the past with Carolina, he said this:
 

“On of the things that happened when we came off the Super Bowl in Carolina was, lessons that we learned… we let too many of the leaders out of the building. Some of that happens with retirement and other reasons that come with age. But overall, that’s part of what I meant with keeping as much of this team in-tact as possible. Each year and each team is different, but you give yourself a better chance with the more that you keep a team in-tact.”

How do you interpret that quote?

 

To me, it says that he wants as many process guys on the team as possible.  And while fans may complain about the Frank Gores, Lee Smiths, and Patrick DiMarcos - I don’t think any of these players (sans Gore) are going anywhere.

 

The danger there of course, is that at times late in the season and playoffs Frank Gore was hurting this football team.  While he made many big contributions off the field (most with Singletary), there were times that many of us groaned  each time he slammed into the pile for a 1 yard gain on 1st and 10.  Gore reminds me of another process guy Mike “Pooh Bear” Tolbert.    
 

I think the larger point is that he wants to keep this team together, but to what extent? Clearly he can’t keep everyone and there are some positions that need upgrades.  What do you make of his speech?

 

 

I take McDermott's quote literally.  Literally he said TOO MANY leaders were let out of the building.

That doesn't mean (to me at least) that all "room leader" are going to be safe and stay.

 

Gore was already mentioned.  He won't be on the roster.

 

Lee Smith was brought in this year to be a leader in the TE room.  We don't know what the final grade on him is, do we?

I don't think Smith is a 100% lock on making the final 53 next season.  I see him probably going to camp but who's to say

whether or not Beane and McDermott bring in someone to take his place.  We all know he has had his issues this year so

I see no reason why this could not happen.

 

Leadership is a definite need BUT leadership is always needing changes/rotation.

 

Also, I like to bring up something Brandon Beane said in his end of season presser (or it might have been the WGR interview later

in the day), but Beane said (and I'm paraphrasing) that vets, especially ones friendly with the coaching staff are not immune to

being moved IF their play is not up to acceptable standards.

He commented that "just because your good friends and go to dinner with the coaches, that doesn't guarantee you a spot".

I thought it was very interesting he said that and it hasn't been commented on by the board.

 

I think Beane's comment balances the opinion that it's all "only about the process guys" that some fans believe to be true.

[Happy]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Just curious: why do you say this? 

 

Based on the player personnel that is on the roster and in relation to the offense strengths.  For example, if we got a WR1 who has a chance of being the next Julio Jones, there should be plays to focus on that player and he should be in on the majority of snaps and targeted often.  Likewise if we get a Derrick Henry type RB, we should be running the ball more often between Singletary and the new RB.  What we shouldn't be doing is targeting Pat DiMarco on a 30 yard pass, or running Frank Gore around the tackle because no other team would ever suspect we'd do such a thing.   If McD replaces Daboll as the play caller (doubt this happens, though) this could be a moot point.  What I was getting at it John Harbaugh kept Grep Roman on the straight and narrow focusing on Lamar's strengths and not doing cute/outsmart yourself type things, I suspect Daboll needs the same.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, ColoradoBills said:

Lee Smith was brought in this year to be a leader in the TE room.  We don't know what the final grade on him is, do we?

I don't think Smith is a 100% lock on making the final 53 next season.  I see him probably going to camp but who's to say

whether or not Beane and McDermott bring in someone to take his place.  We all know he has had his issues this year so

I see no reason why this could not happen.

 

I commented elsewhere that interestingly enough, Lee Smith's penalties stopped after Cleveland when McDermott called him out in his presser.  So there's that.

 

One interesting feature of Smith and of Kroft's contracts is that they both feature roster bonuses and guarantees that kick in on the 5th day of the league year.

Smith's isn't too much.  He has (I think) $1.5M guaranteed salary plus a $500,000 bonus due on the 5th day.  Kroft gets a $750,000 roster bonus PLUS $2M of salary that converts from injury guarantee to full guarantee.

 

Quote

Also, I like to bring up something Brandon Beane said in his end of season presser (or it might have been the WGR interview later

in the day), but Beane said (and I'm paraphrasing) that vets, especially ones friendly with the coaching staff are not immune to

being moved IF their play is not up to acceptable standards. 

He commented that "just because your good friends and go to dinner with the coaches, that doesn't guarantee you a spot".

I thought it was very interesting he said that and it hasn't been commented on by the board.

 

That's very interesting.  I don't think it was in the end of season presser.  I wonder who he's talking about.

 

1 hour ago, Happy Gilmore said:

Based on the player personnel that is on the roster and in relation to the offense strengths.  For example, if we got a WR1 who has a chance of being the next Julio Jones, there should be plays to focus on that player and he should be in on the majority of snaps and targeted often.  Likewise if we get a Derrick Henry type RB, we should be running the ball more often between Singletary and the new RB.  What we shouldn't be doing is targeting Pat DiMarco on a 30 yard pass, or running Frank Gore around the tackle because no other team would ever suspect we'd do such a thing.   If McD replaces Daboll as the play caller (doubt this happens, though) this could be a moot point.  What I was getting at it John Harbaugh kept Grep Roman on the straight and narrow focusing on Lamar's strengths and not doing cute/outsmart yourself type things, I suspect Daboll needs the same.

 

OK, I don't disagree at all, but I'm a bit confused how you get there from here:

"As a HC, McD needs to get to that point so he can tell Daboll what the offense should look like (i.e. identity); McD is no where close to being able to do this. 

 

I'm not sure why you feel McD is not able to tell Daboll what the offense should look like in terms of identity, right here and now?  Are you thinking it's because the talent isn't strong enough, so to some extent McDermott knows Daboll must use gimmicks to make up for gaps in talent? 

 

I'm thinking that whatever the talent level is, Daboll needs a "Come to Jesus" meeting where McDermott explains the DC perspective: at the end of the game when the other team knows we just need a FG to win it, they don't care if we send Pat DiMarco, Lee Smith, or Dion Dawkins 30 yds downfield they're going to cover them like gloves.  Down near the goal line, the defense isn't gonna wait to see if you're sending Frank Gore running around the tackle, the minute they see the ball they're gonna jump on him and your gimmick has no prayer.  etc etc etc.

[Happy]

6 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

OK, I don't disagree at all, but I'm a bit confused how you get there from here:

"As a HC, McD needs to get to that point so he can tell Daboll what the offense should look like (i.e. identity); McD is no where close to being able to do this. 

 

I'm not sure why you feel McD is not able to tell Daboll what the offense should look like in terms of identity, right here and now?

 

McD should be able to, for sure.  After all, he's Daboll's boss.  But is he?  I suspect McD does not, or cannot, define the offense like a Harbaugh or Belichick, for example.  I don't think he knows enough about offense to be able to do so.  I think he's still learning how to be a HC. to be honest, so Daboll has a lot of leeway.

[Watkins90]

I never really thought go was that ineffective when used properly. He could pop off 9-yard runs pretty consistently. It's just that he needed to come off the field as soon as he popped one off because going right back to him on the next play was a disaster. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Happy Gilmore said:

McD should be able to, for sure.  After all, he's Daboll's boss.  But is he?  I suspect McD does not, or cannot, define the offense like a Harbaugh or Belichick, for example.  I don't think he knows enough about offense to be able to do so.  I think he's still learning how to be a HC. to be honest, so Daboll has a lot of leeway.

 

I hate to sound like a total downer, which I'm about to, but if McDermott doesn't know enough about offense to be able to provide overarching direction to his OC, I think we're kind of doomed.  So I hope you're incorrect. 

[BringBackFlutie]

19 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I think it means that the folks posting stuff about all the cuts and surprise cuts we're going to see to save cap room and hire 3 big splashy FA are gonna be hella sad in March.

 

I think it means just what he said - they try to have vet players in every room who interpret the coach's message for the team but who may not be the best players on the team or the best players available.   McDermott wants Beane to make a push to sign FA's like Shaq Lawson and Jordan Phillips (and/or Corey Liuget, if he thinks he's contributed and shown leadership).  I think it means he expects to keep guys who are under contract like DiMarco and Roberts (for ST) and Smith around.  The only way he cuts those guys is if they bring in a veteran who seems to bring what he regards as equivalent leadership.

 

There are some guys like 'Zo who have retired and others like Gore who really should retire.    That's what he means by "some of that happens with retirement and other reasons that come with age"

 

Don't expect him to be going along with cutting or trading any proven veterans like Poyer because we have promising youngsters, before he sees that those youngsters have indeed stepped up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To word it a bit differently (but basically the same point), I think it means that you don't constantly turn over and start rookies.  You balance your homegrown, experienced talent with new talent and try not to turn over too much, because it's like having to teach everything all over again and you don't make progress that way.  I think Beane's management of the salary cap also allows this, where GMs of Bills past (or Gettleman) were not as able to accommodate.

[BringBackFlutie]

30 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Beane also said something to the effect of they’ll look to FA to sign players better then their current starters.... which tells me they’ll make a “big” signing or two. 

He did?  I thought he looks to free agency to fill holes.  But I suppose that can be seen as upgrading.  I always think of it as he looks for big upgrades in the draft and minor upgrades in FA.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

15 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

Beane also said something to the effect of they’ll look to FA to sign players better then their current starters.... which tells me they’ll make a “big” signing or two. 

 

That could also mean replacing the weakest starters which wouldn't require much of a splash signing.  Positions like RT (assuming Ford kicks inside), #2 CB, #2 WR could just as easily sign a second tier guy and still see an improvement. 

[MJS]

On 1/18/2020 at 6:19 AM, papazoid said:

leaders  = process guys

 

that means they are worth paying  a little extra.. .

 

having said that...this is a cold ruthless business

 

gore, lee smith and dimarco are all gone !!... deservedly so

And what has you thinking the coaches are unhappy with DiMarco?