Jump to content

Speculative article on friction between McDermott and Staff?


Recommended Posts

Just now, eball said:

If you don’t believe Ty Dunne is all about Ty Dunne, go back and read his “inside takes” on the Rodgers/Green Bay situation last year.  He told anyone who would listen that Rodgers “would do anything possible” to get out of Green Bay prior to the season.

 

This guy is fashioning himself into a NFL drama creator.

 

He has to be all about Ty Dunne. It is literally his living. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Do people, like Dunne, use the term squib kick and pooch kick interchangably?   Because a squib kick, which had always been a kick along the ground, would certainly have been a risky call - and generally no better than what they ended up with.

 

A pooch kick that goes high and comes down at around the 10 is what should have been the call.  So, IMO, squib kick or out of end zone are no different - both bad calls.  The right play was a pooch kick.

Completely agree.....Squibs can get stopped well short of the 25. They can also go out of bounds or all the way into the endzone. The "pop up" pooch kick takes longer for the returner to receive it.  You either get a fair catch around the 10 or Hardman attempts a return using clock. Calling for a squib would've also ironically been the wrong call.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

He has to be all about Ty Dunne. It is literally his living. 

 

I don’t disagree, but he won’t be getting my money.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Turbo44 said:

I disagree. I subscribe and Tyler didn’t get into specifics on WGR as he wants to make a living. Interesting stuff from the article for those who don’t subscribe:

 

Farewell called a deep left squib quick (which he uses interchangeable for a pooch kick). McD overruled him told Bass to kick deep and this wasn’t communicated to the rest of the ST, hence the confusion. Farewell was not fired, he resigned over this. It was kept quiet so He could get another job.

 

on the 2 defensive plays, #39 was told to play exactly where he did in relation to Hill then Kelsey. Players also questioned why poyer and Hyde played 35 yards off the ball.

 

Diggs confronted the defense in the locker and almost came to blows with a defensive player before Hughes intervened. At that point McD cooled it down saying the blame is on him not on anybody else. This is the only time he ever spoke about the 13 seconds with any of the players.

 

mckenzie was not a source for this story.

 

if Tyler is making this sh*t up, he has an amazing imagination.

 

there’s probably more in the story that I’m forgetting. Just when I was getting over it this drags me back in

Cool story. Next time he should put in some car crashes and dragons to make it REALLY pop.

 

Look, if people want to believe all this drama without any proof other than "Dude trust me, I was told this happened" then that's super. As we see all across America these days people will believe anything they read without proof just to increase the sound in the echo chamber they want to hear. 

 

One thing I know for sure...when a story comes across with as much "detail" from the amount of sources it would take to put it together that all remain unnamed "sources" then about 90% of what you're reading is the authors opinions presented as resolute fact. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:


why?  If these are the things players are saying, why is it nonsense? Why wouldn’t the readership be interested in hearing this?  TD put this article out there because he thinks Bills fans who follow him are dumb?

 

Let me take a stab at showing why some think the article is disingenuous in a manner.

 

 

He starts off with what his obvious opinion and thrust of his slant for the article:

 

"Obviously, Sean McDermott owed more to the public."

 

This is obviously either bothering the writer himself, or he knows he can stoke his readership by bringing up something he knows they are upset about. But Sean McDermott doesn't owe the public an explanation. He is not a public servant. He works for the Pegulas and the NFL. Also, as a good leader, he is making sure that no one (player or coach) gets thrown under the bus. Do people really want him to point fingers? Or instead of saying, ultimately it was his responsibility/execution, did they want him to break down at the podium and say, "It's all my fault. I screwed up. Woe is me." A good leader doesn't do either of those things. A good leader handles their business internally, picks themselves up, and moves on. I just don't know what people want from him.

 

But, the real problem to me with the article is this:

 

"so many of the men who poured their blood, sweat and tears into the organization have been left completely in the dark...With those 13 seconds shrouded in mystery, players were forced to investigate themselves. Many, of course, declined to speak which is understandable considering their boss has refused to utter a word of substance on the matter. There’s little upside. But several did share their findings with Go Long on the condition of anonymity."

 

So he starts off telling us how "many" players feel...leading us to believe it is like a majority of the players. Then tells us "many" players declined to speak. So did many players feel what you said if many players declined to talk? And notice how he's amping up the animosity towards McDermott (and his feeling of the situation) with his emotionally-charged word choices (see bolded phrases above). This is what in the courtroom would be considered leading a witness (or in this case, a reader). So, after saying many players did not comment, he claims that "several did share their findings...on the condition of anonymity."  

 

Let's break that down. How many are several? The definition of several is "More than two, but not many." So, rather than that original "MANY" players he inferred he knew how they felt, we are down to maybe a small group of players. And he says the player's "share their findings" from these "investigations" that they were "forced" to make on their own. Ok, what did this small group of players conclude? What are the actual quotes that will bring us to a better understanding of what happened or what is going on? Well, Dunne offers us four quotes total from either 2, 3, or 4 players. The way they are placed in the article, it could only be two players talking, or it could be up to 4 players (definitely not "many").

 

“You preach accountability,” one player said. “But you don’t practice it.”

 

Said one player: “Everybody knew that if we just beat Kansas City, we would’ve beat any team.”

 

And another: “We definitely would’ve won the Super Bowl.” 

 

“You don’t get over,” one player said, “a game like that.”

 

The first quote is almost undoubtedly from McKenzie. The other three quotes have nothing to do with the 13 seconds or who is to be held accountable, etc. There is no investigative work here by the players or the writer. It is just what any player would say after a tough loss, or what you're expectation was. Nothing to do with McDermott or how he handled the situation then or since.

 

So, after starting off making us think that the majority of the team feels the way the writer is leading us, it all comes down to one anonymous quote, from one player. So, one player said the coach needs to practice accountability and from that we are to believe there is some kind of mutiny at One Bills Drive?

 

And with this one quote, he proves his thesis:

 

"The conclusion? This loss is on the head coach. Not the players. The coach." Who said it wasn't? Whenever you are a leader, every loss ultimately lies in your lap.

 

And why not throw a few of these in to make your readers feel the way you do about McDermott, "No coach can clap their way through this loss." "And the more you learn about this historic collapse, the more it appears the head coach once empowered as the judge, juror and executioner at One Bills Drive should be No. 3." He is trying to paint McDermott as some tyrannical leader, but gives no proof other than his own opinion and that one quote from one player.

 

 

And one last point. His whole thing that McDermott has also been closed mouth in-house again comes from Isiah, who admittedly missed the team meeting, and possibly 1-3 other players he talked to (but who didn't give him a quote about it), and who might not be high enough on the ladder to get explanations anyhow (do we really think McDermott didn't talk to say Josh, or Micah, or Jordan in their final meetings about what happened. Or that he, Frazier, Beane, and the Pegulas haven't discussed it, etc., etc.). Not saying it might not be true that McDermott was closed lip with parts of the organization (because their pay grade didn't warrant them being a part of those discussions), but this is the only other proof we get from Dunne, the following quote:

 

Everything ended very “abruptly,” one team source said.

 

So, the actual quote is "abruptly," the rest of the words are the writers. So what is the actual context to "abruptly?" We're supposed to take a one word quote from an anonymous source and extrapolate out that everyone hates McDermott or something? And who is a team source? A coach, a trainer, someone in the cafeteria? What would it really tell us anyhow unless we knew at least their position with the team.

 

It is what it is, a writer having a premise/agenda for an article, tries to find proof to back up his thesis. When there is very little to actually go on, take what little you have and make it seem like it is more, and use a lot of emotionally-charged words to direct your reader to your foregone conclusion.

 

More opinion piece, than any type of hard-hitting investigative journalism imo.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Disagree 1
  • Agree 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, folz said:

 

Let me take a stab at showing why some think the article is disingenuous in a manner.

 

 

He starts off with what his obvious opinion and thrust of his slant for the article:

 

"Obviously, Sean McDermott owed more to the public."

 

This is obviously either bothering the writer himself, or he knows he can stoke his readership by bringing up something he knows they are upset about. But Sean McDermott doesn't owe the public an explanation. He is not a public servant. He works for the Pegulas and the NFL. Also, as a good leader, he is making sure that no one (player or coach) gets thrown under the bus. Do people really want him to point fingers? Or instead of saying, ultimately it was his responsibility/execution, did they want him to break down at the podium and say, "It's all my fault. I screwed up. Woe is me." A good leader doesn't do either of those things. A good leader handles their business internally, picks themselves up, and moves on. I just don't know what people want from him.

 

But, the real problem to me with the article is this:

 

"so many of the men who poured their blood, sweat and tears into the organization have been left completely in the dark...With those 13 seconds shrouded in mystery, players were forced to investigate themselves. Many, of course, declined to speak which is understandable considering their boss has refused to utter a word of substance on the matter. There’s little upside. But several did share their findings with Go Long on the condition of anonymity."

 

So he starts off telling us how "many" players feel...leading us to believe it is like a majority of the players. Then tells us "many" players declined to speak. So did many players feel what you said if many players declined to talk? And notice how he's amping up the animosity towards McDermott (and his feeling of the situation) with his emotionally-charged word choices (see bolded phrases above). This is what in the courtroom would be considered leading a witness (or in this case, a reader). So, after saying many players did not comment, he claims that "several did share their findings...on the condition of anonymity."  

 

Let's break that down. How many are several? The definition of several is "More than two, but not many." So, rather than that original "MANY" players he inferred he knew how they felt, we are down to maybe a small group of players. And he says the player's "share their findings" from these "investigations" that they were "forced" to make on their own. Ok, what did this small group of players conclude? What are the actual quotes that will bring us to a better understanding of what happened or what is going on? Well, Dunne offers us four quotes total from either 2, 3, or 4 players. The way they are placed in the article, it could only be two players talking, or it could be up to 4 players (definitely not "many").

 

“You preach accountability,” one player said. “But you don’t practice it.”

 

Said one player: “Everybody knew that if we just beat Kansas City, we would’ve beat any team.”

 

And another: “We definitely would’ve won the Super Bowl.” 

 

“You don’t get over,” one player said, “a game like that.”

 

The first quote is almost undoubtedly from McKenzie. The other three quotes have nothing to do with the 13 seconds or who is to be held accountable, etc. There is no investigative work here by the players or the writer. It is just what any player would say after a tough loss, or what you're expectation was. Nothing to do with McDermott or how he handled the situation then or since.

 

So, after starting off making us think that the majority of the team feels the way the writer is leading us, it all comes down to one anonymous quote, from one player. So, one player said the coach needs to practice accountability and from that we are to believe there is some kind of mutiny at One Bills Drive?

 

And with this one quote, he proves his thesis:

 

"The conclusion? This loss is on the head coach. Not the players. The coach." Who said it wasn't? Whenever you are a leader, every loss ultimately lies in your lap.

 

And why not throw a few of these in to make your readers feel the way you do about McDermott, "No coach can clap their way through this loss." "And the more you learn about this historic collapse, the more it appears the head coach once empowered as the judge, juror and executioner at One Bills Drive should be No. 3." He is trying to paint McDermott as some tyrannical leader, but gives no proof other than his own opinion and that one quote from one player.

 

 

And one last point. His whole thing that McDermott has also been closed mouth in-house again comes from Isiah, who admittedly missed the team meeting, and possibly 1-3 other players he talked to (but who didn't give him a quote about it), and who might not be high enough on the ladder to get explanations anyhow (do we really think McDermott didn't talk to say Josh, or Micah, or Jordan in their final meetings about what happened. Or that he, Frazier, Beane, and the Pegulas haven't discussed it, etc., etc.). Not saying it might not be true that McDermott was closed lip with parts of the organization (because their pay grade didn't warrant them being a part of those discussions), but this is the only other proof we get from Dunne, the following quote:

 

Everything ended very “abruptly,” one team source said.

 

So, the actual quote is "abruptly," the rest of the words are the writers. So what is the actual context to "abruptly?" We're supposed to take a one word quote from an anonymous source and extrapolate out that everyone hates McDermott or something? And who is a team source? A coach, a trainer, someone in the cafeteria? What would it really tell us anyhow unless we knew at least their position with the team.

 

It is what it is, a writer having a premise/agenda for an article, tries to find proof to back up his thesis. When there is very little to actually go on, take what little you have and make it seem like it is more, and use a lot of emotionally-charged words to direct your reader to your foregone conclusion.

 

More opinion piece, than any type of hard-hitting investigative journalism imo.

How about the specific info he talked about?

 

farewell resigning not being fired

the Diggs confrontation 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bills blew a chance at a Superbowl.  It happened and I am sure there are a lot of second guessing going on by staff and players.

It's only natural to have this happen in the offseason.

 

Come OTAs none of this will amount to a hill of beans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, HereComesTheReignAgain said:

Does anyone else find stories that are completely based on anonymous quotes really annoying?  You can say anything that you want, and simply state that you have sources that didn't want to be named.  

My guess is the single source is Mckittrick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

Dunne just said the kickoff team was told squib left and bass kicked it deep. There were 126 seconds and he doesn’t know if McDermott overruled it or if Farwell didn’t get the message to bass. He says you can draw conclusions. 

 

In my view that KO was irrelevant as I can see not allowing a return. Shades of the MCM.

 

My problem was with that "prevent defense" after the kick as all it did was prevent the win.  

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

I do agree his wording was poor. He should've just said he needs to be better. You  can see a little change at the combine. He said execution starts and ends with the head coach.

 

He was probably pissed off and did a poor job of masking it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Nihilarian said:

In my view that KO was irrelevant as I can see not allowing a return. Shades of the MCM.

 

My problem was with that "prevent defense" after the kick as all it did was prevent the win.  

I still think it’s on the defensive scheme/strategy not the kick. 13 seconds is how long they had to defend. The #1 D should have been able to prevent a TD regardless of how much field they had. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, folz said:

 

Let me take a stab at showing why some think the article is disingenuous in a manner.

 

 

He starts off with what his obvious opinion and thrust of his slant for the article:

 

"Obviously, Sean McDermott owed more to the public."

 

This is obviously either bothering the writer himself, or he knows he can stoke his readership by bringing up something he knows they are upset about. But Sean McDermott doesn't owe the public an explanation. He is not a public servant. He works for the Pegulas and the NFL. Also, as a good leader, he is making sure that no one (player or coach) gets thrown under the bus. Do people really want him to point fingers? Or instead of saying, ultimately it was his responsibility/execution, did they want him to break down at the podium and say, "It's all my fault. I screwed up. Woe is me." A good leader doesn't do either of those things. A good leader handles their business internally, picks themselves up, and moves on. I just don't know what people want from him.

 

But, the real problem to me with the article is this:

 

"so many of the men who poured their blood, sweat and tears into the organization have been left completely in the dark...With those 13 seconds shrouded in mystery, players were forced to investigate themselves. Many, of course, declined to speak which is understandable considering their boss has refused to utter a word of substance on the matter. There’s little upside. But several did share their findings with Go Long on the condition of anonymity."

 

So he starts off telling us how "many" players feel...leading us to believe it is like a majority of the players. Then tells us "many" players declined to speak. So did many players feel what you said if many players declined to talk? And notice how he's amping up the animosity towards McDermott (and his feeling of the situation) with his emotionally-charged word choices (see bolded phrases above). This is what in the courtroom would be considered leading a witness (or in this case, a reader). So, after saying many players did not comment, he claims that "several did share their findings...on the condition of anonymity."  

 

Let's break that down. How many are several? The definition of several is "More than two, but not many." So, rather than that original "MANY" players he inferred he knew how they felt, we are down to maybe a small group of players. And he says the player's "share their findings" from these "investigations" that they were "forced" to make on their own. Ok, what did this small group of players conclude? What are the actual quotes that will bring us to a better understanding of what happened or what is going on? Well, Dunne offers us four quotes total from either 2, 3, or 4 players. The way they are placed in the article, it could only be two players talking, or it could be up to 4 players (definitely not "many").

 

“You preach accountability,” one player said. “But you don’t practice it.”

 

Said one player: “Everybody knew that if we just beat Kansas City, we would’ve beat any team.”

 

And another: “We definitely would’ve won the Super Bowl.” 

 

“You don’t get over,” one player said, “a game like that.”

 

The first quote is almost undoubtedly from McKenzie. The other three quotes have nothing to do with the 13 seconds or who is to be held accountable, etc. There is no investigative work here by the players or the writer. It is just what any player would say after a tough loss, or what you're expectation was. Nothing to do with McDermott or how he handled the situation then or since.

 

So, after starting off making us think that the majority of the team feels the way the writer is leading us, it all comes down to one anonymous quote, from one player. So, one player said the coach needs to practice accountability and from that we are to believe there is some kind of mutiny at One Bills Drive?

 

And with this one quote, he proves his thesis:

 

"The conclusion? This loss is on the head coach. Not the players. The coach." Who said it wasn't? Whenever you are a leader, every loss ultimately lies in your lap.

 

And why not throw a few of these in to make your readers feel the way you do about McDermott, "No coach can clap their way through this loss." "And the more you learn about this historic collapse, the more it appears the head coach once empowered as the judge, juror and executioner at One Bills Drive should be No. 3." He is trying to paint McDermott as some tyrannical leader, but gives no proof other than his own opinion and that one quote from one player.

 

 

And one last point. His whole thing that McDermott has also been closed mouth in-house again comes from Isiah, who admittedly missed the team meeting, and possibly 1-3 other players he talked to (but who didn't give him a quote about it), and who might not be high enough on the ladder to get explanations anyhow (do we really think McDermott didn't talk to say Josh, or Micah, or Jordan in their final meetings about what happened. Or that he, Frazier, Beane, and the Pegulas haven't discussed it, etc., etc.). Not saying it might not be true that McDermott was closed lip with parts of the organization (because their pay grade didn't warrant them being a part of those discussions), but this is the only other proof we get from Dunne, the following quote:

 

Everything ended very “abruptly,” one team source said.

 

So, the actual quote is "abruptly," the rest of the words are the writers. So what is the actual context to "abruptly?" We're supposed to take a one word quote from an anonymous source and extrapolate out that everyone hates McDermott or something? And who is a team source? A coach, a trainer, someone in the cafeteria? What would it really tell us anyhow unless we knew at least their position with the team.

 

It is what it is, a writer having a premise/agenda for an article, tries to find proof to back up his thesis. When there is very little to actually go on, take what little you have and make it seem like it is more, and use a lot of emotionally-charged words to direct your reader to your foregone conclusion.

 

More opinion piece, than any type of hard-hitting investigative journalism imo.

A fantastic response from McD would be to come out and say I don't owe anyone out of the building anything.  That would be epic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CoudyBills said:

A fantastic response from McD would be to come out and say I don't owe anyone out of the building anything.  That would be epic.

It’s pretty obvious that like with any organization, some people are in on certain meetings and some aren’t. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Why are people upset at Dunne for this? 

see below

52 minutes ago, folz said:

 

Let me take a stab at showing why some think the article is disingenuous in a manner.

 

 

He starts off with what his obvious opinion and thrust of his slant for the article:

 

"Obviously, Sean McDermott owed more to the public."

 

This is obviously either bothering the writer himself, or he knows he can stoke his readership by bringing up something he knows they are upset about. But Sean McDermott doesn't owe the public an explanation. He is not a public servant. He works for the Pegulas and the NFL. Also, as a good leader, he is making sure that no one (player or coach) gets thrown under the bus. Do people really want him to point fingers? Or instead of saying, ultimately it was his responsibility/execution, did they want him to break down at the podium and say, "It's all my fault. I screwed up. Woe is me." A good leader doesn't do either of those things. A good leader handles their business internally, picks themselves up, and moves on. I just don't know what people want from him.

 

But, the real problem to me with the article is this:

 

"so many of the men who poured their blood, sweat and tears into the organization have been left completely in the dark...With those 13 seconds shrouded in mystery, players were forced to investigate themselves. Many, of course, declined to speak which is understandable considering their boss has refused to utter a word of substance on the matter. There’s little upside. But several did share their findings with Go Long on the condition of anonymity."

 

So he starts off telling us how "many" players feel...leading us to believe it is like a majority of the players. Then tells us "many" players declined to speak. So did many players feel what you said if many players declined to talk? And notice how he's amping up the animosity towards McDermott (and his feeling of the situation) with his emotionally-charged word choices (see bolded phrases above). This is what in the courtroom would be considered leading a witness (or in this case, a reader). So, after saying many players did not comment, he claims that "several did share their findings...on the condition of anonymity."  

 

Let's break that down. How many are several? The definition of several is "More than two, but not many." So, rather than that original "MANY" players he inferred he knew how they felt, we are down to maybe a small group of players. And he says the player's "share their findings" from these "investigations" that they were "forced" to make on their own. Ok, what did this small group of players conclude? What are the actual quotes that will bring us to a better understanding of what happened or what is going on? Well, Dunne offers us four quotes total from either 2, 3, or 4 players. The way they are placed in the article, it could only be two players talking, or it could be up to 4 players (definitely not "many").

 

“You preach accountability,” one player said. “But you don’t practice it.”

 

Said one player: “Everybody knew that if we just beat Kansas City, we would’ve beat any team.”

 

And another: “We definitely would’ve won the Super Bowl.” 

 

“You don’t get over,” one player said, “a game like that.”

 

The first quote is almost undoubtedly from McKenzie. The other three quotes have nothing to do with the 13 seconds or who is to be held accountable, etc. There is no investigative work here by the players or the writer. It is just what any player would say after a tough loss, or what you're expectation was. Nothing to do with McDermott or how he handled the situation then or since.

 

So, after starting off making us think that the majority of the team feels the way the writer is leading us, it all comes down to one anonymous quote, from one player. So, one player said the coach needs to practice accountability and from that we are to believe there is some kind of mutiny at One Bills Drive?

 

And with this one quote, he proves his thesis:

 

"The conclusion? This loss is on the head coach. Not the players. The coach." Who said it wasn't? Whenever you are a leader, every loss ultimately lies in your lap.

 

And why not throw a few of these in to make your readers feel the way you do about McDermott, "No coach can clap their way through this loss." "And the more you learn about this historic collapse, the more it appears the head coach once empowered as the judge, juror and executioner at One Bills Drive should be No. 3." He is trying to paint McDermott as some tyrannical leader, but gives no proof other than his own opinion and that one quote from one player.

 

 

And one last point. His whole thing that McDermott has also been closed mouth in-house again comes from Isiah, who admittedly missed the team meeting, and possibly 1-3 other players he talked to (but who didn't give him a quote about it), and who might not be high enough on the ladder to get explanations anyhow (do we really think McDermott didn't talk to say Josh, or Micah, or Jordan in their final meetings about what happened. Or that he, Frazier, Beane, and the Pegulas haven't discussed it, etc., etc.). Not saying it might not be true that McDermott was closed lip with parts of the organization (because their pay grade didn't warrant them being a part of those discussions), but this is the only other proof we get from Dunne, the following quote:

 

Everything ended very “abruptly,” one team source said.

 

So, the actual quote is "abruptly," the rest of the words are the writers. So what is the actual context to "abruptly?" We're supposed to take a one word quote from an anonymous source and extrapolate out that everyone hates McDermott or something? And who is a team source? A coach, a trainer, someone in the cafeteria? What would it really tell us anyhow unless we knew at least their position with the team.

 

It is what it is, a writer having a premise/agenda for an article, tries to find proof to back up his thesis. When there is very little to actually go on, take what little you have and make it seem like it is more, and use a lot of emotionally-charged words to direct your reader to your foregone conclusion.

 

More opinion piece, than any type of hard-hitting investigative journalism imo.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Why are people upset at Dunne for this? 

Because he has added his personal feelings into an article that could mean something if it was substantive.

 

he takes one quote, adds his own thoughts into it, writes like he was personally wronged by McDermott, and calls it a day.

 

if he did real reporting, and took the single individuals quote and used it to ask more questions and dive deeper in, I could at least respect his effort.

 

this feels like a one of those Instagram accounts with 200 followers that posts a bunch of hot takes as insider rumors to generate clicks

  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure we’re going crazy about this. I don’t know if Tyler has a vendetta with McD - haven’t heard that one. He detailed some occurrences not known before (Farwell resigning, Diggs near altercation, etc) and it was interesting. He had several quotes from players and isn’t it a sportswriters job to give his intake/opinion?

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ScottLaw said:

Why are people upset at Dunne for this? 


So a guy who has nothing to do with the Bills just wrote an article in which he concludes the loss was all McD’s fault, and then goes one step further by concluding the coach refused to accept responsibility.

 

ALL WITH NO PROOF. 

 

You’re right, nothing to see here. 
 

So, Scott, which team should we all be afraid of next season?

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...