John Warrow’s High Praise For Beane & McDermott Regime

[Augie]

3 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Oh please. You're living in 2009. Pay attention to what has happened since the Pegulas took over. The Bills aren't pinching pennies anymore.

Quite the contrary, I would say. Look at the new facilities, new turf and all the front loaded contracts. That will tell you all you need to know. 

[Bill from NYC]

6 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

The logical reason Brandon was put in charge of PSE was because of his ability to put butts in the seats.  You answered your own question. Then you belittle making the playoffs and turn that into a negative.  

 

Your hatred for the Bills clouds your ability to see anything clearly.  And yes I know you don't care what I or others think.  Which begs the question:  why participate in a board designed for discussion and debate if you wish to do neither?

Maybe he participates because he feels strongly about the Bills and wants to discuss them. Who appointed you the keeper of the gate?

 

I remind you again that people don't need permission from you to post here.

[oldmanfan]

23 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

Maybe he participates because he feels strongly about the Bills and wants to discuss them. Who appointed you the keeper of the gate?

 

I remind you again that people don't need permission from you to post here.

And I remind you that no one is telling him he can't.  His posts are consistently negative, are devoid of logic, and I and others here point that out in response to what he writes.  

 

You are the one who is telling me I can't post.  You are the one trying to be the keeper of the gate.   You clearly do not understand the purpose of a discussion board.  

 

[Bill from NYC]

14 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

And I remind you that no one is telling him he can't.  His posts are consistently negative, are devoid of logic, and I and others here point that out in response to what he writes.  

 

You are the one who is telling me I can't post.  You are the one trying to be the keeper of the gate.   You clearly do not understand the purpose of a discussion board.  

 

Nice deflection.

 

You and the "others" who you deem fit to speak for are posters with opinions. Who posts here is a decision made by SDS and the Mods. They must be doing OK; you seem to like it here. They have proven more than capable for decades but if and when they need help, I am sure they will reach out to you and your self proclaimed cadre.

[oldmanfan]

Just now, Bill from NYC said:

Nice deflection.

 

You and the "others" who you deem fit to speak for are posters with opinions. Who posts here is a decision made by SDS and the Mods. They must be doing OK; you seem to like it here. They have proven more than capable for decades but if and when they need help, I am sure they will reach out to you and your self proclaimed cadre.

Stop and think.  You are telling me (and others) we are not allowed to post in rebuttal to what the guy in question posts.  You are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing - telling  me and others they are not allowed to post.  Logic is in short supply around here.  

 

Again if this SoTier guy wants to post stuff that doesn't make a whole lot of sense fine by me.  But when you go out of your way to spin everything negatively, when you somehow cannot understand that Pegula is not Wilson, that what Beane does has nothing to do with what say Whaley did, that what McD does has nothing to do with what say Jauron did, then people point it out.  I could compare the current regime to what Buster Ramsay and his crew did back in the day; it would mean nothing. And when he spins makingbthe playoffs under McD for the first time in 17 years into a negative, it pretty much tells you all you need to know as several folks have pointed out.

 

In your world,  I guess, the board would consist of single posts for any given topic.  Because no one should respond to or debate anything.

[Bill from NYC]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Stop and think.  You are telling me (and others) we are not allowed to post in rebuttal to what the guy in question posts.  You are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing - telling  me and others they are not allowed to post.  Logic is in short supply around here.  

 

Again if this SoTier guy wants to post stuff that doesn't make a whole lot of sense fine by me.  But when you go out of your way to spin everything negatively, when you somehow cannot understand that Pegula is not Wilson, that what Beane does has nothing to do with what say Whaley did, that what McD does has nothing to do with what say Jauron did, then people point it out.  I could compare the current regime to what Buster Ramsay and his crew did back in the day; it would mean nothing. And when he spins makingbthe playoffs under McD for the first time in 17 years into a negative, it pretty much tells you all you need to know as several folks have pointed out.

 

In your world,  I guess, the board would consist of single posts for any given topic.  Because no one should respond to or debate anything.

Never mind. Make up rules as you will. Wail away.

[oldmanfan]

2 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

Never mind. Make up rules as you will. Wail away.

So you cannot admit your post was the exact thing you rail against.  Okay.

 

By the way, I don't see the mods telling me or anyone else who had issues with the one guy's posts that we can't post things.  No warnings were given, no have I ever received one. 

 

People post their views, other people respond and challenge those.  Do you honestly not get that?

[eball]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

So you cannot admit your post was the exact thing you rail against.  Okay.

 

By the way, I don't see the mods telling me or anyone else who had issues with the one guy's posts that we can't post things.  No warnings were given, no have I ever received one. 

 

People post their views, other people respond and challenge those.  Do you honestly not get that?

 

Bill is a good dude.  He loves the debate and discussion over what the Bills do and have done.  He's not telling you not to post, he's reacting to one poster "dressing down" another poster for his opinions.  He doesn't like it when I come down on the negative posters as well.  It's all good.  We can't all think the same way or it would be a dull board.

 

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, eball said:

 

Bill is a good dude.  He loves the debate and discussion over what the Bills do and have done.  He's not telling you not to post, he's reacting to one poster "dressing down" another poster for his opinions.  He doesn't like it when I come down on the negative posters as well.  It's all good.  We can't all think the same way or it would be a dull board.

 

I am not telling anyone not to post.  I did question why one would want to if all you post is negative stuff, and then tell people to just ignore it if you don't like it.  That defeats the purpose of the board. I hope Bill gets that; I'm not sure he does.   I guess I don't consider it dressing down, I just consider it debate.  God knows I've had things I've written ripped to shreds at times, and in retrospect at times I got what I deserved.

[Thurman#1]

On 6/9/2019 at 9:22 PM, SoTier said:

The 2017 Bills that made the playoffs was not a team that fit Sean McDermott's plan; it had been built by Doug Whaley to fit the "plans" of Doug Marrone and Rex Ryan with McDermott's "plan" tacked on to it.   McDermott owns the 6-10 2018 and he'll own the 2019 team because the rosters were/are filled with players he picked to fit his plan.  So,  if his plan is worth continuing on with, it has to show results this season.  Beane went out and got him more talent on the offense as well as adding some nice youngsters for the defense.  I don't think that's enough for the team to challenge NE or SD or KC but they should be good enough to win at least as many games as they lose (8-8).  The offensive assistants, including OC Brian Daboll, need to do better. The defense also needs to step up, especially against the run, and especially late in games.  McDermott needs to do better.  He needs to produce wins not losses masked as "moral victories", ie not getting blown out by NE or losing a close game in the closing seconds because the defense can't make a clutch play when it needs it.   It's put up or shut up time.

 

 

 

 

Your logic here made me chuckle.

 

The 2017 team wasn't a McDermott team according to you, although 5 of 11 defensive starters and 4 of 11 offensive starters and the fact that the defense and offense both totally changed schemes?

 

And yet the 2018 team was a McDermott team and one they should be judged on. And you feel it's OK to make those judgments after one season that you feel is a "McDermott team."

 

Boy, what a coincidence ... the way you've got it set up there happens to be the most negative possible way to look at the situation!! Wow, who'd have thought you of all people would find a negative way to look at the situation?

 

The way it should actually be looked at is simple. The first couple of years of a major rebuild should be expected to suck. Reasonably often the first three, actually, but always the first two. We'll be able to start judging them based on wins this year and next. If they get worse this year or don't show improvement, seat temperature will start to rise a bit, as it's time in the life cycle when a significant amount of teams started showing real post-rebuild improvement.

 

 

Edited June 11, 2019 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

On 6/7/2019 at 12:03 PM, ScottLaw said:

Belichick is the exepction.

 

There hasn't been too many other HC/GM combos who've been mediocre to below average their first 3 years and gone on to win in their fourth or elsewhere.

 

Its been discussed but history shows that if your basically a dud for three years you aren't going to suddenly emerge in your fourth.... but I'm guessing they'll be back for a 4th barring an absolute disaster. I think it would have to be a 4-5 win season or worse, IMO. 

 

 

Yeah, if you are mediocre to below average for three straight years, you aren't going to emerge.

 

That's why Chuck Noll is so well-known as a loser of a coach. 1-13, 5-9 and 6-8 his first three years. Clearly he sucked. It's why we know for sure that Belichick will not be remembered as a good coach.

 

Jason Garrett: 5-3, 8-8, 8-8, 8-8 his first three-and-a-half years. Looks like  in the right situation he might be very good indeed. I hate Jerry Jones, but he's valued continuity and understood that things sometimes take more time than you would like and he appears to be reaping the benefits of that understanding.

 

And as Bandit pointed out earlier, Kubiak is another example.

 

Yeah, it's rarer these days than it used to be. But that's largely because in the days of social media:

 

1) There haven't been so many full rebuilds as there used to be, as two to three and even occasionally four years of real badness does not look good to unpopular fans. Better to reload and go for 8-8 in the short term, and ....

 

2) Impatient (and often bad) owners rarely have the patience to wait as long as they should. Plenty of NFL teams are stuck on the "I need to see something new right now," treadmill, getting a new start, seeing progress that they feel is too slow and firing the coaches too soon and watching the new regime put in new schemes and new protocols and firing them before their work has a chance to bear fruit. Carroll's a great example of that, fired after one year by the Jets and after three years of diminishing returns by the Pats. Neither the Pats nor Jets were rebuilding but we know that in the right situation and with a good QB, Carroll can be an excellent head coach. But it would've required more patience for either of those teams to find that out with Carroll. In the old days that was better understood and guys like Landry could go 0-11, 4-9, 5-8, 4-10, 5-8, and 7-7 and still be on the same bench the next year watching his work finally start to pay off.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2019 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

On 6/10/2019 at 11:23 AM, SoTier said:

Ummm... not true.  John Overdorf continues to manage the Bills contracts and cap situation so that the Bills continue to be unable to "afford" to re-sign most of the top young veterans they develop.   If Josh Allen actually develops into a top NFL QB, Bills fans had best hope that the Bills resident "cap genius"  retires before that happens because if the Bills couldn't afford to keep their best young vets when they didn't have a franchise QB, they'll either let Allen walk away or strip the team of talent first.

 

 

 

Overdorf has never managed the cap. That was up to Whaley, who did a very poor job. Overdorf did the contracts, yes, but the GM decided whether to sign the players based on the contract terms. Overdorf gave Whaley cap advice and info, without a doubt. We have no idea whether that advice was good or bad. The GM decides whether to pull the trigger, and he likewise gets the credit, or in Whaley's case, the blame.

 

Overdorf clearly can get this done when given good direction from above, as the terrific cap situation this year (and on into the future as well) shows.

 

 

On 6/8/2019 at 8:26 PM, SoTier said:

 

The last time I looked, HCs are responsible for the performance of the defense, offense, and special teams.   If the 2019 offense is again poor with a healthy Josh Allen, the buck does NOT stop with Brian Daboll.  McDermott will have struck out with 2 OCs as well as most of his offensive assistants in just 3 seasons.   How does this suggest in any way that McDermott is going to get any better at it if he gets more time???

 

 

 

It does indeed suggest it because McDermott and Beane chose not to spend significant resources on the offense the first two years while he built up the defense, bringing in Josh Allen excepted.

 

You don't spend resources on an offense that was already at best mediocre, of course you're not going to be good on offense.

 

What suggests that McDermott has a good chance to be better is that this year they finally spent a lot of resources on the offense.

Edited June 11, 2019 by Thurman#1

[K-9]

7 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Overdorf has never managed the cap. That was up to Whaley, who did a very poor job. Overdorf did the contracts, yes, but the GM decided whether to sign the players based on the contract terms. Overdorf gave Whaley cap advice and info, without a doubt. We have no idea whether that advice was good or bad. The GM decides whether to pull the trigger, and he likewise gets the credit, or in Whaley's case, the blame.

 

Overdorf clearly can get this done when given good direction from above, as the terrific cap situation this year (and on into the future as well) shows.

 

 

 

 

It does indeed suggest it because McDermott and Beane chose not to spend significant resources on the offense the first two years while he built up the defense, bringing in Josh Allen excepted.

 

You don't spend resources on an offense that was already at best mediocre, of course you're not going to be good on offense.

 

What suggests that McDermott has a good chance to be better is that this year they finally spent a lot of resources on the offense.

Per the bold, this is inaccurate. JO has been our cap guru since 2008, when he was promoted to a senior VP position. And it makes sense to have your chief contract negotiator in that role since the two elements are so closely related. 

 

Given Beane’s own cap management experience in Carolina, I was surprised Overdorf remained in that role when he was hired, but he has, which indicates he is still highly valued in that regard. 

[Shaw66]

31 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Per the bold, this is inaccurate. JO has been our cap guru since 2008, when he was promoted to a senior VP position. And it makes sense to have your chief contract negotiator in that role since the two elements are so closely related. 

 

Given Beane’s own cap management experience in Carolina, I was surprised Overdorf remained in that role when he was hired, but he has, which indicates he is still highly valued in that regard. 

I think you're incorrect about this.  Thurm was clear in what he said, and he is almost certainly correct.   No GM would give Overdorf or anyone else control over spending on players.  The GM decides how far into or away from cap hell he wants his team to be, and guys like Overdorf help the GM understand his options.  Overdorf tells the GM the consequences of paying or not paying a guy this or that.   The GM decides whether he's going to pay it. 

[GunnerBill]

37 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I think you're incorrect about this.  Thurm was clear in what he said, and he is almost certainly correct.   No GM would give Overdorf or anyone else control over spending on players.  The GM decides how far into or away from cap hell he wants his team to be, and guys like Overdorf help the GM understand his options.  Overdorf tells the GM the consequences of paying or not paying a guy this or that.   The GM decides whether he's going to pay it. 

 

I think JO had a MUCH bigger say in spending previously though because the responsibility for deciding what we spent was not delegated to the GM. We had an organisational policy to pursue a cash to cap model and it was JO's job to police that. I think that has been lifted since the Pegulas arrived - so the FA splurge of 2015 was most definitely not a cash to cap methodology at work for instance - and JO's role is, likely, diminished as a result. But there was a period where I believe JO most definitely was telling GMs "sorry not letting you go there."

[Shaw66]

12 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think JO had a MUCH bigger say in spending previously though because the responsibility for deciding what we spent was not delegated to the GM. We had an organisational policy to pursue a cash to cap model and it was JO's job to police that. I think that has been lifted since the Pegulas arrived - so the FA splurge of 2015 was most definitely not a cash to cap methodology at work for instance - and JO's role is, likely, diminished as a result. But there was a period where I believe JO most definitely was telling GMs "sorry not letting you go there."

Thanks.  We don't know, of course, but I'm not sure you're correct.   What you say is what the fans SAID was going on during that period, but I don't recall the team ever saying anything like that.    Thurm's view is, I believe, the correct one.   It wan't Overdorf who decided whether the Bills would be cash to cap - it was the owner or the Brandon or the GM.   Overdorf wasn't making that policy, because so far as I know he's never been responsible for the financial successful of the franchise.  And even in the cash to cap days, Overdorf wasn't deciding how much money to spend on which players and what the deals would look like.   He may have been proposing possible deal structures, but there never was even a hint that Overdorf was telling Nix or Whaley that, within whatever restraints may have been imposed, he couldn't spend money on this player or that.  If Nix wanted to spend all of his available cash on one player, Overdorf didn't have the authority to tell him he couldn't.  

[oldmanfan]

17 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think JO had a MUCH bigger say in spending previously though because the responsibility for deciding what we spent was not delegated to the GM. We had an organisational policy to pursue a cash to cap model and it was JO's job to police that. I think that has been lifted since the Pegulas arrived - so the FA splurge of 2015 was most definitely not a cash to cap methodology at work for instance - and JO's role is, likely, diminished as a result. But there was a period where I believe JO most definitely was telling GMs "sorry not letting you go there."

I agree.  This was what I understood in the pre-Beane era. And likely driven by Littman, who I believe may have had more to do with the Bills dysfunction for so many years than many of us grasp.

 

 I can't imagine Beane being told by Overdorf who he can and cannot sign. or how he is going to spend his salary dollars.

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

Thanks.  We don't know, of course, but I'm not sure you're correct.   What you say is what the fans SAID was going on during that period, but I don't recall the team ever saying anything like that.    Thurm's view is, I believe, the correct one.   It wan't Overdorf who decided whether the Bills would be cash to cap - it was the owner or the Brandon or the GM.   Overdorf wasn't making that policy, because so far as I know he's never been responsible for the financial successful of the franchise.  And even in the cash to cap days, Overdorf wasn't deciding how much money to spend on which players and what the deals would look like.   He may have been proposing possible deal structures, but there never was even a hint that Overdorf was telling Nix or Whaley that, within whatever restraints may have been imposed, he couldn't spend money on this player or that.  If Nix wanted to spend all of his available cash on one player, Overdorf didn't have the authority to tell him he couldn't.  

I think it was all driven by Littman, to protect his percentage ownership.  But we'll likely never know everything that went on behind the scenes.

[GunnerBill]

18 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Thanks.  We don't know, of course, but I'm not sure you're correct.   What you say is what the fans SAID was going on during that period, but I don't recall the team ever saying anything like that.    Thurm's view is, I believe, the correct one.   It wan't Overdorf who decided whether the Bills would be cash to cap - it was the owner or the Brandon or the GM.   Overdorf wasn't making that policy, because so far as I know he's never been responsible for the financial successful of the franchise.  And even in the cash to cap days, Overdorf wasn't deciding how much money to spend on which players and what the deals would look like.   He may have been proposing possible deal structures, but there never was even a hint that Overdorf was telling Nix or Whaley that, within whatever restraints may have been imposed, he couldn't spend money on this player or that.  If Nix wanted to spend all of his available cash on one player, Overdorf didn't have the authority to tell him he couldn't.  

 

Ah hang on.... I never said JO decided that was policy. Not at all. That came from ownership and senior management above JO. JO was responsible for delivering on the policy though. Nor was I ever suggesting that Overdorf was deciding which players got the cash - that was never his remit. But I do believe he was telling General Managers, whether Modrak (in all but name GM), Nix, or Whaley "I'm sorry you can't offer that specific contract because we can't make it fit within policy."

 

The post of yours I responded to said that it was the GMs who were deciding how close the Bills should get into cap hell. I reject that. It wasn't the GMs deciding that. Those decisions were being taken by Ralf and his advisors - Littman, Brandon and others - and then being policed by JO in the way he constructed contracts and allowed the GM to spend money.

[Shaw66]

31 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Ah hang on.... I never said JO decided that was policy. Not at all. That came from ownership and senior management above JO. JO was responsible for delivering on the policy though. Nor was I ever suggesting that Overdorf was deciding which players got the cash - that was never his remit. But I do believe he was telling General Managers, whether Modrak (in all but name GM), Nix, or Whaley "I'm sorry you can't offer that specific contract because we can't make it fit within policy."

 

The post of yours I responded to said that it was the GMs who were deciding how close the Bills should get into cap hell. I reject that. It wasn't the GMs deciding that. Those decisions were being taken by Ralf and his advisors - Littman, Brandon and others - and then being policed by JO in the way he constructed contracts and allowed the GM to spend money.

I don't think we disagree.   I think "policing" is a good way to think of Overdorf's role.   

 

There's a reason Overdorf is still there and the others aren't, and that's that Overdorf is good at his job.   The others weren't good at theirs.  

[K-9]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I think you're incorrect about this.  Thurm was clear in what he said, and he is almost certainly correct.   No GM would give Overdorf or anyone else control over spending on players.  The GM decides how far into or away from cap hell he wants his team to be, and guys like Overdorf help the GM understand his options.  Overdorf tells the GM the consequences of paying or not paying a guy this or that.   The GM decides whether he's going to pay it. 

I know what I know, what can I say? I get that this is an anonymous Internet forum and people range from being completely full of crap to knowing with 100% certainty what they’re talking about, so I can understand you’re not taking my word for it and I’m cool with that.

 

There is a big difference between control over spending on players and control over how to structure a contract to mitigate cap impacts. It’s a dynamic, fluid process that looks several years into the future.