John Warrow’s High Praise For Beane & McDermott Regime

[eball]

7 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

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?" 

 

I'll tell you at what point you don't say it -- when the current "regime" has only been in place for two seasons, one of which ended a 17-year playoff drought, and when the roster has been completely reshaped to fit their vision.  It would be absurdity to claim things "aren't working" at the end of the 2019 season unless the team stays reasonably healthy and yet still fails to improve upon last year's W-L record.

 

I've said in this and other threads that the 2019 season should not be viewed as "playoffs or bust."  If they make notable improvement on offense, eliminate bad losses, and finish at least .500 the "process" is working.

 

You don't give a new coach and GM the power to turn over the roster and then usher them out before the players/coaches they brought in have a reasonable opportunity to gel.

[Bill from NYC]

9 hours ago, Augie said:

 

. I personally think that including any history that pre-dates the current owners is either ignorant or agenda driven. 

 

 

. 

I respectfully disagree. The first draft that McDermott was here for and heavily involved in (if not in charge of) was quite "Billsy" for lack of a better word. If Allen turns out to be the QB we all hope he is, all will be forgiven. If not, it will probably indicate to me that this administration is just another failure. Injuries, etc. will enter into my viewpoint.

 

There are some things that I am totally looking forward to this season. Still, I find myself unable to do is heap praise upon everything McDermott and Beane do. Is this driven by ignorance or agenda? Nah, but I will cop to emotional self preservation.

[eball]

8 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

I respectfully disagree. The first draft that McDermott was here for and heavily involved in (if not in charge of) was quite "Billsy" for lack of a better word.

 

 

If "Billsy" means a top 5 CB, starting WR, starting LB, and starting LT -- hitting on 4 of 6 picks -- I hope their drafts continue to be "Billsy" for years to come!

[thebandit27]

10 hours 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.

 

Do we?

 

Seriously asking, because I haven't seen a lot of it...now, to be fair, I've been a bit distracted by a 7-month old that refuses to sleep at night, so my focus on the board lately has been on-the-field stuff more than anything else. To me it appears that we have a few "NOIs", a few more "excuse makers", and then whole bunch of folks that range from "warranted skepticism" to "full-on optimism" and everywhere in between.

 

Personally, I think this should be an 8-win team at a minimum if the OL/WR on-the-fly-rebuild works as intended.  I feel better about the OL part of that equation than the WR part (as I think most folks do).

 

[Bill from NYC]

1 minute ago, eball said:

 

If "Billsy" means a top 5 CB, starting WR, starting LB, and starting LT -- hitting on 4 of 6 picks -- I hope their drafts continue to be "Billsy" for years to come!

But you see e-man, it is possible to view this differently.

 

Mahomes and Watson were also pretty good, no? And we had QB problems at the time. Big problems that Peterman didn't solve.

 

I think it is OK to be suspicious of moves like this without being "agenda driven."

[eball]

Just now, Bill from NYC said:

But you see e-man, it is possible to view this differently.

 

Mahomes and Watson were also pretty good, no? And we had QB problems at the time. Big problems that Peterman didn't solve.

 

I think it is OK to be suspicious of moves like this without being "agenda driven."

 

No matter the draft, hitting on four of your top five picks is outstanding regardless of whom you "wish" they drafted.  That's just an empirical fact.

[Bill from NYC]

Just now, eball said:

 

No matter the draft, hitting on four of your top five picks is outstanding regardless of whom you "wish" they drafted.  That's just an empirical fact.

Its great, but you need a QB in place. This league is obviously different that it was years ago. McDermott passed on 2 great ones, and one might be the best player in the NFL.

 

I choose not to praise this but I respect your opinion.

[GunnerBill]

10 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

Should the Jets have held onto Todd Bowles for another season?

 

 

If the alternative was Gase? yes they should.

[Augie]

21 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

I respectfully disagree. The first draft that McDermott was here for and heavily involved in (if not in charge of) was quite "Billsy" for lack of a better word. If Allen turns out to be the QB we all hope he is, all will be forgiven. If not, it will probably indicate to me that this administration is just another failure. Injuries, etc. will enter into my viewpoint.

 

There are some things that I am totally looking forward to this season. Still, I find myself unable to do is heap praise upon everything McDermott and Beane do. Is this driven by ignorance or agenda? Nah, but I will cop to emotional self preservation.

 

Well who would do that? Certainly not me. I don’t expect Pegula & Co to be perfect. (I still shudder at the Rex fiasco!) I just won’t fully fault them or anyone else for what happens on the first day at a new job. And you refer to draft #1 before Beane even arrived. 

 

What tires me most is the 19 years of failure stuff. That doesn’t hold water in my mind. New owners, start the clock over. Maybe it took some time to get things pointed the right way, but I am encouraged. 

[GunnerBill]

3 hours ago, eball said:

 

I'll tell you at what point you don't say it -- when the current "regime" has only been in place for two seasons, one of which ended a 17-year playoff drought, and when the roster has been completely reshaped to fit their vision.  It would be absurdity to claim things "aren't working" at the end of the 2019 season unless the team stays reasonably healthy and yet still fails to improve upon last year's W-L record.

 

I've said in this and other threads that the 2019 season should not be viewed as "playoffs or bust."  If they make notable improvement on offense, eliminate bad losses, and finish at least .500 the "process" is working.

 

You don't give a new coach and GM the power to turn over the roster and then usher them out before the players/coaches they brought in have a reasonable opportunity to gel.

 

I agree almost entirely with this. I wouldn't quite say .500 proves the process is working mind you (any more than it proves things "aren't working"). I would say it proves the regime is worth giving another opportunity in 2020 and from that point on the judgment would be a lot more year to year. To me if the Bills improve on last year's W-L record there is no chance at all that the Bills clean house. The process will and should get another chance in 2020 to prove it can start to contend.

[eball]

7 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

Its great, but you need a QB in place. This league is obviously different that it was years ago. McDermott passed on 2 great ones, and one might be the best player in the NFL.

 

I choose not to praise this but I respect your opinion.

 

I'm not "praising" anything...I'm respecting a successful draft.  There are differing opinions as to whether McD should have targeted a QB or whether his plan was to look towards the 2018 draft.  He obviously felt as though he could make do with Tyrod as the bridge.  Others have noted that perhaps McD was not comfortable going after a QB based upon Whaley's scouting.  It was a different strategy, and hopefully it worked out with Allen.

[Royale with Cheese]

8 minutes ago, eball said:

 

I'm not "praising" anything...I'm respecting a successful draft.  There are differing opinions as to whether McD should have targeted a QB or whether his plan was to look towards the 2018 draft.  He obviously felt as though he could make do with Tyrod as the bridge.  Others have noted that perhaps McD was not comfortable going after a QB based upon Whaley's scouting.  It was a different strategy, and hopefully it worked out with Allen.

 

Quit praisin' bro.

[thebandit27]

26 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

But you see e-man, it is possible to view this differently.

 

Mahomes and Watson were also pretty good, no? And we had QB problems at the time. Big problems that Peterman didn't solve.

 

I think it is OK to be suspicious of moves like this without being "agenda driven."

 

24 minutes ago, eball said:

 

No matter the draft, hitting on four of your top five picks is outstanding regardless of whom you "wish" they drafted.  That's just an empirical fact.

 

9 minutes ago, eball said:

 

I'm not "praising" anything...I'm respecting a successful draft.  There are differing opinions as to whether McD should have targeted a QB or whether his plan was to look towards the 2018 draft.  He obviously felt as though he could make do with Tyrod as the bridge.  Others have noted that perhaps McD was not comfortable going after a QB based upon Whaley's scouting.  It was a different strategy, and hopefully it worked out with Allen.

 

Middle ground on the 2017 draft: the Bills had a successful draft...but not as successful as it could have (or should have) been.

 

Ultimately, it won't matter as long as Josh Allen becomes a franchise QB.  If he doesn't, well, then 2017's trade-down is basically looking like the biggest draft mistake in franchise history.

[Bill from NYC]

1 minute ago, thebandit27 said:

 

 

 

Middle ground on the 2017 draft: the Bills had a successful draft...but not as successful as it could have (or should have) been.

 

Ultimately, it won't matter as long as Josh Allen becomes a franchise QB.  If he doesn't, well, then 2017's trade-down is basically looking like the biggest draft mistake in franchise history.

This is what I was trying to get across. I am holding back judgement on McBeane, not universally blasting them.

[thebandit27]

2 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

This is what I was trying to get across. I am holding back judgement on McBeane, not universally blasting them.

 

Stop throwing spears at our Front Office William!

 

p.s. hope you're doing well.

[eball]

11 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

 

 

Middle ground on the 2017 draft: the Bills had a successful draft...but not as successful as it could have (or should have) been.

 

Ultimately, it won't matter as long as Josh Allen becomes a franchise QB.  If he doesn't, well, then 2017's trade-down is basically looking like the biggest draft mistake in franchise history.

 

7 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

This is what I was trying to get across. I am holding back judgement on McBeane, not universally blasting them.

 

Here's where I slightly disagree...it was not universally accepted that Mahomes (or Watson) would be a franchise QB.  After Trubisky there was an extremely wide disparity of opinion as to when (and who) the next QB would be taken.  I can't call a decision to trade down in that scenario for a new HC a horrible mistake when such judgment would be rendered completely based upon hindsight.

 

On that basis, 31 teams made "the biggest mistake in franchise history" five times over the year Brady was drafted.

[Bill from NYC]

3 minutes ago, eball said:

 

 

Here's where I slightly disagree...it was not universally accepted that Mahomes (or Watson) would be a franchise QB.  After Trubisky there was an extremely wide disparity of opinion as to when (and who) the next QB would be taken.  I can't call a decision to trade down in that scenario for a new HC a horrible mistake when such judgment would be rendered completely based upon hindsight.

 

On that basis, 31 teams made "the biggest mistake in franchise history" five times over the year Brady was drafted.

True but it was a pretty bad miss by professionals. But as Bandit said, if Allen turns into a franchise QB (and btw I was behind this selection from day 1) the whole episode will be rendered a moot point.

If not.....you tell me.

[K-9]

1 hour ago, Bill from NYC said:

I respectfully disagree. The first draft that McDermott was here for and heavily involved in (if not in charge of) was quite "Billsy" for lack of a better word. If Allen turns out to be the QB we all hope he is, all will be forgiven. If not, it will probably indicate to me that this administration is just another failure. Injuries, etc. will enter into my viewpoint.

 

There are some things that I am totally looking forward to this season. Still, I find myself unable to do is heap praise upon everything McDermott and Beane do. Is this driven by ignorance or agenda? Nah, but I will cop to emotional self preservation.

Yep, it all comes down to Allen, regardless. 

 

My question for the fan fan base is, “how long does Allen get?” Personally, I’m a still a proponent of the long time axiom of giving a QB prospect 1,000 attempts before making a general determination.

 

That may not go over well with much of today’s hot-pocket fan base, though.

[thebandit27]

13 minutes ago, eball said:

 

 

Here's where I slightly disagree...it was not universally accepted that Mahomes (or Watson) would be a franchise QB.  After Trubisky there was an extremely wide disparity of opinion as to when (and who) the next QB would be taken.  I can't call a decision to trade down in that scenario for a new HC a horrible mistake when such judgment would be rendered completely based upon hindsight.

 

On that basis, 31 teams made "the biggest mistake in franchise history" five times over the year Brady was drafted.

 

Well, unless you're staring the 1st overall pick in the face and you have an Andrew Luck on your hands, which happens once a generation, you're unlikely to get a risk-free pick at QB.

 

Mahomes was definitely a less-risky pick at 10 than Allen was at 7 (with or without a trade-up), so I guess I can't see the logic in passing on him there.

 

As for the Brady comparison, I guess there's a point there.  The way I'm looking at it is that you aren't talking about a guy that was widely-considered as barely-draftable in an era that didn't place anywhere near as much emphasis on the QB position as today's game.  With Mahomes, you're talking about a near-consensus first-round QB in a pass-centric era of NFL football, and a team that hasn't had stability at the position in 2 decades traded out of the spot in which he was picked.  That he went to a team with an established veteran QB and established offensive playcaller and became the best player in the NFL in his 2nd season makes it even worse IMO.

[Augie]

5 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

This is what I was trying to get across. I am holding back judgement on McBeane, not universally blasting them.

 

That’s fair enough. I tend to like Josh Allen, but I’m the same way....I need to see more. I feel more confident in the FO than I do the QB, but time will tell. Hopefully we hit home runs with all. For now, I’m very encouraged. 

Edited June 12, 2019 by Augie