Gotta give Florio props, he loves to stoke the fire and he’s real good at it.

[May Day 10]

He is still hoping there is a chance the bills relocate and he won't give up until the new stadium is functional, and a game is being played

[Mr. WEO]

Rousseau and Leonard will bail out McD?

 

lol

[hondo in seattle]

6 hours ago, newcam2012 said:

He consistently wins in the regular season. Almost any decent coach with Allen at the helm can get the team to the playoffs. That's exactly what McD has done. Nice regular season records. That just isn't enough. Wouldn't you agree? 

 

If you are satisfied and or content with that then one won't be advocating for change. The rest of my post is mute.

 

The playoffs are a whole different animal. McD has proven to be average to below average. The numbers don't lie. His record is 4-5. Even an optimist can't think that's good. 

 

More specifically, look at the last 3 playoff seasons. Outcoached and outclassed by KC in the playoffs. Granted KC was better but McD and his game plan was inferior. 13 seconds is what it is. Not gonna beat a dead horse. Miami and Cinci last year has also been discussed at nausism. It all adds up to underachieving. Don't think coaching didn't contribute to this. That definelty includes McD!

 

Even go back to the loss at the Texans for a reference if you will. Not good! Perhaps, that was a preview of what was to come.

 

It all adds up mediocrity at best. Blown opportunities. McD has simple not been up to the task. Year after year after year the Bills have fallen short when it counts. That's pretty much undeniable and under the McD reign. 

 

The counter argument is McD is young, gaining experience, other coaches failed early in their coaching careers. I get that but there's still no guarantee McD will be any more successful in the future. 

 

My eyes have seen enough. Years of playoff incompetence has to fall on the coaching staff. I know many will not agree. I have lost confidence in McD come playoff time. He routinely gets out coached and out schemed. Enough!!!

 

I'd rather take my shot with an up and coming offense minded coach like Ben Johnson. I think he will absolutely get the best out of Allen and the Bills weapons. Something Dorsey failed to do last year. This year will are all holding our breath. 

 

For me, this is McD last year to prove has up to the task. I doubt he is and I'll be pounding the table for change. 

 

 

 

When you enter the playoffs with playoff-average talent/health, you can expect an average playoff W-L record.   The thing with a 1st round bye (three years in a row now) is that you jump into the playoffs when only the very good teams are left.  Games between two very good teams is a coin toss.  

 

In 17 years before McD, we had zero playoff appearances.  Since McD, we've had 9.  I don't see his playoff record as a mark against him.  It's a mark for him.  

 

For the past 3 or 4 years, we've entered each season with maybe a 10% or so probability of winning it all.  That's a huge improvement over the 0% chance we had pre-McD.  With enough time, he'll bring home a Lombardi.   There's no guarantee, as you say.  But there's no guarantee that Reid or Belichick will win another Super Bowl either.  It's a game of probabilities and you do the best you can to tilt the odds in your favor.  McD is doing that.  

 

Andy Reid didn't win the SB till his 21st season as a head coach.  Now he's won 2 of the last 4.  There's often a learning curve with these guys.  And some luck.  

 

Plus, it sometimes takes time for HCs to build the staff they want.  McD's first year, he hired whatever assistants he could find who weren't already under contract somewhere else.  The longer McDs in the league as a stable, winning HC, the more good assistants and coordinators will want to work for him. 

 

I like the Pittsburgh model: only 3 head coaches in the past 54 years.  That stability has brought them 6 Super Bowl wins.  Coaches, trainers, and all the other staff of a franchise prefer to work in a stable environment.  Stable teams attract better talent.  

 

Or we could follow the Bills model: fire your head coach whenever you feel disappointed.  During that span when Pittsburgh had 3 HCs, we had 18.  That instability brought us zero championships.    

 

 

 

Edited June 16, 2023 by hondo in seattle

[Sierra Foothills]

17 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

He's not as smart as Einstein.

 

 

 

Oh, you meant THAT Einstein.

 

LOL... yeah around here even @Einstein's Dog is smarter than Einstein.

 

 

[Shaw66]

10 hours ago, newcam2012 said:

I wish the seat was warm for two years. I don't believe that's reality. 

 

McD seat was ice cold for two years and is only getting slightly warm now. 

 

That seat won't get hot for another 2 or 3 years after more likely playoff failures. 

It's all just opinion and speculation, but I think your take on this is wrong.  I think 20 years from now, McDermott will be counted among the all-time great coaches.   He's still learning and growing.  

 

Belichick was 41-55 in his first six seasons as a head coach, and he was 2-1 in the playoffs.  McDermott is 62-35 and 4-5 in the playoffs.  We can argue all we want about why that happened, but the real point is that head coaching careers are really long, and head coaches improve.  With a start like McDermott has had, it would be foolish to move on from him any time in the next five seasons (absent something like a scandal or major impropriety).  

[newcam2012]

29 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

When you enter the playoffs with playoff-average talent/health, you can expect an average playoff W-L record.   The thing with a 1st round bye (three years in a row now) is that you jump into the playoffs when only the very good teams are left.  Games between two very good teams is a coin toss.  

 

In 17 years before McD, we had zero playoff appearances.  Since McD, we've had 9.  I don't see his playoff record as a mark against him.  It's a mark for him.  

 

For the past 3 or 4 years, we've entered each season with maybe a 10% or so probability of winning it all.  That's a huge improvement over the 0% chance we had pre-McD.  With enough time, he'll bring home a Lombardi.   There's no guarantee, as you say.  But there's no guarantee that Reid or Belichick will win another Super Bowl either.  It's a game of probabilities and you do the best you can to tilt the odds in your favor.  McD is doing that.  

 

Andy Reid didn't win the SB till his 21st season as a head coach.  Now he's won 2 of the last 4.  There's often a learning curve with these guys.  And some luck.  

 

Plus, it sometimes takes time for HCs to build the staff they want.  McD's first year, he hired whatever assistants he could find who weren't already under contract somewhere else.  The longer McDs in the league as a stable, winning HC, the more good assistants and coordinators will want to work for him. 

 

I like the Pittsburgh model: only 3 head coaches in the past 54 years.  That stability has brought them 6 Super Bowl wins.  Coaches, trainers, and all the other staff of a franchise prefer to work in a stable environment.  Stable teams attract better talent.  

 

Or we could follow the Bills model: fire your head coach whenever you feel disappointed.  During that span when Pittsburgh had 3 HCs, we had 18.  That instability brought us zero championships.    

 

 

 

I disagree on a lot of what you said. No need to elaborate as what I've said is on the record. Nothing new to add.

 

I do get where you are coming from though. It's definitely a fair thought process. 

[newcam2012]

2 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

It's all just opinion and speculation, but I think your take on this is wrong.  I think 20 years from now, McDermott will be counted among the all-time great coaches.   He's still learning and growing.  

 

Belichick was 41-55 in his first six seasons as a head coach, and he was 2-1 in the playoffs.  McDermott is 62-35 and 4-5 in the playoffs.  We can argue all we want about why that happened, but the real point is that head coaching careers are really long, and head coaches improve.  With a start like McDermott has had, it would be foolish to move on from him any time in the next five seasons (absent something like a scandal or major impropriety).  

Opinions will likely change in a year or two depending on the success or lack of. 

 

I understand your point of view. It's logical even though I dissent. 

 

Everything is really conjecture. We really have no idea if McD will improve or digress. Certainly the last two to three years of playoff coaching has not been his best. Dare I say with respect wasted opportunities. How many more can the franchise survive in the hopes of so called improvement. 

 

Sometimes in life you cut your ties before it's too late. That could reap dividends or be a big mistake. 

[boater]

Sheesh. McDermott has to deal with a diva... he makes a one-line mistake at a presser... and it's off with his head.

 

I'm glad Pegula doesn't give much credence to the press-baiting and irrational fans.

[Shaw66]

1 minute ago, newcam2012 said:

I disagree on a lot of what you said. No need to elaborate as what I've said is on the record. Nothing new to add.

 

I do get where you are coming from though. It's definitely a fair thought process. 

Sorry, I posted my earlier post without having seen your longer post in response to Hondo.  You said the opposite of all the things I said.   

 

We disagree, and the points of disagreement are obvious and not need to be restated.   However, I'll say this:

 

You are equating mediocre results in the playoffs with mediocrity in coaching.  Yes, you are what your record is, that's true, but it's also true that past results don't predict future performance.   

 

Based on regular season results, no rational person would conclude that McDermott's teams have been mediocre.  The Bills' results have been great, and that should lead you conclude that McDermott is great.   

 

The simple fact is that no rational owner would fire, or even think about firing, a head coach whose teams have had the success that McDermott's Bills have had.  

 

What is the probability that the next head coach will be (1) more successful or (2) less successful?   Picking names out of a hat, I'd say 10%.  Terry and Kim Pegula, by using their brains, might be able to improve those chances to maybe 25%, but maybe not.  Ralph Wilson certainly couldn't.  

 

It's just foolish to talk about replacing McDermott.  

Just now, newcam2012 said:

Opinions will likely change in a year or two depending on the success or lack of. 

 

I understand your point of view. It's logical even though I dissent. 

 

Everything is really conjecture. We really have no idea if McD will improve or digress. Certainly the last two to three years of playoff coaching has not been his best. Dare I say with respect wasted opportunities. How many more can the franchise survive in the hopes of so called improvement. 

 

Sometimes in life you cut your ties before it's too late. That could reap dividends or be a big mistake. 

I agree completely, except that the chances of reaping bigger dividends are much less than the chances of making a big mistake.  

 

I mean, should the Chargers cut Justin Herbert because they think they can find a better quarterback?   I mean, the guy hasn't won a Super Bowl, and how long are the Chargers going to wait.   Better to try someone else, right?  Okay, okay.  Give him another year, but if he doesn't produce, it's time to move on. 

[dwight in philly]

3 hours ago, ExWNYer said:

 

We have some 'Bram Stokers' here, as well. Real pains in the neck...

 

 

Ironic considering he's a fan of the Vikings who haven't been in a Super Bowl since the 1970s and sport the same 0-4 record in the big game as the Bills. 

Didnt know he was a Vikings  fan.. was under the impression he was a Steeler fan.., from that area I believe.. 

[ExWNYer]

Just now, dwight in philly said:

Didnt know he was a Vikings  fan.. was under the impression he was a Steeler fan.., from that area I believe.. 

 

Definitely a Vikings fan. He has stated it on more than one occasion.

[4merper4mer]

2 hours ago, May Day 10 said:

He is still hoping there is a chance the bills relocate and he won't give up until the new stadium is functional, and a game is being played

He will keep that narrative going until Kraft tells him to stop.  Which is never.

 

Kraft says the same thing to Florio that he says to his “not trafficked” masseuse:  Don’t stop, don’t stop, don’t stop.  Different topic, same instructions.

[ProcessTruster]

Florio is the uber troll.. and he loves it. 

[Max Fischer]

To paraphrase a oft quoted tweet below, "You do not, under no circumstances, gotta give a troll 'props."

 

 

[newcam2012]

5 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Sorry, I posted my earlier post without having seen your longer post in response to Hondo.  You said the opposite of all the things I said.   

 

We disagree, and the points of disagreement are obvious and not need to be restated.   However, I'll say this:

 

You are equating mediocre results in the playoffs with mediocrity in coaching.  Yes, you are what your record is, that's true, but it's also true that past results don't predict future performance.   

 

Based on regular season results, no rational person would conclude that McDermott's teams have been mediocre.  The Bills' results have been great, and that should lead you conclude that McDermott is great.   

 

The simple fact is that no rational owner would fire, or even think about firing, a head coach whose teams have had the success that McDermott's Bills have had.  

 

What is the probability that the next head coach will be (1) more successful or (2) less successful?   Picking names out of a hat, I'd say 10%.  Terry and Kim Pegula, by using their brains, might be able to improve those chances to maybe 25%, but maybe not.  Ralph Wilson certainly couldn't.  

 

It's just foolish to talk about replacing McDermott.  

I agree completely, except that the chances of reaping bigger dividends are much less than the chances of making a big mistake.  

 

I mean, should the Chargers cut Justin Herbert because they think they can find a better quarterback?   I mean, the guy hasn't won a Super Bowl, and how long are the Chargers going to wait.   Better to try someone else, right?  Okay, okay.  Give him another year, but if he doesn't produce, it's time to move on. 

The Chargers are a pretty good example when comparing to the Bills. Lots of similarities.

 

A major issue with the Chargers has been poor coaching. They also have the stigma that they can't get it done. They always seem to find a way to lose in the big game. They choked away a huge lead to the Jags. Think the Bills vs the Texans playoff game for a reference. Think 13 seconds too. 

 

The QB situation on both teams is not the issue. That's a pretty bad example. 

 

In short, both organizations have lost opportunities, have franchise QBs, have coaches that choke away playoff games, haven't consistently fallen short despite high expectations, and have reputation that they can't get it done.

 

So maybe we are in agreement? 

 

 

 

Edited June 16, 2023 by newcam2012

[kota]

Oh no the Head Coach doesn't like how his coordinators are doing things and gets involved.  Heaven forbid.

Frasier is and always has been a very conservative play caller.  Everyone knows it and it's why he doens't get any credit for the Bills defense.  The Bills Secondary has covered his butt for years.

McDermott wants to take the approach Bill Bellieck does when it comes to his team and the players.  less is better.  This time it shot him in foot if things happened the way he explained it the other day.  Mistake by him.  It's not like Diggs helped him in this situation.  He ran away after the playoff loss and was posting cryptic things all offseason. 

Can't wait till training camp.

 

[Punching Bag]

Here is the fire and the fuel is dung:

 

 

I understand some of fans also smoke it.

[Shaw66]

51 minutes ago, newcam2012 said:

The Chargers are a pretty good example when comparing to the Bills. Lots of similarities.

 

A major issue with the Chargers has been poor coaching. They also have the stigma that they can't get it done. They always seem to find a way to lose in the big game. They choked away a huge lead to the Jags. Think the Bills vs the Texans playoff game for a reference. Think 13 seconds too. 

 

The QB situation on both teams is not the issue. That's a pretty bad example. 

 

In short, both organizations have lost opportunities, have franchise QBs, have coaches that choke away playoff games, haven't consistently fallen short despite high expectations, and have reputation that they can't get it done.

 

So maybe we are in agreement? 

 

 

 

No, we're not.  The point of my example was to show what a bad, low probability move it is to fire a high performing person in hopes, somehow, of getting a higher performing person.   You wouldn't cut Allen, you wouldn't cut Herbert, in both cases because your chances of getting someone worse are much better than your chances of getting someone better.  In the case of a head coach, it's the same.  McDermott is a high-performing head coach, at least based on his record and player comments, and it's no more rational to fire him in hopes of getting a better coach than it is rational to cut your star quarterback.  It's a low probability play.  

 

The Eagles took that bet and lost, badly, by hiring Chip Kelly.   Yes, they got a Super Bowl the next time around, but the fact that they fired a first round Hall of Fame coach and replaced him with a total failure is telling.   

 

Firing a good coach is a bad bet, just like firing a good quarterback. 

[newcam2012]

19 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

No, we're not.  The point of my example was to show what a bad, low probability move it is to fire a high performing person in hopes, somehow, of getting a higher performing person.   You wouldn't cut Allen, you wouldn't cut Herbert, in both cases because your chances of getting someone worse are much better than your chances of getting someone better.  In the case of a head coach, it's the same.  McDermott is a high-performing head coach, at least based on his record and player comments, and it's no more rational to fire him in hopes of getting a better coach than it is rational to cut your star quarterback.  It's a low probability play.  

 

The Eagles took that bet and lost, badly, by hiring Chip Kelly.   Yes, they got a Super Bowl the next time around, but the fact that they fired a first round Hall of Fame coach and replaced him with a total failure is telling.   

 

Firing a good coach is a bad bet, just like firing a good quarterback. 

Then based on your logic the Bills should have never fired Fraizer. His defenses were statistically one of the best for years. 

 

Would like to get your input here. 

[Shaw66]

1 minute ago, newcam2012 said:

Then based on your logic the Bills should have never fired Fraizer. His defenses were statistically one of the best for years. 

 

Would like to get your input here. 

Because they had a better candidate, in house.   The Bills had someone they believed would be better.  It wasn't a crap shoot.