John Warrow’s High Praise For Beane & McDermott Regime

[John from Riverside]

14 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

 

The team at the time was doing its due diligence in trying to free up as much salary cap space as possible.

This happens more often than we know during every offseason.

I'm not aware of any "hardball" negotiations going on, and don't think Richie was going to be cut had he not accepted the restructured deal.

He certainly would've had his options, at that point, to go elsewhere and make more money had he been released at that time.

The odd thing was, Incognito accepted the paycut and announced he was happy to be coming back for that matter on the tweeter.

 

and then he wasn't.

 

jw

 

 

you seem to be assuming my only source is Brandon Beane.

well, we know what assuming leads to ...

 

jw

 

I dont suppose it could be as simple as the bills brass had person to person contact with Cog and saw he was going batshit crazy......and realized it was best to cut bait at that time?

 

Now.....where they DID make a mistake was not adequately replacing him.......but they also had the issue of feeling they needed to shed salary pointing towards this offseason?

[ColoradoBills]

20 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

 

The team at the time was doing its due diligence in trying to free up as much salary cap space as possible.

This happens more often than we know during every offseason.

I'm not aware of any "hardball" negotiations going on, and don't think Richie was going to be cut had he not accepted the restructured deal.

He certainly would've had his options, at that point, to go elsewhere and make more money had he been released at that time.

The odd thing was, Incognito accepted the paycut and announced he was happy to be coming back for that matter on the tweeter.

 

and then he wasn't.

 

jw

 

 

Personally I believe the whole thing started with the JAX game and the racial slur thing.

When Ritchie signed he was given the chance to play again by the Pegulas and I believing that had

a zero tolerance type verbal clause to it.

 

The league was looking into it and I think something got said to Incognito about the consequences if found to be true.

 

Then the contract stuff came up.  I'm thinking they are somehow tied together.

Occum's Razor.

[Saxum]

1 hour ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Personally I believe the whole thing started with the JAX game and the racial slur thing.

When Ritchie signed he was given the chance to play again by the Pegulas and I believing that had

a zero tolerance type verbal clause to it.

 

The league was looking into it and I think something got said to Incognito about the consequences if found to be true.

 

Then the contract stuff came up.  I'm thinking they are somehow tied together.

Occum's Razor.

 

I agree although can see nothing not third hand to support it.  

 

[K-9]

2 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Personally I believe the whole thing started with the JAX game and the racial slur thing.

When Ritchie signed he was given the chance to play again by the Pegulas and I believing that had

a zero tolerance type verbal clause to it.

 

The league was looking into it and I think something got said to Incognito about the consequences if found to be true.

 

Then the contract stuff came up.  I'm thinking they are somehow tied together.

Occum's Razor.

I believe there may be something to this. It’s possible they made it easy for RI to simply leave if he chose. 

[Delete This Account]

ok, folks, you don't need google translator for this. that said, i'm working under the belief that we all understand words, words have accepted definitions, and that we're all on board with that except, of course, with the anarchists.

 

i find nothing wrong with the anarchists in principle, but let's leave them out of this, because then this whole thing that i'm going to write next will go awry.

 

of course, many things that i've already written in this post have gone awry, so who the heck am i kidding. clearly, i'm writing this for an audience of one.

 

and that audience happens to be me.

 

so i'm going to get a kick out of this if nothing else.

 

because, let's face it, how often to i have to post the same words in different posts over and over again, before someone starts mentioning occam's razor. and once we reach the point of someone mentioning occam's razor, and using an example that is far more complex and speculative than occam's razor, then clearly, this is the point where all bet's are off and it's time to start babbling.

 

and i regret that i'm writing fairly quickly here, so those among you who are slow readers might want to take a breath.

 

so, where was i?

 

yes, google translator. sorry, i lied. you'll need google translator because, after all,

de hars hpyitparsai

 

and

agus tá mé tuirseach de mé féin a athrá

fariq kurat alqadam

 

Phyāyām prah̄yạd ngein doy k̄hx h̄ı̂ p̄hū̂ lèn thảngān ngeindeụ̄xn h̄ım̀

der Spieler akzeptierte

og þá gerði hann það ekki

end of Sutōrī

 

 

[Dr. Who]

Personally, I think Occam's nominalism the beginning of western decline into reductionist metaphysics and rationalist modes of thought both superficial and arrogant. Why should Occam's razor be true, for that matter, when reality may require nuance, sensitivity to complexity, ambiguity, for all sorts of things that defy capture by the "clear and concise" idea? Yet for all that, vatic descent into polyglot repudiation of the demos that routinely inhabits sports' message boards appears a somewhat dramatic, though perhaps effective counter-movement.

[teef]

so wawrow thinks he's better than me?!

[ColoradoBills]

3 hours ago, Limeaid said:

 

I agree although can see nothing not third hand to support it.  

 

 

2 hours ago, K-9 said:

I believe there may be something to this. It’s possible they made it easy for RI to simply leave if he chose. 

 

It's just what I think happened.

 

2 hours ago, john wawrow said:

 

because, let's face it, how often to i have to post the same words in different posts over and over again, before someone starts mentioning occam's razor. and once we reach the point of someone mentioning occam's razor, and using an example that is far more complex and speculative than occam's razor, then clearly, this is the point where all bet's are off and it's time to start babbling.

 

 

It's not complex.

He was signed with the caveat that there would be no more bullcrap with him.

That didn't happen.

 

Seems a lot more logical (Occum's Razor) than Beane deciding that Ritchie Incognito was going to be the only player that the Bills wanted to renegotiate

a contract with to save money.

 

I like your writing John but to me this had more to do about circumstances than money.

 

 

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

Personally, I think Occam's nominalism the beginning of western decline into reductionist metaphysics and rationalist modes of thought both superficial and arrogant. Why should Occam's razor be true, for that matter, when reality may require nuance, sensitivity to complexity, ambiguity, for all sorts of things that defy capture by the "clear and concise" idea? Yet for all that, vatic descent into polyglot repudiation of the demos that routinely inhabits sports' message boards appears a somewhat dramatic, though perhaps effective counter-movement.

If I am a Gilette razor guy instead of a Occam razor guy does that mean I just can't cut it? 

[3rdand12]

6 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Personally I believe the whole thing started with the JAX game and the racial slur thing.

When Ritchie signed he was given the chance to play again by the Pegulas and I believing that had

a zero tolerance type verbal clause to it.

 

The league was looking into it and I think something got said to Incognito about the consequences if found to be true.

 

Then the contract stuff came up.  I'm thinking they are somehow tied together.

Occum's Razor.

the wheel certainly turned after that.  Never full convinced it was true. or that it was not an accumulation of digression on him being over aggressive. i tried to watch his play after the news.

19 minutes ago, JohnC said:

If I am a Gilette razor guy instead of a Occam razor guy does that mean I just can't cut it? 

its the manner of the cut.

[Augie]

4 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

Personally, I think Occam's nominalism the beginning of western decline into reductionist metaphysics and rationalist modes of thought both superficial and arrogant. Why should Occam's razor be true, for that matter, when reality may require nuance, sensitivity to complexity, ambiguity, for all sorts of things that defy capture by the "clear and concise" idea? Yet for all that, vatic descent into polyglot repudiation of the demos that routinely inhabits sports' message boards appears a somewhat dramatic, though perhaps effective counter-movement.

 

You took the words right out of my mouth! 

 

I think........

 

 

. 

4 hours ago, teef said:

so wawrow thinks he's better than me?!

 

No, no, no....don’t be silly. He doesn’t even know who you are!

 

It’s the rest of us who think that!

 

?

 

[BADOLBILZ]

9 hours ago, john wawrow said:

 

 

you seem to be assuming my only source is Brandon Beane.

well, we know what assuming leads to ...

 

jw

 

 

 

Why would I assume that?  

 

What it "seems" like is that the organization is very much behind whatever Beane and McDermott do.........whether that's because they like the moves or just "understand" why the moves were made.    So the answers will all be pretty much the same regardless of the source with this regime.   Which is not unexpected when everyone south of owners box was either hired by them or evaluated and allowed to stay by them.  

 

That's why you clean house.......it buys loyalty and time to get systems in place.    What it doesn't do is make Beane or McDermott stack up better against their counterparts around the league in terms of talent evaluation/cap management and strategy/gameday coaching etc...........another .000 batting average in UFA like last offseason and another stack of blowout losses and/or 2 more losses to Belichick etc.. will take a mighty bite out of that cushion created by the house cleaning regardless of the quality of lip service provided.

Edited May 30, 2019 by BADOLBILZ

[Delete This Account]

On 5/29/2019 at 10:54 PM, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Why would I assume that?  

 

What it "seems" like is that the organization is very much behind whatever Beane and McDermott do.........whether that's because they like the moves or just "understand" why the moves were made.    So the answers will all be pretty much the same regardless of the source with this regime.   Which is not unexpected when everyone south of owners box was either hired by them or evaluated and allowed to stay by them.  

 

That's why you clean house.......it buys loyalty and time to get systems in place.    What it doesn't do is make Beane or McDermott stack up better against their counterparts around the league in terms of talent evaluation/cap management and strategy/gameday coaching etc...........another .000 batting average in UFA like last offseason and another stack of blowout losses and/or 2 more losses to Belichick etc.. will take a mighty bite out of that cushion created by the house cleaning regardless of the quality of lip service provided.

 

i'm not a fan of the team by the mere nature of my job.

what's your excuse?

 

jw

[Coach Tuesday]

51 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

 

i'm not a fan of the team by the mere nature of my job.

what's your excuse?

 

jw

 

Come on.  There was good discourse back and forth - would hate to see it reduced to "you're not a real fan if you're critical of the product."

Edited May 31, 2019 by Coach Tuesday

[RochesterLifer]

8 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

Come on.  There was good discourse back and forth - would hate to see it reduced to "you're not a real fan if you're critical of the product."

 

Honestly Coach, I haven't found this to be "good discourse" at all. While JW is sharing his (quality) thoughts and information, BADOLBILZ has petulantly and pointlessly argued with every post, as if taking on a sportswriter is providing 15 minutes of fame. I look forward to what JW has to share and have had to tolerate BADOLBILZ' (I want ice cream!!!!!!) grade school level responses to read it.

[Commsvet11]

7 minutes ago, RochesterLifer said:

 

Honestly Coach, I haven't found this to be "good discourse" at all. While JW is sharing his (quality) thoughts and information, BADOLBILZ has petulantly and pointlessly argued with every post, as if taking on a sportswriter is providing 15 minutes of fame. I look forward to what JW has to share and have had to tolerate BADOLBILZ' (I want ice cream!!!!!!) grade school level responses to read it.

 

Perhaps a subscription would best suit you then? This is a message board and I enjoy the back and forth.

[RochesterLifer]

3 minutes ago, Commsvet11 said:

 

Perhaps a subscription would best suit you then? This is a message board and I enjoy the back and forth.

Fair enough. We all have our tastes. If BADOLBILZ had a point beyond just arguing, I too would enjoy the back and forth.

[Commsvet11]

12 minutes ago, RochesterLifer said:

Fair enough. We all have our tastes. If BADOLBILZ had a point beyond just arguing, I too would enjoy the back and forth.

 

Here is the issue, there are people like BADOLBILZ, who share the same idea about the current FO, but here is the problem, in the off-season you get crucified for it even if you back it with facts .....and during the regular season you get told “you just hoping to be right more than the Bills team/player succeeding” even though during the whole year one presented this view and crucified for it and told “you are not a Bills” or “Go root for another team”. 

 

 

[Delete This Account]

1 hour ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

Come on.  There was good discourse back and forth - would hate to see it reduced to "you're not a real fan if you're critical of the product."

 

 

good discourse?

not sure about that. as all threads eventually unravel, this was expected.

i've stated my case.

not sure why this dude continued to challenge me as i've said what i've said, and gonna stick by it.

 

the sheer negativity from the poster leads me to question whether he's a fan. thus my question.

 

all that said, this whole conversation's run it's course, so let this be my final response of this thread.

 

jw

[BADOLBILZ]

49 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

 

 

good discourse?

not sure about that. as all threads eventually unravel, this was expected.

i've stated my case.

not sure why this dude continued to challenge me as i've said what i've said, and gonna stick by it.

 

the sheer negativity from the poster leads me to question whether he's a fan. thus my question.

 

all that said, this whole conversation's run it's course, so let this be my final response of this thread.

 

jw

 

 

JW I apologize if I offended you with my pretty reasonable/debatable responses.

 

Here's a less friendly take..........I absolutely take offense to your misuse the language to IMO slant a take from your sources.

 

I also understand that the landscape for journalists has been changing and there is no financial/career advantage in you giving anything less than maximum benefit of the doubt to the organization you are paid to cover.

 

We "couldn't afford to pay Robert Woods $8M" looks a lot better to the organization than "we were pretty certain he wasn't worth $8M" and then having him go put up 2K yards in his first two years in LA.

 

Originally I thought maybe you were just eased into that mindset by a very media friendly GM.............unfortunately my opinion has changed.

 

It's unfortunate when your local AP rep can't even be objective but I guess that's the way it is.

 

Good day sir!