Last Guy on the Bench

Not that I've noticed. Happy to see some counterexamples.

Wasn't commenting on the spelling. It's not generally a pejorative term, though. I hope my convictions are frugal. In any event, I don't have "convictions" about Sean McDermott. Just impressions. Ha ha. That does make me like him a little more actually.

Thanks. Do you know that he is an ISTJ? Seems plausible.

Me neither. It's a mystery.

I'm not sure you know what "frugal" means, but thanks for the advice. I'll try to do a better job of making sure my half-formed initial impressions of something that I don't know much about harden into absurdly rigid "convictions" so I can spew them on the internet with appropriate ferocity.

Disclaimer: This is a sincere attempt to understand what others see in McDermott. Not trying to start an argument, as I don't think we have enough info for a meaningful conclusion right now either way. But I am really struggling with this guy so far. And I am an optimist by nature and have pretty much talked myself into every single Bills coach (at least during their first preseason) over the past four decades. Here's what worries me: -Never says anything remotely interesting. Buttoned-down corporate speak all the way. And I know there is value in keeping your thoughts to yourself, but this kind of say-nothing style doesn't necessarily mask deep thoughts. It often means the person actually has no insight. The way he communicates publicly completely reminds me of Russ Brandon. That is not a good thing, in my opinion. -Seems to have read a few too many leadership books. He seems like he is trying to manufacture himself into a leader through notes and aphorisms and process. I am beyond skeptical of that approach in any organizational context. He doesn't seem comfortable in his skin to me - even the way he fidgets around in press conferences. He seems like a guy who loves the idea of being a leader, but hasn't discovered his own authentic approach. Feels like he's playing dress-up. (Again, screams Russ Brandon.) -Seems technocratic - thinks success will come primarily through control, detail, process. All well and good at times, but nowhere near enough to manage the seething, human, multi-variable complexity that is any football team. -Role in the Whaley affair is unclear, but optics do look like a bit of a backstabbing power grab. I admit this could be TOTALLY off. Here's what I like: -People he's worked with seem to like the guy. -Reportedly does a good job of connecting to and caring about players as individuals. -I have mad respect for Andy Reid, so I like the tree. I admit, my negatives are superficial and based on my own cursory observations, whereas the positives are substantive and based on the experience and testimony of people who have worked with him. But right now I just have the feeling he is in over his head, but has impressed the Pegulas with his organized approach, attention to detail, and stoic wrestler manner - none of which will make him a good coach IMO. I really hope I'm wrong, and I'm totally prepared to fall in love with the guy as things play out. But I can't remember feeling this cold about a hire. Even Marrone who came off as a total tool early on, somehow convinced me he might have something.

Interesting. Thanks. I like that list too. Was not keen on Trubisky, at first, but have watched a lot more of him lately, and he's been growing on me. There's a lot to like. Still very nervous about the lack of starts and that crap game he played in the rain, though. Love me some Mahomes, despite his crazy feet. Will have to look at Dobbs more.

That's an impressive board. Who does he/she like this year?

Agreed. I read his others on Kizer and Mahomes too. They are very convincing. No one can project QB success perfectly, but he is definitely looking at some intriguing subtleties, which I, for one, would never notice on my own. I enjoyed his takes, and learned a lot from them. Made me feel a lot more intrigued by Kizer than I otherwise would have been, and much more skeptical about Mahomes than I have been to date.

Yeah - I don't think Mahomes makes it to our 2nd pick. I'm definitely in the don't-get-cute-with-QB-slotting camp. The Bills may not rate him as a potential starter, but if they do, they should snag him at 10. (And I'm pretty happy with Tyrod - I just love Mahomes. I want to watch 15 years of Favrean insanity - I'll take the bad that comes with that along with the good.)

Want: Mahomes Don't Want: Peppers Dark Horse: Reddick Think: A &%#&$! CB

I'm also surprised by the low tender and I would hate to lose Groy. But I don't know that it's an obvious "blunder." Whaley and McDermott might not think as highly of Groy as those of us questioning the tender. I doubt they evaluated his play last year and said, "We like this guy a lot and see him as a key backup and maybe a future starter at center." If they saw him that way and then lowballed him, they're stupid. But they might have evaluated him and thought, "Meh."

I like both those guys. But I think we'll get burned by getting too cute with the round (again). If we want Mahomes, I bet we have to take him in the 1st. And if we want Webb, I bet we have to take him in the 2nd.

I feel the same way. There's something about him that I just love. I support bringing Tyrod back; I enjoy watching him play and think he gives us as good a chance to win as any of the immediately available options. Hopefully he can develop even further (not sure about that). But I think if I had draft day power, I would draft Mahomes at 10 anyway, even if all the other QBs are still available, and even if we still have Tyrod.

I agree. I think he's a top 10 pick. Prisco already has him going to the Jets ahead of us. And even if he's not, people who act like you can fine tune first round selections of any kind, let alone QBs, are crazy. If someone is worth pick 25 he is worth pick 10, if he's your guy. Every team likely has a different ranking of players 5 through 30. Sure, you can place people into appropriate tiers (and even that is just a semi-educated guess), but those tiers are MUCH wider than most people think. Playing games to "maximize" the essentially unquantifiable value of a given draft pick is stupid. Better to just ID players you feel good about and draft them when it's your turn. Sure, if there a bunch of players you rate as roughly equal, trade down by all means if the opportunity presents itself. But I would never trade down hoping to get my guy at a "better" value slot. If he's my guy, he's my guy. I have no idea what the Bills think of Mahomes, of course, or of Watson or of anyone else. But if they do like one of these QBs they should take him at 10 and make no apologies.

I think he's going to be like Rivers - right now "everyone" (mockers) has him second round or so - late first at the earliest. I bet he'll be rated much higher than that in the end by teams. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he ends up going well before our pick. I think he might end up being the first or second QB taken. I love the guy. Would definitely pull the trigger on him at 10, regardless of what any other team or pundit thinks.

You're missing out, man. Watching them lose to the Giants twice has pretty much been the highlight of my football life for the past 15 years. It was VERY satisfying. Sad but true Bills-fan fact. I can only pray they're in for another bitter loss.vWould prefer to have something positive to cheer about, but I'll take my schadenfreude when I can get it.

How tragic, NG. So sorry for your loss. Good thoughts from Bills Nation to you and all your family.

Right. And it's MUCH harder to have an excellent season as a rookie QB than as a rookie RB. Rookie RBs have great seasons all the time. It's one of the easiest positions to acclimate to in the NFL. I think they made the right choice.

If Hooker is there at 10 and the Bills don't take him, I'm going to pop a gasket. He's one of the most exciting players I've seen in a long time. Reminds me of a defensive Randy Moss. He makes hard things look easy and just seems faster and smoother and more coordinated than everyone else on the field. Would LOVE this guy - even if we have to write off the whole year to the injury, which doesn't appear to be the case.

Yes, it's ridiculous. They can conceive of no other reason a black coach might get an interview. Plus they are bitter about the rule in the first place. It's a great rule and it's doing its job of at least making cracks in all of the subconscious biases, assumptions, networks, etc. that keep old patterns of discrimination in place, even when the average person in the industry sincerely wants to change them.

But what if we name him head coach? You have a guy under contract. You give him the promotion yourself. Why would you have to make him available to interview for what would be a lateral move at that point?

But he's our head coach now. And under contract. Obviously we'll negotiate a new contract, if he's the pick. But I'm not sure he is actually free to leave if we are offering him the head coach position. I could be wrong, and the Bills probably wouldn't want someone as their head coach who would rather be somewhere else, but it's an interesting situation.

This is the stuff that I remember and that makes me not want to go anywhere near the guy. I'm not worried about his being in Belichick's shadow or about his W-L record with the Broncos. I'm sure he has a brilliant football mind, and coaches often grow considerably in their second stints. However, the emotional immaturity, insecurity, and vindictiveness he showed . . . well let's just say that working on those issues takes a full lifetime, not just a few years back in BB's sheltering arms. It's not impossible that his maturity is considerably improved since then, but I wouldn't bank on it. Same reason, I want nothing to do with Haley, another great football mind who ran a paranoid, controlling shop in KC from what I remember reading. A lot of people have been talking about the need for a CEO more than a great tactician. Neither of those two guys fits the bill for me. I would be happy with Lynn, and am intrigued by Patricia and Toub. But keep the paranoid, thin-skinned, control-freaks off my team.

I think this is going to be the Nick O'Leary show. Why should they pay any attention to him? Clay torched them last year, so they are going to be worried about him. O'Leary hasn't featured at all yet. So no reason to game plan for him. Meanwhile, O'Leary is back in his home state - where he played all his life. Used to the heat. Feeling good. Coming into his own. The Bills would be smart to work in a several plays designed specifically to go his way. With our run game downgraded a little due to Shady's hammy (even if he plays), I say O'Leary grabs 8 balls for a buck twenty-five.