PIZ Posted March 28, 2017 Posted March 28, 2017 http://billswire.usatoday.com/2017/03/27/sean-mcdermott-clears-air-on-reported-rift-in-bills-front-office/
John from Riverside Posted March 28, 2017 Posted March 28, 2017 http://billswire.usatoday.com/2017/03/27/sean-mcdermott-clears-air-on-reported-rift-in-bills-front-office/ Interesting....... Would like to see a QB in here somewhere....maybe Chad Kelly late?
Fan in Chicago Posted March 28, 2017 Posted March 28, 2017 http://billswire.usatoday.com/2017/03/27/sean-mcdermott-clears-air-on-reported-rift-in-bills-front-office/ This makes the most sense and something that several in here had said might be happening. But of course it is way too boring to the LaCanforas and Sully's of the media world and the Whaley detractors on this board. Leaks seem to be plugged, they are all in on the 'one voice' philosophy and have hired an image consultant. If there is to be one voice, better McD than Whaley.
716 Posted March 28, 2017 Posted March 28, 2017 (edited) *sighs* Did we forget this article already people? http://buffalonews.com/2017/01/12/terry-pegula-accusations-bills-dysfunctional-consider-insult/ "Terry Pegula: I guess there's been a perception we're inaccessible. But I've been consistent from Day One when I bought the Sabres and then with the Bills, by owning these teams it's about the players and coaches. We didn't buy teams to be visible in the media. We bought teams to keep them in the area and to flourish with them. I let the coaches and the players be out front and be the story. Kim Pegula: We want to make sure that the new coach coming in will be the voice of our organization and make sure we're all looking forward. So we wanted to get a lot of these questions out of the way if need be." Edited March 28, 2017 by 716
Thurman#1 Posted March 28, 2017 Posted March 28, 2017 (edited) http://billswire.usatoday.com/2017/03/27/sean-mcdermott-clears-air-on-reported-rift-in-bills-front-office/ So, LaCanfora says McDermott has growing cache with ownership, could be bringing in VPs or personnel figures with ties to the coach in the near future, and that the marriage likely isn't built to last. And then McDermott says that Whaley and he worked together on all this and neither could have done it alone, that it's been a total team effort, and that "Doug and I have had healthy conversations, productive conversations, and I look forward to doing that moving forward." And that the team will speak with one voice. And people hear McDermott's comments and say, "See, LaCanfora was wrong, and there's no problem." Really? Does nobody notice that both of those could easily be 100% true, that they are not contradictory? They are not. Did McDermott say how far forward he will move with Whaley? Did he say there will be no new VPs or personnel figures? Folks, this is good PR, but McDermott didn't contradict LaCanfora's report. He didn't say there isn't conflict. And he certainly didn't guarantee Whaley's future with the Bills will be long or filled with power. Edited March 28, 2017 by Thurman#1
oldmanfan Posted March 28, 2017 Posted March 28, 2017 So, LaCanfora says McDermott has growing cache with ownership, could be bringing in VPs or personnel figures with ties to the coach in the near future, and that the marriage likely isn't built to last. And then McDermott says that Whaley and he worked together on all this and neither could have done it alone, that it's been a total team effort, and that "Doug and I have had healthy conversations, productive conversations, and I look forward to doing that moving forward." And that the team will speak with one voice. And people hear McDermott's comments and say, "See, LaCanfora was wrong, and there's no problem." Really? Does nobody notice that both of those could easily be 100% true, that they are not contradictory? They are not. Did McDermott say how far forward he will move with Whaley? Did he say there will be no new VPs or personnel figures? Folks, this is good PR, but McDermott didn't contradict LaCanfora's report. He didn't say there isn't conflict. And he certainly didn't guarantee Whaley's future with the Bills will be long or filled with power. Of course
Pbomb Posted March 28, 2017 Posted March 28, 2017 So, LaCanfora says McDermott has growing cache with ownership, could be bringing in VPs or personnel figures with ties to the coach in the near future, and that the marriage likely isn't built to last. And then McDermott says that Whaley and he worked together on all this and neither could have done it alone, that it's been a total team effort, and that "Doug and I have had healthy conversations, productive conversations, and I look forward to doing that moving forward." And that the team will speak with one voice. And people hear McDermott's comments and say, "See, LaCanfora was wrong, and there's no problem." Really? Does nobody notice that both of those could easily be 100% true, that they are not contradictory? They are not. Did McDermott say how far forward he will move with Whaley? Did he say there will be no new VPs or personnel figures? Folks, this is good PR, but McDermott didn't contradict LaCanfora's report. He didn't say there isn't conflict. And he certainly didn't guarantee Whaley's future with the Bills will be long or filled with power. give it up dude, i thought there would be a break til atleast the next jlc article but i guess not
Foxx Posted March 28, 2017 Posted March 28, 2017 So, LaCanfora says McDermott has growing cache with ownership, could be bringing in VPs or personnel figures with ties to the coach in the near future, and that the marriage likely isn't built to last. And then McDermott says that Whaley and he worked together on all this and neither could have done it alone, that it's been a total team effort, and that "Doug and I have had healthy conversations, productive conversations, and I look forward to doing that moving forward." And that the team will speak with one voice. And people hear McDermott's comments and say, "See, LaCanfora was wrong, and there's no problem." Really? Does nobody notice that both of those could easily be 100% true, that they are not contradictory? They are not. Did McDermott say how far forward he will move with Whaley? Did he say there will be no new VPs or personnel figures? Folks, this is good PR, but McDermott didn't contradict LaCanfora's report. He didn't say there isn't conflict. And he certainly didn't guarantee Whaley's future with the Bills will be long or filled with power. the coach didn't guarantee the GM's place? whoa ...
fansince88 Posted March 28, 2017 Posted March 28, 2017 So, LaCanfora says McDermott has growing cache with ownership, could be bringing in VPs or personnel figures with ties to the coach in the near future, and that the marriage likely isn't built to last. And then McDermott says that Whaley and he worked together on all this and neither could have done it alone, that it's been a total team effort, and that "Doug and I have had healthy conversations, productive conversations, and I look forward to doing that moving forward." And that the team will speak with one voice. And people hear McDermott's comments and say, "See, LaCanfora was wrong, and there's no problem." Really? Does nobody notice that both of those could easily be 100% true, that they are not contradictory? They are not. Did McDermott say how far forward he will move with Whaley? Did he say there will be no new VPs or personnel figures? Folks, this is good PR, but McDermott didn't contradict LaCanfora's report. He didn't say there isn't conflict. And he certainly didn't guarantee Whaley's future with the Bills will be long or filled with power. Ok. The sky IS still falling
ChevyVanMiller Posted March 28, 2017 Posted March 28, 2017 (edited) So, LaCanfora says McDermott has growing cache with ownership, could be bringing in VPs or personnel figures with ties to the coach in the near future, and that the marriage likely isn't built to last. And then McDermott says that Whaley and he worked together on all this and neither could have done it alone, that it's been a total team effort, and that "Doug and I have had healthy conversations, productive conversations, and I look forward to doing that moving forward." And that the team will speak with one voice. And people hear McDermott's comments and say, "See, LaCanfora was wrong, and there's no problem." Really? Does nobody notice that both of those could easily be 100% true, that they are not contradictory? They are not. Did McDermott say how far forward he will move with Whaley? Did he say there will be no new VPs or personnel figures? Folks, this is good PR, but McDermott didn't contradict LaCanfora's report. He didn't say there isn't conflict. And he certainly didn't guarantee Whaley's future with the Bills will be long or filled with power. Sure, also notice that he didn't dismiss the possibility that they're still going to trade Shady, bring in Revis or make Cardale the starter. Also, he did not directly deny the notion that he may be into women's feet more than his predecessor. And why no direct stance on the existence of Bigfoot? You've just got to listen between the words for the truth of silence. Edited March 28, 2017 by ChevyVanMiller
Niagara Bill Posted March 28, 2017 Posted March 28, 2017 Sure, also notice that he didn't dismiss the possibility that they're still going to trade Shady, bring in Revis or make Cardale the starter. Also, he did not directly deny the notion that he may be into women's feet more than his predecessor. And why no direct stance on the existence of Big Foot? You've just got to listen between the words for the truth of silence. I am not sure I can support a head coach who doesn't believe that Bigfoot exists. Who does he think drags the car into the parking lot for Pinto Ron every game.?
BarleyNY Posted March 28, 2017 Posted March 28, 2017 I'd like to personally thank the Bills for making McD the voice of the franchise. He has been handling it well since getting here. Whaley was brutal in that capacity.
oldmanfan Posted March 28, 2017 Posted March 28, 2017 Whaley is not a good public speaker, which does not mean he's either a good or bad GM. McDermott is a better public speaker, which does not mean he's a a good or bad HC. But it does mean the Bills are better off having McDermott be the one voice coming out of OBD. And we should all realize by now that LaCanfora in general is not to be believed. He is a rumor mongerer whose postings would fit better in the National Enquirer
baskingridgebillsfan Posted March 28, 2017 Posted March 28, 2017 If the Gm is finding him the players he needs I don't see where they can be a beef. Until they get a Qb smart minds will always debate the best path to take. We do it on this board hourly . F Taylor I kid I kid
PromoTheRobot Posted March 28, 2017 Posted March 28, 2017 So, LaCanfora says McDermott has growing cache with ownership, could be bringing in VPs or personnel figures with ties to the coach in the near future, and that the marriage likely isn't built to last. And then McDermott says that Whaley and he worked together on all this and neither could have done it alone, that it's been a total team effort, and that "Doug and I have had healthy conversations, productive conversations, and I look forward to doing that moving forward." And that the team will speak with one voice. And people hear McDermott's comments and say, "See, LaCanfora was wrong, and there's no problem." Really? Does nobody notice that both of those could easily be 100% true, that they are not contradictory? They are not. Did McDermott say how far forward he will move with Whaley? Did he say there will be no new VPs or personnel figures? Folks, this is good PR, but McDermott didn't contradict LaCanfora's report. He didn't say there isn't conflict. And he certainly didn't guarantee Whaley's future with the Bills will be long or filled with power. I want to believe. (cue spooky music) the coach didn't guarantee the GM's place? whoa ...
Recommended Posts