John Warrow’s High Praise For Beane & McDermott Regime

[Rock-A-Bye Beasley]

3 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

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 encouraged. 

 

How can you feel more confident in the FO than the QB when they botched the QB situation so badly last season?

 

Not to mention every move on offense has been a complete disaster with Allen possibly being the only exception. 

[Shaw66]

1 minute ago, ScottLaw said:

can you give me an example of a GOOD HC coach who was mediocre for 4 straight years, was fired and succeeded else where in the modern day NFL? 

 

I already did.  Pete Carroll.  Fired after a horrible year with the Jets, fired after leading three years of decline with the Patriots.  

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

I already did.  Pete Carroll.  Fired after a horrible year with the Jets, fired after leading three years of decline with the Patriots.  

And oh yes. There was Bill Belichick.  

 

So there's two examples. Are you ready to admit you're wrong about this? Of course not.  So why should anyone keep listening to you?

[Royale with Cheese]

3 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

But the owners don't always know. Some are clueless as to what a good head coach looks like.... can you give me an example of a GOOD HC coach who was mediocre for 4 straight years, was fired and succeeded else where in the modern day NFL? 

 

And no way they'll continue to be here if Allen fails. If Allen is sucking, the offense in all likelihood is struggling. 3-4 straight years of bad offensive numbers and more offensive coaches fired and they'll all surely be gone. 

 

Gary Kubiak was below .500 in his first 4 years of coaching the Texans.  He was fired and won a Super Bowl with the Broncos

[Royale with Cheese]

8 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I already did.  Pete Carroll.  Fired after a horrible year with the Jets, fired after leading three years of decline with the Patriots.  

And oh yes. There was Bill Belichick.  

 

So there's two examples. Are you ready to admit you're wrong about this? Of course not.  So why should anyone keep listening to you?

 

Here's Gary Kubiak's coaching record:

 

[Patrick Duffy]

2 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Quit praisin' bro.

 I thought it was called "ball washing" In a much earlier post in the thread anyway lol

[oldmanfan]

15 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Wrong about what? 

 

The examples of coaches being successful after 3-4 mediocre seasons in a row are RARE.

 

Kubiak is really the one guy in modern NFL who had success else where and Kubiak Texans were trending upward before being fired in his last year. 

 

You gave me Dick Vermeil earlier in the thread.?

So you set up a cockamamie question where you place artificial limits on what a correct answer can be, despite that people give you answers that negate your premise, then you ignore those answers or claim they don't answer you question.  

 

And people get upset with me when I point out the fact that there are folks here (of whom you are one of the leading examples) who come here just to spin everything in a negative direction for whatever bizarre reason.

[ColoradoBills]

37 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Wrong about what? 

 

The examples of coaches being successful after 3-4 mediocre seasons in a row are RARE.

 

Kubiak is really the one guy in modern NFL who had success else where and Kubiak Texans were trending upward before being fired in his last year. 

 

You gave me Dick Vermeil earlier in the thread.?

 

So when McDermott does not win the Super Bowl this year and is fired who are your top 3 replacements names for HC?

[Royale with Cheese]

19 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

So you set up a cockamamie question where you place artificial limits on what a correct answer can be, despite that people give you answers that negate your premise, then you ignore those answers or claim they don't answer you question.  

 

And people get upset with me when I point out the fact that there are folks here (of whom you are one of the leading examples) who come here just to spin everything in a negative direction for whatever bizarre reason.

 

I noticed that immediately in his response.  LOL...there's no limit to him reaching.

[Boca BIlls]

Just checking in to see if the Praise is still on level "High"

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, ScottLaw said:

Wrong about what? 

 

The examples of coaches being successful after 3-4 mediocre seasons in a row are RARE.

 

Kubiak is really the one guy in modern NFL who had success else where and Kubiak Texans were trending upward before being fired in his last year. 

 

You gave me Dick Vermeil earlier in the thread.?

You're wrong about the notion that a guy can't be a successful coach if he isn't successful in his first three or four years. 

 

First, both Belichick and Carroll did exactly that.  

 

Then you say, well they're rare.  So that means you admit your original statement was incorrect.

 

Beyond that,  in let's say the last 30 years, there have been only 12 or 15 successful head coaches. So that alone means Belichick and  Carroll aren't rare.

 

And very few guys who have 3 or 4 mediocre years get another chance, so you can't know how many of them would have succeeded if given the chance. 

 

Some coaches win right away, some take longer.  It isnt a difficult concept for most of us. 

 

Even of it were true that no one had ever done, which it isn't, that doesn't make it impossible.  The four minute mile was impossible. 

[BADOLBILZ]

5 hours ago, thebandit27 said:

 

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).

 

 

 

Oh I see a lot less of it now that I have most of the the house mums on block............but there is a very vocal group that keeps pushing the goal line back because they are afraid of being disappointed.    

 

Yeah if they are less than 8-8 then something went VERY wrong with either the coaching/decisions of McDermott or the personnel work of Beane or both.    In both men there is already plenty of reason for skepticism.   With other HC/GM combos turning around worse teams in 1-2 offseasons it seems that 3 offseasons to sculpt a roster into a contender is more than fair measure.  

 

My biggest concern is the organization short-changing Allen for weapons.............they've basically just given him what looks like a very pedestrian offensive cast and are expecting him to meet them halfway when and that's not really been the formula that's been working wrt young QB's.    They are by no means propping him up with this group of WR's, TE's and RB's.

[thebandit27]

4 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Oh I see a lot less of it now that I have most of the the house mums on block............but there is a very vocal group that keeps pushing the goal line back because they are afraid of being disappointed.    

 

Yeah if they are less than 8-8 then something went VERY wrong with either the coaching/decisions of McDermott or the personnel work of Beane or both.    In both men there is already plenty of reason for skepticism.   With other HC/GM combos turning around worse teams in 1-2 offseasons it seems that 3 offseasons to sculpt a roster into a contender is more than fair measure.  

 

My biggest concern is the organization short-changing Allen for weapons.............they've basically just given him what looks like a very pedestrian offensive cast and are expecting him to meet them halfway when and that's not really been the formula that's been working wrt young QB's.    They are by no means propping him up with this group of WR's, TE's and RB's.

 

On the plus side: if Allen manages to excel with this supporting cast, he's probably good enough to win a Super Bowl with an above-average group of pass catchers around him.

[eball]

5 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

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.

 

The "professionals" miss on their evaluations of QBs all the time.  Believe me, I do understand the perspective that Buffalo needed a franchise QB when McD was hired -- I myself wondered if they might draft Watson or Mahomes -- but neither guy was a "can't miss" prospect.  Instead of criticizing McD in hindsight for not selecting one of those guys, how about congratulating KC and Houston for seeing something others didn't?

 

Again -- this "debate" is about differing opinions concerning how McD (and then Beane) chose to go about breaking down and then building up the Bills.  Many see the success of Mahomes and Watson and say "could have, should have" while others see the overall roster building and aren't playing the 20/20 hindsight game.  They are two different approaches and I, for one, am not going to sit back and bemoan every TD pass Mahomes throws and complain that "he should've been a Bill."

 

I truly hope Allen becomes the QB we all deserve so this can be put to rest.

[K-9]

It’s one thing to say that coaches who haven’t won in their first three years are rarely successful and quite another to present that as an argument against McDermott should he not win this year.

 

It’s a totally empty argument. There is simply ZERO correlation between McDermott and any coach who came before him. The sheer fact that he and they are in COMPLETELY different situations (and I mean COMPLETELY) bares that out. The fact they share the title of “Head Coach” doesn’t establish any correlation, let alone a basis for projection.

 

If we want to discuss McDermott in hypothetical terms for the sake of discussion, that’s great. If we want to compare his first two years to others, that’s fine, too. But let’s not present the argument as some sort of analytical determinator of success or failure moving forward. It’s a baseless argument. 

 

 

Edited June 12, 2019 by K-9

[Royale with Cheese]

20 minutes ago, K-9 said:

It’s one thing to say that coaches who haven’t won in their first three years are rarely successful and quite another to present that as an argument against McDermott should he not win this year.

 

It’s a totally empty argument. There is simply ZERO correlation between McDermott and any coach who came before him. The sheer fact that he and they are in COMPLETELY different situations (and I mean COMPLETELY) bares that out. The fact they share the title of “Head Coach” doesn’t establish any correlation, let alone a basis for projection.

 

If we want to discuss McDermott in hypothetical terms for the sake of discussion, that’s great. If we want to compare his first two years to others, that’s fine, too. But let’s not present the argument as some sort of analytical determinator of success or failure moving forward. It’s a baseless argument. 

 

 

 

It's the same argument with position players...especially QB. 

- X Player first 2 years stats vs HOF QB first 2 years stats.  Oh it's so eerily similar!  They'll have the same career!

[oldmanfan]

8 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

If the Bills don't improve this year and aren't winning consistently by year 4 you really think McBeane are still here for year 5? 

 

It's just the way of the league. You don't get 5 years and rarely 4 to prove yourself as a HC/GM duo if you aren't winning in year 3 or at least headed in that direction for year 4..... and rightfully so.

So you made up a convoluted question that was negated, and you response is to now just make up another question instead of acknowledging the first was negated?  Okay.

 

Now instead of 3 years it's 5 years?  My answer is it depends:  if they are 10-6 the next two years and just get nosed out in a tiebreaker for the playoffs then they should stay.

 

Now answer my question:  why do you make up questions and scenarios and change them around to try and figure out a way to have the Bills be bad and cause the HC and GM to be fired?

[oldmanfan]

9 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

What did I make up? 

 

There are VERY FEW examples of HCs who go on to be successful if their first 3-4 years are subpar. 

 

Pete Carroll is a terrible example. The guy won the AFC East and a playoff game his first year in NE.

 

 

You asked a question, people gave you data that refuted your claim, then you just change the parameters on a whim.   Above, all of a sudden it's 5 years, now it's 3-4.  Nice try Donald.

Edited June 12, 2019 by oldmanfan

[Shaw66]

13 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

You asked a question, people gave you data that refuted your claim, then you just change the parameters on a whim.   Above, all of a sudden it's 5 years, now it's 3-4.  Nice try Donald.

I'm out.  Sorry I got into this.  I won't again. 

[oldmanfan]

5 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Data? 

 

Pete Carroll? Is an awful example. Dick Vermeil?  That guys been a success everywhere he's gone. 

 

If only we gave Dick Jauron another few years.... the point is these guys need to start showing significant progress now.

 

 

 

Okay Donald.

 

Guess what?  Every single person on this board knows that Beane and McD have to be successful.  You know, like when they made the playoffs the first year which you like to ignore.  But do you know what the difference is between you and them?  They want to see what happens and they hope it turns out well.  You, on the other hand, imply that they won't succeed.  And the question I posed to you, that you apparently can't it won't answer, is why?  Why assume that?   I truly and sincerely would like someone who takes the negative slant consistently to explain the rationale for that.  

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

I'm out.  Sorry I got into this.  I won't again. 

I hope I didn't tick you off Shaw.  I think you nailed it here.

[K-9]

30 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

You asked a question, people gave you data that refuted your claim, then you just change the parameters on a whim.   Above, all of a sudden it's 5 years, now it's 3-4.  Nice try Donald.

Per the bold, this is the visualization of that concept: