John Warrow’s High Praise For Beane & McDermott Regime

[C.Biscuit97]

When did this board become a cult? I used to defend every Bills move without flaw. I would attack “haters” for being too negative.  Now that I don’t praise every Bills move or have questions about Allen, I’m a hater.

 

i don’t think anyone would be wasting their time if they didn’t love the Bills.  I have serious doubts about Allen and didn’t want the Bills to draft him.  But nothing would make me happened than him proving me wrong.  It’s not personal.  

[teef]

17 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

When did this board become a cult? I used to defend every Bills move without flaw. I would attack “haters” for being too negative.  Now that I don’t praise every Bills move or have questions about Allen, I’m a hater.

 

i don’t think anyone would be wasting their time if they didn’t love the Bills.  I have serious doubts about Allen and didn’t want the Bills to draft him.  But nothing would make me happened than him proving me wrong.  It’s not personal.  

although that's not what was going on here at all.  did you actually read the thread?  no one is attacked for being negative or doubtful.  people get called out where they're being deceptive and twisting every point they can to be negative.    when certain posters are called out on their drama, they immediately turn to the martyr defense.  it's pathetic.

Edited June 11, 2019 by teef

[Gugny]

41 minutes ago, teef said:

although that's not what was going on here at all.  did you actually read the thread?  no one is attacked for being negative or doubtful.  people get called out where they're being deceptive and twisting every point they can to be negative.    when certain posters are called out on their drama, they immediately turn to the martyr defense.  it's pathetic.

 

Whatever, noob.

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

 

 

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. 

I'm not sure what's bothering you.  I agree that this is exactly what Overdorf does.  It's complicated stuff.  But it is deciding which players will be on the team or how much they will be paid.  I don't think we see things differently.

[C.Biscuit97]

53 minutes ago, teef said:

although that's not what was going on here at all.  did you actually read the thread?  no one is attacked for being negative or doubtful.  people get called out where they're being deceptive and twisting every point they can to be negative.    when certain posters are called out on their drama, they immediately turn to the martyr defense.  it's pathetic.

I’ll be honest.  I didn’t read all 39 pages of this novel.  Sorry if I misinterpreted something. 

[teef]

2 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

I’ll be honest.  I didn’t read all 39 pages of this novel.  Sorry if I misinterpreted something. 

Completely understand. The thread is weird. It’s really mellow and informative in certain stages, but quickly turns into a tire fire. 

[C.Biscuit97]

6 minutes ago, teef said:

Completely understand. The thread is weird. It’s really mellow and informative in certain stages, but quickly turns into a tire fire. 

Tire fire is my cologne. It gets the people going. 

[K-9]

36 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I'm not sure what's bothering you.  I agree that this is exactly what Overdorf does.  It's complicated stuff.  But it is deciding which players will be on the team or how much they will be paid.  I don't think we see things differently.

I’m not bothered in the least. Just trying to add some insight.

 

Per the bold text, I took it from your post that said I was “inaccurate” about JO’s cap management role, that your were indeed seeing things differently than me. 

 

Anyway:

 

The GM and coach determine who to retain or not so we agree on that. 

 

The market largely determines how much a player is paid, but the Bills, like all teams, have a budgetary frame work with which to work within. That doesn’t mean they won’t overpay a player they highly value, either. And again, it’s all done while looking several years ahead. It’s also a collaborative process within the administration. 

 

The cap manager determines various compensation strategies for each contract to mitigate cap concerns, also looking several years ahead. And again, it makes sense to have your chief contract negotiator in that role. 

[thebandit27]

6 minutes ago, K-9 said:

work with which to work within. 

 

Say that 3 times fast.

[K-9]

1 minute ago, thebandit27 said:

 

Say that 3 times fast.

Total accident! I kinda knew what I wanted to say, but couldn’t execute it worth a damn!

[Shaw66]

12 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I’m not bothered in the least. Just trying to add some insight.

 

Per the bold text, I took it from your post that said I was “inaccurate” about JO’s cap management role, that your were indeed seeing things differently than me. 

 

Anyway:

 

The GM and coach determine who to retain or not so we agree on that. 

 

The market largely determines how much a player is paid, but the Bills, like all teams, have a budgetary frame work with which to work within. That doesn’t mean they won’t overpay a player they highly value, either. And again, it’s all done while looking several years ahead. It’s also a collaborative process within the administration. 

 

The cap manager determines various compensation strategies for each contract to mitigate cap concerns, also looking several years ahead. And again, it makes sense to have your chief contract negotiator in that role. 

Agreed.  Completely.  Especially the last part, because negotiations go best if the guy doing the negotiating actually understands the consequences of giving up this or restructuring that.  

[thebandit27]

23 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Total accident! I kinda knew what I wanted to say, but couldn’t execute it worth a damn!

 

'round these parts we call that kind of thing "pulling a Trent"

[LSHMEAB]

On 6/10/2019 at 5:54 AM, oldmanfan said:

I am not telling anyone not to post.  I did question why one would want to if all you post is negative stuff

"Why do you even post here?" That could easily be construed as a suggestion that the poster not post.

 

[oldmanfan]

31 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

"Why do you even post here?" That could easily be construed as a suggestion that the poster not post.

 

I see your point.  Not my intent however.  I sincerely would love to know why some folks who post nothing but negatives about the team do so.  And why they then get so upset if challenged.

 

I presume all on this board are here because we are fans of the Bills, and enjoy discussing things with the team.  What enjoyment can one get from coming on and spinning everything into a negative?  Not trying to be snarky, I just don't get it.

[K-9]

20 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I see your point.  Not my intent however.  I sincerely would love to know why some folks who post nothing but negatives about the team do so.  And why they then get so upset if challenged.

 

I presume all on this board are here because we are fans of the Bills, and enjoy discussing things with the team.  What enjoyment can one get from coming on and spinning everything into a negative?  Not trying to be snarky, I just don't get it.

Investing in negative outcomes is the safest route, psychologically. 

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Investing in negative outcomes is the safest route, psychologically. 

Good point

[BADOLBILZ]

54 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Investing in negative outcomes is the safest route, psychologically. 

 

That was a "thing" you could apply to some critics of the team when the last fair weather fan died about a decade ago.

 

But it's been 19 years since the team was in contention.............THAT is why there are skeptics.

 

That's not to say we don't have a pile of those "negative outcome investors"........you just have it backwards........we have a ton of folks who are already making excuses for another non-contending season.

[Augie]

45 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

That was a "thing" you could apply to some critics of the team when the last fair weather fan died about a decade ago.

 

 But it's been 19 years since the team was in contention.............THAT is why there are skeptics.

 

That's not to say we don't have a pile of those "negative outcome investors"........you just have it backwards........we have a ton of folks who are already making excuses for another non-contending season.

 

I think some people, understandably, still feel the pain of the drought. I personally think that including any history that pre-dates the current owners is either ignorant or agenda driven. 

 

 

. 

Edited June 12, 2019 by Augie

[Thurman#1]

7 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

The examples of those being successful after strings of mediocre seasons are few and far between.

 

Should the Jets have held onto Todd Bowles for another season? Should Jauron still be here? 

 

Just trying to follow your logic. Continuity for the sake of continuity doesn't really work. At what point do you say, "ok this isn't working?" 

 

Nevertheless, these guys will sink or swim with Allen.

 

 

 

They are not few and far between at all. There are tons of them. Most of those many many examples are from a longer time ago. Yes they are fewer and further between recently. But that's the point. Back when teams gave coaches a longer time, there were a lot more success stories. The fact that there are so few now is likely because there are so few chances for it to happen as social media whips up fan outrage faster than ever and gradually erodes the patience of pretty much all of America. A lot of the reason you don't see those success stories anymore is that there are so very very few coaches who get the chance to continue after two or three years of not much winning, regardless of the circumstances.

 

My logic isn't that keeping a guy a long time will work for every coach. There are bad coaches. Keeping them won't help. But there are also good coaches getting fired too early and it happens more and more often. Good owners have to figure out - they have info we don't have and access that is almost infinitely better than ours - to make good decisions about whether the coach and GM are good or not and whether they can work well together. And that if they are good, they should be given more time than they usually get these days.

 

Agreed that their win record will depend greatly on Allen. But if they get the rest of the team functioning very well even if Allen does poorly, they could be here for a while.

 

Bowles I don't really know well enough to say. Frankly, I thought he was a competent guy, but I wasn't paying all that much attention. I am not sure he was the main reason for the quagmire over there. I thought it might well have been the lack of good players rather than bad coaching. Jauron didn't seem to get it. Great guy / bad HC. I wouldn't have kept him. Might have given Gailey more time, though. He was generating offense with poor players. If he could've gotten a really good DC in, I thought he had a chance. But nobody wanted to come here with Mr. Wilson in bad health and the future of the team so up in the air.

Edited June 12, 2019 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

8 hours ago, K-9 said:

Investing in negative outcomes is the safest route, psychologically. 

 

 

It also tends to be the most realistic way to treat the likelihood of a team that was as bad the year before as we've been most years for the last 19 or so. It's the realist's way when looking at a team that hasn't been very good recently. Particularly for a team that before Allen hadn't had a QB with even a tomato can's chance of becoming a franchise QB in a long time.

 

And IMO while there are a few guys out there predicting 4 or 5 wins, the average and the way the realists are tending to fall is to expect improvement ... just improvement that isn't as fast as the Kool-Aid brigade would like.

 

That's not a negative outcome at all.

 

 

Edited June 12, 2019 by Thurman#1