Royale with Cheese Posted July 2 Posted July 2 3 minutes ago, FireChans said: I’m assuming you think that BB is also a level above McDermott, no? My question is simply this. If someone considered the greatest coach of all time was largely mediocre and saw his SB window slammed shut after losing his franchise QB, who immediately opened another franchises SB window, why do you assume that would not be the case in Buffalo with a head coaching switch? For simplification, we all agree: Greatest HC of all time + greatest QB of all time = dynasty Greatest HC of all time - greatest QB of all time = mediocre, fired in 3 seasons Do you believe that McD without Josh would do better than Bill without Brady? No I don't agree with this lol. You are so black and white that it's hard to have a real discussion with you. What if the GOAT coach had the 3rd best QB of all time? Does that still equal fired in 3 seasons? Well there isn't enough data on McDermott's end, since he only has one season without Allen and he went 9-7. Belicheck is 83-104 WITHOUT Brady.....449% winning percentage. He has a .769% winning percentage WITH BRADY. 1 1 Quote
FireChans Posted July 2 Posted July 2 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: No I don't agree with this lol. You are so black and white that it's hard to have a real discussion with you. What if the GOAT coach had the 3rd best QB of all time? Does that still equal fired in 3 seasons? Well there isn't enough data on McDermott's end, since he only has one season without Allen and he went 9-7. Belicheck is 83-104 WITHOUT Brady.....449% winning percentage. He has a .769% winning percentage WITH BRADY. It's not me trying to be black and white, it's just a question to establish common ground. First of all, McDermott's record without Allen is actually 10-11. Which is .477. But the point is, do you think McD is as good or better of a coach than BB? I don't. I don't even think he's close. I think BB is the greatest coach of all time. I think his mastery of the defensive side of the ball, and his ability to be tactically nuanced (see 2019 SB, among others), as well as strategically (transitioning from a vertical offense to twin TE sets to an offense featuring the slot to a power running team over a 12 year span based on his personnel) is all-time. Now if you don't think BB is the greatest coach ever and you think McDermott could be, that's fine. I disagree. If you think BB is the greatest coach ever and you don't think McDermott is, then I would ask if a MUCH BETTER coach has a basically mediocre record without his incredible QB, why do you think a MUCH WORSE (relatively) coach wouldn't? What does McDermott do to make you think he's a .600+ coach without Josh? Your answer can be "I don't know because we don't know." That's fine. My answer is "McDermott is probably not better than the greatest HC of all time and thus would also probably have a mediocre W/L or worse without his franchise QB." And the reason I make this diversion is because the point I am trying to prove is that "the head coach doesn't matter as much as the QB." It never has. It hasn't with the greatest coach ever, which you agreed with. Brady was the engine for excellence in NE. The second he left, it dried up. When he went to the Bucs, BAM, they are back in the playoffs every year competing for Super Bowls. Peyton missed a season in Indy and they went from a double digit win team to picking first overall. When he went to Denver, they went from a fringe WC team at .500 to winning the division every season. I'm not sure you can find a top 3ish QB whose HC got fired and the franchise crumbled. To my knowledge, its never happened, at least in the modern era. There are lots of examples of teams knocking on the door of contending for Super Bowls who fired their HC or coordinators and that got them over the hump. So in conclusion, I think the odds of firing McD and AT LEAST being in the same stratosphere as we are today is VERY VERY high. I think the odds we win a SB are better than they are now. I think the odds of firing McD and going back to the drought is effectively 0. Edited July 2 by FireChans 1 Quote
Royale with Cheese Posted July 2 Posted July 2 2 minutes ago, FireChans said: It's not me trying to be black and white, it's just a question to establish common ground. First of all, McDermott's record without Allen is actually 10-11. Which is .477. But the point is, do you think McD is as good or better of a coach than BB? I don't. I don't even think he's close. I think BB is the greatest coach of all time. I think his mastery of the defensive side of the ball, and his ability to be tactically nuanced (see 2019 SB, among others), as well as strategically (transitioning from a vertical offense to twin TE sets to an offense featuring the slot to a power running team over a 12 year span based on his personnel) is all-time. Now if you don't think BB is the greatest coach ever and you think McDermott could be, that's fine. I disagree. If you think BB is the greatest coach ever and you don't think McDermott is, then I would ask if a MUCH BETTER coach has a basically mediocre record without his incredible QB, why do you think a MUCH WORSE (relatively) coach wouldn't? What does McDermott do to make you think he's a .600+ coach without Josh? Your answer can be "I don't know because we don't know." That's fine. My answer is "McDermott is probably not better than the greatest HC of all time and thus would also probably have a mediocre W/L or worse without his franchise QB." And the reason I make this diversion is because the point I am trying to prove is that "the head coach doesn't matter as much as the QB." It never has. It hasn't with the greatest coach ever, which you agreed with. Brady was the engine for excellence in NE. The second he left, it dried up. When he went to the Bucs, BAM, they are back in the playoffs every year competing for Super Bowls. Peyton missed a season in Indy and they went from a double digit win team to picking first overall. When he went to Denver, they went from a fringe WC team at .500 to winning the division every season. I'm not sure you can find a top 3ish QB whose HC got fired and the franchise crumbled. To my knowledge, its never happened, at least in the modern era. There are lots of examples of teams knocking on the door of contending for Super Bowls who fired their HC or coordinators and that got them over the hump. You go to extremes with everything lol. I never said McDermott would be a .600 winning percentage without Josh. Never even eluded to it. I never said that I think McDermott could be the greatest of all time. Never even eluded to it. I also think McDermott would be a mediocre coach without a franchise QB. I think that applies to every head coach. Belicheck is a below average coach without Brady and his record states that. Do you think you're bringing up a unique point or something? Its obvious that the QB is like the Queen on a chess board...it's the most important piece. I don't understand what you're really arguing now because you're adding in assumptions I never made. 1 Quote
FireChans Posted July 2 Posted July 2 Just now, Royale with Cheese said: You go to extremes with everything lol. I never said McDermott would be a .600 winning percentage without Josh. Never even eluded to it. I never said that I think McDermott could be the greatest of all time. Never even eluded to it. I also think McDermott would be a mediocre coach without a franchise QB. I think that applies to every head coach. Belicheck is a below average coach without Brady and his record states that. Do you think you're bringing up a unique point or something? Its obvious that the QB is like the Queen on a chess board...it's the most important piece. I don't understand what you're really arguing now because you're adding in assumptions I never made. holy smokes bro. Asking you questions is not assuming you "eluded" to something. "do you think that fire truck is red?" "I NEVER EVEN ALLUDED TO THINKING THAT FIRETRUCK WAS RED." I give up. Quote
Royale with Cheese Posted July 2 Posted July 2 3 minutes ago, FireChans said: holy smokes bro. Asking you questions is not assuming you "eluded" to something. "do you think that fire truck is red?" "I NEVER EVEN ALLUDED TO THINKING THAT FIRETRUCK WAS RED." I give up. You probably should give up. Asking specific questions, in this case, asking why I think McDermott would have a .600% winning percentage without Allen is eluding to something. I never once never gave indication that McDermott would be as successful without Allen. Okay, I will ask questions then since it's not assuming or eluding to something. Why do you FireChans, believe that the GOAT Coach would have a .300 winning % without the GOAT QB? Why would he have a .300% winning percentage if he had the Second best QB of all time? I'm not eluding to anything. I'm just asking a question. And great example of using an objective topic for a subjective topic. A firetruck is red because it's red. You don't have to elude to it. It's a fact which makes it objective. How good a coach will be or would be without an elite QB is subjective. Quote
FireChans Posted July 2 Posted July 2 2 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: You probably should give up. Asking specific questions, in this case, asking why I think McDermott would have a .600% winning percentage without Allen is eluding to something. I never once never gave indication that McDermott would be as successful without Allen. Okay, I will ask questions then since it's not assuming or eluding to something. Why do you FireChans, believe that the GOAT Coach would have a .300 winning % without the GOAT QB? Why would he have a .300% winning percentage if he had the Second best QB of all time? I'm not eluding to anything. I'm just asking a question. And great example of using an objective topic for a subjective topic. A firetruck is red because it's red. You don't have to elude to it. It's a fact which makes it objective. How good a coach will be or would be without an elite QB is subjective. You could have just agreed lol. I even said the point was to find common ground. I think that BB would have an excellent winning record with a Patrick Mahomes or Joe Montana at QB. Probably not as good as with Brady because he is the better QB imo. What is the point you are trying to make? See how easy it is to answer a question and advance the conversation without having a defensive meltdown? (No McDermott pun intended) Quote
GunnerBill Posted July 2 Posted July 2 46 minutes ago, FireChans said: So in conclusion, I think the odds of firing McD and AT LEAST being in the same stratosphere as we are today is VERY VERY high. I think the odds we win a SB are better than they are now. I think the odds of firing McD and going back to the drought is effectively 0. I agree with the first sentence and the third sentence. I don't agree with the middle one. Quote
Royale with Cheese Posted July 2 Posted July 2 7 minutes ago, FireChans said: You could have just agreed lol. I even said the point was to find common ground. I think that BB would have an excellent winning record with a Patrick Mahomes or Joe Montana at QB. Probably not as good as with Brady because he is the better QB imo. What is the point you are trying to make? See how easy it is to answer a question and advance the conversation without having a defensive meltdown? (No McDermott pun intended) You clearly stated below that WITHOUT the GOAT QB, the GOAT HC would be fired in 3 seasons. So since we agree Tom Brady is the GOAT QB and with your statement an hour ago....Mahomes and Montana would have gotten Belicheck fired in 3 seasons. Thank you for simplifying it, you made it where you can't deny it lol. 1 hour ago, FireChans said: I’m assuming you think that BB is also a level above McDermott, no? My question is simply this. If someone considered the greatest coach of all time was largely mediocre and saw his SB window slammed shut after losing his franchise QB, who immediately opened another franchises SB window, why do you assume that would not be the case in Buffalo with a head coaching switch? For simplification, we all agree: Greatest HC of all time + greatest QB of all time = dynasty Greatest HC of all time - greatest QB of all time = mediocre, fired in 3 seasons Do you believe that McD without Josh would do better than Bill without Brady? Quote
FireChans Posted July 2 Posted July 2 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: You clearly stated below that WITHOUT the GOAT QB, the GOAT HC would be fired in 3 seasons. So since we agree Tom Brady is the GOAT QB and with your statement an hour ago....Mahomes and Montana would have gotten Belicheck fired in 3 seasons. Thank you for simplifying it, you made it where you can't deny it lol. That's what happened. Brady left in 2020 and BB was fired after the 2023 season. I don't know if there's any reason to deny reality? If BB had traded for Mahomes in 2020, I think he'd still be employed in NE. (McD's 2 AFC finalist banners would be in SERIOUS jeopardy though). The whole point where I was going is that McD isn't the reason we are competing for Superbowls currently. Josh Allen is. Just like BB didn't have NE competing for Super Bowls, Brady did. So based on that belief, I don't think if we fired McD, we would stop competing for Superbowls. Because it's not about McD. It's about Josh Allen. Just like it wasn't about BB. It was about Brady. The reason I say that is because the common counter-point to firing McD is that "what if the next coach is worse." My argument is that we have Josh Allen. My argument is that it doesn't matter. 12 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: I agree with the first sentence and the third sentence. I don't agree with the middle one. Do you think our odds of winning a Superbowl are worse? Edited July 2 by FireChans Quote
GunnerBill Posted July 2 Posted July 2 9 minutes ago, FireChans said: Do you think our odds of winning a Superbowl are worse? I think like your first sentence - they are unlikely to change a ton IMO. We would remain in the same stratosphere of championship contenderness (made up word). Though to be clear my argument for keeping McDermott has never been a "better the devil you know" argument. I think that is bad reason to retain a coach. Equally I think "look at this shiny thing over here I could have" is a bad reason to fire a coach. My view across all coaches and all sports is you fire a coach based on their performance when you believe he deserves to be fired not based on who is or isn't available to potentially replace them. 1 Quote
Royale with Cheese Posted July 2 Posted July 2 3 minutes ago, FireChans said: That's what happened. Brady left in 2020 and BB was fired after the 2023 season. I don't know if there's any reason to deny reality? If BB had traded for Mahomes in 2020, I think he'd still be employed in NE. (McD's 2 AFC finalist banners would be in SERIOUS jeopardy though). The whole point where I was going is that McD isn't the reason we are competing for Superbowls currently. Josh Allen is. So based on that belief, I don't think if we fired McD, we would stop competing for Superbowls. Because it's not about McD. It's about Josh Allen. The reason I say that is because the common counter-point to firing McD is that "what if the next coach is worse." My argument is that we have Josh Allen. My argument is that it doesn't matter. So let me get this straight lol. Belicheck is the GOAT, but if he had Mahomes, he would just still be employed? Reid has Mahomes now, has won 3 Super Bowls with him....why are you assuming that Belicheck can't win a Super Bowl with Mahomes? You "think" he would still be employed. Not a very strong argument for the GOAT HC huh? Not completely sure if he's good enough to keep the job with another elite QB. Why are you assuming that coaches like Nate Hackett and Adam Gase would have the same winning percentage as McDermott? You did say, "We have Josh Allen, it doesn't matter." 1 Quote
FireChans Posted July 2 Posted July 2 1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said: So let me get this straight lol. Belicheck is the GOAT, but if he had Mahomes, he would just still be employed? Reid has Mahomes now, has won 3 Super Bowls with him....why are you assuming that Belicheck can't win a Super Bowl with Mahomes? You "think" he would still be employed. Not a very strong argument for the GOAT HC huh? Not completely sure if he's good enough to keep the job with another elite QB. Why are you assuming that coaches like Nate Hackett and Adam Gase would have the same winning percentage as McDermott? You did say, "We have Josh Allen, it doesn't matter." Oh I think BB would probably have multiple Superbowls with Mahomes. Probably multiple division titles too. the "still be employed" part was just the floor of my thoughts. He definitely would not have been fired. In that universe, McDermott is probably already gone in Buffalo and Josh is probably closer to Justin Herbert in terms of career accomplishments with a clearly superior HC coaching circles around them in the division. Adam Gase got a head coaching job because when he was OC of Peyton Manning, their offense was sick and Denver was winning 12 or 13 games a season. Nate Hackett got a head coaching job because when he was OC of Aaron Rodgers, their offense was sick and Green Bay was winning 13 games a season (Rodgers won 2 MVP with 'ol Hackett at OC). Those examples prove my point. Lesser coaches with inflated accomplishments.....because they had elite QBs. 11 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: I think like your first sentence - they are unlikely to change a ton IMO. We would remain in the same stratosphere of championship contenderness (made up word). Though to be clear my argument for keeping McDermott has never been a "better the devil you know" argument. I think that is bad reason to retain a coach. Equally I think "look at this shiny thing over here I could have" is a bad reason to fire a coach. My view across all coaches and all sports is you fire a coach based on their performance when you believe he deserves to be fired not based on who is or isn't available to potentially replace them. Well this may be an unfair question because its so long after the fact, but did you think John Fox "deserved" to be fired in Denver after 2014? Quote
GunnerBill Posted July 2 Posted July 2 8 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: Why are you assuming that coaches like Nate Hackett and Adam Gase would have the same winning percentage as McDermott? Again this "what would McDermott be with QBX" or "what would Allen by with HCY" are hypotheticals. It also depends heavily who are you replacing them with. Is it McDermott with a 5th-12th type QB? Or a 13th to 20th type QB? Or a bridge at best guy? Is the mythical head coach replacement for McDermott a proven NFL HC? Is it a hotshot coordinator or is it a guy who you seriously consider the basic competence of - see Hackett etc. I just don't know that it is a very fruitful line of argument. Quarterback matters more than Head Coach. We all know and accept that as a truism of the NFL and the Bills will always have a chance to be good with Josh Allen. But the Saints had four losing seasons in five years during the peak of a future first ballot HoF QB and a likely future HoF HC. The NFL is just way to complex and way to nuanced to ever boil down to 1+1 always = 2. Quote
Royale with Cheese Posted July 2 Posted July 2 (edited) 11 minutes ago, FireChans said: Oh I think BB would probably have multiple Superbowls with Mahomes. Probably multiple division titles too. the "still be employed" part was just the floor of my thoughts. He definitely would not have been fired. In that universe, McDermott is probably already gone in Buffalo and Josh is probably closer to Justin Herbert in terms of career accomplishments with a clearly superior HC coaching circles around them in the division. Adam Gase got a head coaching job because when he was OC of Peyton Manning, their offense was sick and Denver was winning 12 or 13 games a season. Nate Hackett got a head coaching job because when he was OC of Aaron Rodgers, their offense was sick and Green Bay was winning 13 games a season (Rodgers won 2 MVP with 'ol Hackett at OC). Those examples prove my point. Lesser coaches with inflated accomplishments.....because they had elite QBs. Well this may be an unfair question because its so long after the fact, but did you think John Fox "deserved" to be fired in Denver after 2014? None of that matters because you said it doesn't matter when you have Josh. Now it matters lol. 2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: Again this "what would McDermott be with QBX" or "what would Allen by with HCY" are hypotheticals. It also depends heavily who are you replacing them with. Is it McDermott with a 5th-12th type QB? Or a 13th to 20th type QB? Or a bridge at best guy? Is the mythical head coach replacement for McDermott a proven NFL HC? Is it a hotshot coordinator or is it a guy who you seriously consider the basic competence of - see Hackett etc. I just don't know that it is a very fruitful line of argument. Quarterback matters more than Head Coach. We all know and accept that as a truism of the NFL and the Bills will always have a chance to be good with Josh Allen. But the Saints had four losing seasons in five years during the peak of a future first ballot HoF QB and a likely future HoF HC. The NFL is just way to complex and way to nuanced to ever boil down to 1+1 always = 2. Understand that I'm not using these as legit arguments. I'm simply copying FireChan's arguments to show him how ridiculous the points he's making. I understand context.... Edited July 2 by Royale with Cheese 1 Quote
GunnerBill Posted July 2 Posted July 2 8 minutes ago, FireChans said: Well this may be an unfair question because its so long after the fact, but did you think John Fox "deserved" to be fired in Denver after 2014? Nope. I wouldn't have fired him. I also think the difference it made is overblown. The 2013 and 2014 Broncos were better per DVOA than the 2015 Broncos that won a Superbowl. They changed coach, got worse, but got a couple of breaks in the post season and won the title. Quote
FireChans Posted July 2 Posted July 2 Just now, Royale with Cheese said: None of that matters because you said it doesn't matter when you have Josh. Now it matters lol. Huh? I'm kinda confused. What do you mean none of that matters/now it matters? Quote
Royale with Cheese Posted July 2 Posted July 2 1 minute ago, FireChans said: Huh? I'm kinda confused. What do you mean none of that matters/now it matters? The fact that you're bringing up what Hackett and Gase did as OC's and not what they did as HC's. Don't beat around the bush....would the Bills have won 5 straight division titles with Adam Gase or Nathaniel Hackett with the same roster as McDermott? Quote
FireChans Posted July 2 Posted July 2 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: The fact that you're bringing up what Hackett and Gase did as OC's and not what they did as HC's. Don't beat around the bush....would the Bills have won 5 straight division titles with Adam Gase or Nathaniel Hackett with the same roster as McDermott? Yes. They would. We have seen what Adam and Nat Hackett were able to do with elite QBs. Oversee elite offenses and MVP seasons. That wins you lots of division titles, especially with the other crappy QBs in the conference. Edited July 2 by FireChans 1 Quote
FireChans Posted July 2 Posted July 2 (edited) 17 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: Nope. I wouldn't have fired him. I also think the difference it made is overblown. The 2013 and 2014 Broncos were better per DVOA than the 2015 Broncos that won a Superbowl. They changed coach, got worse, but got a couple of breaks in the post season and won the title. I cannot disagree more. Their defense got a MASSIVE upgrade going from Del Rio to Phillips. Their defensive DVOA was like the best by a SB winner in a decade (slightly better than the 13 Seahawks even) despite being middle of the road the year previous. They were first in yards and points per drive, after being 13th in points per drive the year previous. The offense took a significant step back because Peyton lost his arm seemingly overnight but that wasn't schematic. In 2014, they allowed 24 points to a flawed Indy team that eventually got stomped in the AFCCG, 4 points less than their season average. In 2015, the Broncos defense was holding teams to 10-20 points below their season averages, despite their offense being completely anemic. They didn't have over 200 yards passing or 100 yards rushing more than ONCE in the entire postseason. If they kept Fox and Del Rio, they win 8ish games and then everyone is fired and Peyton retires very sad. Edited July 2 by FireChans Quote
Augie Posted July 2 Posted July 2 (edited) 2 hours ago, FireChans said: Your last half a dozen posts have boiled down to "I disagree, I have faith in McDermott." Look around. 90% of the posters in this topic disagree. I don't need to "like" or "dislike" it. I'm not interested in prosetylization. I have my reasons for having next to zero faith in McDermott to get this team to the ultimate goal. And I have laid the evidence out. You can disagree with the evidence or the conclusion. You disagreed with the conclusion 5 pages ago and you can't or won't engage further. What else is there to say? Just quote my posts and write "I disagree" over and over and I just won't respond because you are welcome to disagree and I don't care, respectfully. If I disagreed 5 pages ago, why should I agree now? You have not yet made a compelling argument to influence my decision. So, flip the script and see that you can just write “I disagree” whenever I post. I acknowledge that he’s made mistakes and he’s not perfect. That applies to all of us. I feel he’s our best option at this point. You disagree, without providing a better solution. I have not seen a specific proposal from you to make things better. WHO DO YOU WANT TO HIRE WHO IS MORE LIKELY TO WIN A SB? Andy Reid and most of the obvious choices already have jobs. What practical solution do you have besides “fire McD”? There are no guarantees that things will get any better, and a good chance things start by going backwards during the transition, and possibly afterward. It seems you just want “change” because you are upset that we haven’t won a SB yet. It’s not emotional to me as much as it is a practical matter. I’m willing to see both sides of the argument and weigh the likely outcomes. I lean toward McD still at this point. You have made up your mind and you’re done. That sounds emotional and not very open to both sides of the discussion. I have enough faith in McD for now, but I’m not stuck to any one position. Being that deeply entrenched may lead to a lack of objectivity. . Edited July 2 by Augie 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.