hondo in seattle

I gasped and my heart momentarily stopped when I read: "we don't need to actively upgrade it [the OL] next year." I don't care about analytic ratings which I don't believe. In my eyes, this line improved from bad to average. That's progress and I'm grateful. But you don't win a Lombardi with average position groups. When our best player is our QB, I want a line that keeps him upright & healthy while giving him time to find an open receiver.

The shame of it is that Dunne writes really good human-interest pieces on athletes. He's got talent. Sadly, he misused his writing skills on a hatchet job that told a very one-sided story.

Within about a second, three Chief rushers have broken through the line. Three. How can our OL be that bad? And our QB that good to still make the play?

I understand your desire to see McDermott to get fired, even if I don't agree. Any Bills fans would want the best coach for the Bills. If McD isn't that guy, we should find someone else. But why do you call him "McDingus"? Has he ever offensively mangled your name? I just don't get why people stoop to disrespect. The world would be a better place - and the mafia would be a better group of fans - if we didn't do that.

When I was there a couple of years ago, the beatdown was so complete that I got none of that. The KC fans graciously admitted their defeat and said they'd see us again in the playoffs.

The offense feels a lot more multidimensional than before. There's less dependence on the Allen- Diggs connection, and much less dependence on Josh being Superman. I'm appreciative of these changes, for sure. However, we still have problems with wideouts getting separation. And we still have the problem that Kurt Warner's continually harps on: Josh still often chooses the hard yards over the easy yards. It makes for great highlights when it works but it also leads to TOs and stalled drives. And I hope this offseason, like I hope every offseason, that Beane upgrades the OL. They weren't good in the second half of yesterday's game. A better OL will make Cook a better runner, Josh a better (and healthier) QB, and Brady a better playcaller.

Why do we win in the regular season but lose to them in the playoffs? Is it home-field advantage? Is it better coaching? If so, why doesn't Reid and his staff outcoach McD and his during the regular season? Do their players handle the stress of playoff games better than our players? Or is it just freaking luck? The teams are more-or-less evenly matched so some days things go their way and some days things go ours.

Thanks for the write-up, NHK12 I was at Arrowhead a couple of years ago when we crushed the Chiefs and my experience was very similar. The Chief fans were great to me. The fan sitting next to me talked to me on-and-off throughout the game. He was both knowledgeable and polite. Several fans yelled out, "good game," to my Bills-clad family group at the end of the contest. No one said an unkind word. I agree, Q39 in Overland Park is a fantastic place for KC BBQ. While a lot of locals prefer Joes, I think for the quality of the overall menu (meats, sides, desserts), Q39 is the best BBQ joint in KC. The ambience is great too. The only difference to your experience is my perception of the crowd noise. My whole family thought they were extraordinarily loud, particularly in the first half. The volume is my son's chief memory of the day. By the fourth quarter, though, it quieted down considerably as fans were heading to the gates.

Listening to the players yell out "We got your back, coach!" makes me think Dunne helped the team more than hurt it. Players have professional pride as well as hefty paychecks. I know they try hard every game. But they don't all play full out every minute of every game. In a close game, the difference between 98% effort and 99% effort can be meaningful.

Having seen Cook play last year, and Damien Harris play over the years, I thought going into this season that Harris would be the first down back and Cook would have third downs. I really wasn't overly impressed with Cook his rookie year. But the more Cook grows, the more he grows on me. He was big time yesterday.

I see your point. What I've been saying is that sport is entertainment. It's not politics. Political reporting will always be brutal. Sports reporting doesn't need to be. But I haven't been saying Dunne shouldn't have written an article about McD or sat on the fruits of his research. But I do think he could have contextualized them much better by, for one, providing counterbalancing views. Ed Oliver said McD is a "great man" (and called the article "bullsh*t"). Micah Hyde professed his support for McD (and rightly pointed out the article does no good). Mitch Morse said he'd do anything for McD. Josh reportedly said he loved McD both as a coach and a human. And so on. Why is there is so little of that in the article? Attacking a man's character and reputation is serious business. If Dunne wants to publish the negative comments, fine. But he should have researched the positive as thoroughly as he researched the negative.

You're right but I think maybe we can probably read between the lines. Allen's public defense of McD as a coach after the game wasn't particularly strong though he said McD is one of the best humans walking the planet. Mitch Morse's defense was big - something like, "I'd do anything for that man." So was Ed Oliver's and his comment that McD was a "great man" and the article was "bullsh*t." Listening to some of the players call out "We got your back, coach!" when McD was delivering his postgame speech was pretty emotional. Though I don't know how many were yelling it out or cheering in agreement. This doesn't mean any of Dunne's facts are wrong. Nor does it invalidate all of his opinions. And there might be players and coaches who silently agree with him. But I'm pretty sure that Micah Hyde, for example, isn't one of them after hearing him speak. It's like the elephant story I told earlier in this thread. Dunne is the blind man holding onto the trunk and describing the elephant as long like a snake. Dunne has a bit of truth but I don't think he has the whole picture. And I think confirmation bias is at work. I'm guessing Dunne has a negative view of McD and sought out the people who agreed with him more aggressively than he sought out the people who didn't. It would be interesting for a more unbiased journalist to interview a bunch of players and coaches and tell the whole story. I'm sure it wouldn't all be roses. But I personally doubt if it would stink the way Dunne's story does.

This is an interesting point and I respect it. I don't believe Dunne made anything up. And I believe that he believes what he wrote. But I also believe that there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. I think it's fair game to question personnel and tactical decisions. But going after character? I don't like it. For me, there's a difference between sports and political journalism. I do expect political journalists to write fair, balanced, and truthful exposés. The nation depends on Bernsteins and Woodwards for democracy to properly function. Football, on the other hand, is a pastime that will operate just fine without the Tyler Dunne's of the world playing attack dog. As Micah Hyde said, "I don’t think there’s any good coming out of that." In any case, while Dunne was truthful in his subjective way, he was not fair and balanced. Listening to Micah Hyde, Josh Allen, Ed Oliver, Mitch Morse, and others over the past couple days, it's clear they don't agree with Dunne's characterization. And they're in a position to know the man much better than Dunne. Dunne should have made a much more strenuous effort to talk to more guys like these who have good things to say about McD to make his article more objective. One important observation about Bernstein and Woodward is that they were right. Dunne gets some facts right, but I question his opinions and conclusions.

I'm confused. I thought McD lost the locker room. What's going on here?

There have been many times refs have made questionable calls against the Bills. People like to say it evens out in the end. Generally, I agree. But this year it seems like our own mistakes (dropped passes, actual penalties), bad bounces, and referee mistakes have come disproportionally at key moments in the game. So I'm taking this win with a smile.

Look, I understand Dunne is a journalist and journalists aren't supposed to write puff pieces. But I agree with Micah Hyde when he calls it a low blow: "But to me, I think it's a low blow to question Sean's character. And I don't think there's any good coming out of that. I think a lot of us are, would, not to knock on you guys, but the media reporting the story, but I think in the locker room and stuff, we're all here to lift each other up. So, for guys to do that, it's kind of messed up in my eyes. You know me, I'm pro-Sean McDermott. I trust in everything that he's done around here, and what he's going to continue to do, and I'm going to back him any day of the week, twice on Sunday." Many years ago, another manager in my company sent a voicemail to my boss questioning the integrity of some of the results my team was producing. But she accidentally sent the voicemail to a group of about 50 company managers. When my team found out, they were deeply hurt that their good work was sullied by dishonest speculation. Years later, I was asked to contribute a monthly opinion piece on any topic of my choice to a company newsletter. One of my contributions was a front-page article with my old adversary's smiling photo praising her heartily as a high-achieving brand ambassador (which she was). Months later, she spotted me at a company event and interrupted my conversation to give me a long, emotional hug. The axe was buried. Confucius said, "To be wronged is nothing, unless you continue to remember it." Stoic philosophers likewise teach us to ignore the wrongs people have done to us. Most spiritual traditions promote kindness and forgiveness. Dunne could have listened to his higher angels and taken a higher road. He could have, for example, chosen not to write a hit piece. Or if he felt compelled to write a piece on McD, he could have found more positive quotes and comments to include in the article to make it more balanced. When a man publicly goes after another man's character, job, and reputation in a one-sided way like this - to Micah and me, it's wrong.

Fragile? Lazy? Clearly, you don't know me. I have numerous flaws but nobody who knows me or served with me would call me either of those two things. Again, I don't know why you chose to disagree with personal attacks.

This from a BN article by Katherine Fitzgerald and Jay Skurski: "In interviews across the locker room, Bills players from veterans to rookies voiced their support of McDermott on Friday." The pro-McDermott folks won't be surprised. The anti-McDermott folks will find reasons to be skeptical. ('Well, of course, they're going to publicly support their coach. They don't want to end up in his doghouse'). I'm not sure why Dunne is a better source than Fitzgerald and Skurski - or Micah Hyde for that matter. I remember when many on this website were prematurely condemning Matt Araiza. In the face of conflicting information, I tend to reserve judgment.

And luck: the way the ball bounces, tips are deflected.... bad ref decisions on critical plays, etc. But I'm sure a big win would be gratifying for McD and those who support him.

I don't understand the need for an ad hominem attack. You don't know me, my character, what I've done... In any case, I've admitted in this thread that (1) I likewise don't know Dunne personally or his character, (2) I don't believe Dunne presented anything as factual that wasn't factual, (3) I do believe Dunne believed every word that he wrote, and (4) I don't actually know what McD is like on the practice field, in the locker room or the training facility. But here's what bugs me: Dunne's judged the man. For example, he writes, "Coaches see a boss who preaches accountability while taking none himself." It's one thing to criticize a coach's tactical decisions, another thing altogether to attack the person. And Dunne doesn't have the right to speak for the coaches - I am certain that there are Bills coaches who would disagree with Dunne's characterization. I'm not sure if McD is a good enough coach to get us a Lombardi. Maybe he is "tight" and has some of the other shortcomings Dunne described. But when Dunne stoops to character assassination, which I've seen in quotes from the article, I'm not a fan. Neither is Micah Hyde. And, btw, Sherfield says Hyde was speaking for the team when he rebutted Dunne. But I'm not sticking up for McD as much as I'm sticking up for human respect and kindness. I don't believe in attacking people. It's a crappy thing to do. And I don't need to read 20,000 words to know that. If a criminal robs 20,000 people, I don't need to witness every theft to know I'm not a fan.

Thanks for the summary. I didn't want to pony up $8 for what sounded like a hatchet job. And now that you've provided the Reader's Digest version, I feel like I've learned enough. McD has detractors. That's not new. But it reminds me of the Charles Mackay quote: “You have no enemies, you say? Alas, my friend, the boast is poor. He who has mingled in the fray of duty that the brave endure, must have made foes. If you have none, small is the work that you have done. You’ve hit no traitor on the hip. You’ve dashed no cup from perjured lip. You’ve never turned the wrong to right. You’ve been a coward in the fight.” I don't know what the truth is at OBD and don't pretend to. But I don't think Dunne truly knows either because he seems to prefer to talk with the malcontents instead of seeking out a more balanced view.

It's a shame we spent so much on Von for so little in return. Hindsight being 20/20, it would have been more cost-effective to sign Floyd and a supporting cast. And then use the savings to create a better OL/Bodyguard for Josh.

There's an old story that goes something like this... A king brought a bunch of blind men together and had his servants guide them to an elephant. The king asked them to describe what they found. One touched a leg and groped it for a moment. "It's like a tree trunk." Another blind man grabbed hold of the trunk. "No, you idiot. It's like a thick snake." A third blind man felt the ear. "What are you two liars talking about? It seems to be some kind of fan." The fourth blind man fondled the tail. "You are all morons. It's a rope." The fifth blind man touched the tusk and said it was hard and smooth like a spear. Soon the blind men were wildly fighting over their disagreement. Dunne may have some piece of the truth. But it's not the whole truth and there are other perspectives. And we're all blind men blindly throwing punches at each other.

So Dunne's story is absolute truth and Hyde's comments to the contrary are garbage because he has a motivation to be complimentary? And Dunne is devoid of personal motivations?

I wonder why Dunne didn't interview Micah Hyde.