Royale with Cheese Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 Just now, GunnerBill said: If you are asking me personally..... I would need that spouse to be American as well in order to comply with your Visa requirements. ☺️ If I won a few million on the UK lottery (I only play about twice a year) I would quit my job, buy a green card, and write to the Bills asking them to give me an unpaid internship in the scouting department. Well in America, men can get married to men. I just got divorced and a good amount of my paycheck goes to preschool and child support.....how bad do you want that VISA!? My son is 4....just 14 more years of child support payments and I'll make you legal!
thebandit27 Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 5 hours ago, GunnerBill said: Let me just respond a little to this because I reckon it comes up half a dozen times a year. Being a senior exec in a Front Office pays well. But the entry level positions to an NFL front office career do not. Scouting assistants, even area and regional scouts, are not paid well and that is a barrier to people entering the profession. I mean in my case a visa would be an issue too but if I did decide to throw my pretty well paid job in to chase the dream of being an NFL GM it would, in the initial stages, be a significant pay cut. As for whether I get things wrong in my job.... I do. Probably daily. But I have never been Nathan Peterman level wrong about anything. When you make a call that blows up that badly and you stick to your guns and make the same call again and it blows up spectacularly again in a lot of jobs that is your lot. 9 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: If you are asking me personally..... I would need that spouse to be American as well in order to comply with your Visa requirements. ☺️ If I won a few million on the UK lottery (I only play about twice a year) I would quit my job, buy a green card, and write to the Bills asking them to give me an unpaid internship in the scouting department. FWIW, I've done some initial exploring. There's just no way to make up for the loss in income (yet). Give me another 4-5 years and we'll see. 1
Shaw66 Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 5 hours ago, GunnerBill said: Let me just respond a little to this because I reckon it comes up half a dozen times a year. Being a senior exec in a Front Office pays well. But the entry level positions to an NFL front office career do not. Scouting assistants, even area and regional scouts, are not paid well and that is a barrier to people entering the profession. I mean in my case a visa would be an issue too but if I did decide to throw my pretty well paid job in to chase the dream of being an NFL GM it would, in the initial stages, be a significant pay cut. As for whether I get things wrong in my job.... I do. Probably daily. But I have never been Nathan Peterman level wrong about anything. When you make a call that blows up that badly and you stick to your guns and make the same call again and it blows up spectacularly again in a lot of jobs that is your lot. I have just come back to this thread and haven't read what comes before, but I thought your post was very interesting for a couple of reasons. First, you're correct about entry level positions in the NFL - they pay very little. But that is as it should be. Entry level positions at most places pay very little. That's how the system works. If you're young, you can live on very little, you enter low, work hard, move up. If you're older, you save your money until you have a kitty to live on while you take the pay cut to take an entry level position. No one is entitled to get mid-level pay for entry-level work at any business. If your legislators want to change the minimum wage laws, fine, then we'll all be able to pursue our dream jobs and employers will just have to support us. But that isn't how it works now. Bill Belichick worked for free in his first NFL job. Most star musicians worked for free in their earliest gigs. That's life. Second, Peterman. People keep using Peterman in an effort to prove something about McDermott, something about his competence. I just don't buy. I was one of the most vocal screamers after the disastrous Peterman start in place of Taylor in 2017, because like everyone else, I couldn't see how it was possible that McD could not have seen in practice what we all saw in the game. And I was equally vocal after the season opener in 2018, not so much because Peterman was so bad but because one Allen got in the game he was so obviously better. In terms of personnel decisions and winning football games, which is the point, those were so obviously bad decisions that there can be little argument about them. But taken from a broader perspective, and looking at them in the rear view mirror, they don't bother me so much, for several reasons: (1) McDermott is a young head coach, relatively inexperienced. As in any other big job, he's going to make mistakes. Even when he's experienced he's going to make mistakes, but early in his tenure he's likely to make more. And he's more likely to make them on offense, which is not his area of principal expertise. We haven't seen anything similar in his management of the defense. I have as much confidence in Milano as I did in Peterman, and McD obviously knew what he was doing with MIlano. McD also has a long-term focus. One game isn't as important to him as the long-term building process, at least while he's building a competitive team. So, I can understand benching Taylor for Peterman when that happened. I didn't like it, even before the disaster, but I can understand it. Peterman had the heart, the team focus, and the book-understanding of the offense that McD liked. McD by then had decided that Taylor wasn't his long-term answer, so he decided to give Peterman a try. Maybe Peterman would provide the spark McD said he was looking for. Maybe Peterman would show that he had promise as the long-term answer. Turns out Peterman was neither, but I can understand the reasoning. It doesn't change the fact that McD should have been able to see in practice that Peterman wasn't ready for prime time, but I chalk that up to McD's inexperience. You can be sure that McD has studied that decision in detail to understand where he went wrong and to change his decision making to minimize the likelihood of a similar mistake in the future. As for the second Peterman start, I'm sure that was done to protect Allen. I don't think the Bills wanted any part of Allen starting early in his rookie season. I suspect in June they assumed McCarron would win the starting job and would run the team until Allen really had gotten his feet wet. By late August they had figured out that McCarron wasn't what they needed, and they decided to go with Peterman. Why? Because in camp he had shown progress and they needed SOMEONE to play so they could protect their rookie. Being in that position is a knock on Beane, because he's the one who stayed out of the free agent QB free for all until McCarron was his only choice. And yes, in retrospect, that was a mistake, too, but it was Beane's, not McD's. From the perspective of today, however, McD's handling of Peterman (and Beane's handling of the QBs) is a footnote. Josh Allen is the starter, and the Bills have what looks like a credible backup. So for the first time in who know how many seasons, the focus of the Bills' future is not on the QB position. (And, by the way, if anyone actually wants to put blame on Beane for handling the QBs, he deserves ten times as much praise for the work he did landing Allen. The job is to get results, not to be pretty along the way. The process didn't look pretty, but the result certainly looks good.) So what does the Peterman saga tell us? It tells me that I have reason to have some lingering concern about McD's judgment, because he TWICE made the baffling decision to start Peterman. Still, I like where the Bills are, and I like McD's approach to his job. Would the Bills be in a different place in 2017 if McD hadn't started Peterman against the Chargers? Probably not. The Bills probably would have lost that game anyway, and even if they had won it, all that would have happened is they wouldn't have backed into wild card spot in the playoffs. Would the Bills be in a different place today if McCarron had started against the Ravens in 2018? No. If Allen had started against the Ravens? No. Peterman is not the hook to hang anti-McBeane arguments on. Although I'm not buying it, the argument that cleaning house wasn't necessary, and that McBeane got rid of some really good talent, makes more sense to me.
GunnerBill Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 13 minutes ago, Shaw66 said: Peterman is not the hook to hang anti-McBeane arguments on. Although I'm not buying it, the argument that cleaning house wasn't necessary, and that McBeane got rid of some really good talent, makes more sense to me. Only quoting your conclusion to save space - but I agree. I am not trying to make an anti-McDermott argument. I remain firmly pro-McDermott. It was a dreadful mistake though and (and maybe these are my own biases showing through) but I strongly suspect there were personal reasons for McDermott persisting with him as long as he did. Starting him once is a bad mistake, but just about understandable. Starting him twice was incredibly foolish, but allowing him to remain on the roster after the Baltimore meltdown was inexcusable. 1 1
Augie Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 1 hour ago, GunnerBill said: If you are asking me personally..... I would need that spouse to be American as well in order to comply with your Visa requirements. ☺️ If I won a few million on the UK lottery (I only play about twice a year) I would quit my job, buy a green card, and write to the Bills asking them to give me an unpaid internship in the scouting department. If I win the Powerball I’ll look into a scholarship fund and write a glowing letter of recommendation!
GunnerBill Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 1 minute ago, Augie said: If I win the Powerball I’ll look into a scholarship fund and write a glowing letter of recommendation! Haha, cheers Augie!
Augie Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 1 minute ago, GunnerBill said: Haha, cheers Augie! Don’t get too excited, I don’t have a ticket....not that that changes your odds much....
Shaw66 Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 13 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: Only quoting your conclusion to save space - but I agree. I am not trying to make an anti-McDermott argument. I remain firmly pro-McDermott. It was a dreadful mistake though and (and maybe these are my own biases showing through) but I strongly suspect there were personal reasons for McDermott persisting with him as long as he did. Starting him once is a bad mistake, but just about understandable. Starting him twice was incredibly foolish, but allowing him to remain on the roster after the Baltimore meltdown was inexcusable. I don't agree, but it's certainly an open question. I liked Taylor, and I always thought starting Peterman against the Chargers was the bigger mistake. I think the start against the Ravens was simply because the most important thing to McD at that point was not starting Allen in the opening game of his rookie season. McD would have started me instead of Allen if I'd been on the roster. And he literally had no choice but to keep Peterman on the roster after Baltimore, because if I recall correctly there was no one else. Keeping him on the roster goes back to the QB situation having been mismanaged in the off-season. I do agree with you that McD liked Peterman. He was McD's kind of guy. I doubt that had much impact on his decision to start Peterman against the Ravens or keep him on the roster. McD is tough as nails, and he won't shy away from hard decisions just because he likes a guy. Still, I hear what you're saying. In a perverse way, one of my favorite moments during the ongoing ugliness of past 20 years was Bills at Packers, 2010. Chan Gailey's second game. I happened to be there. Bills got smoked. Bills last possession, Bills on the Packers 25 or so, pure mop up time, fourth down, Trent Edwards gets flushed out of the pocket, scrambles left, runs a few yards past the line of scrimmage and runs out of bounds short of the first down. Favre takes a knee or two, game over. The next day Gailey announces that Fitzpatrick will start. The day after that, the Bills cut Edwards. If the guy can't figure out that on that play he either (1) runs for the first down or (2) throws the ball SOMEWHERE, if the guy can't figure out that he's not supposed to just quit on the play and the series and the game, then Gailey's response was "I don't want him on my team." I don't know, but I would guess that Peterman never runs out of bounds on that play. I would guess that because McD wouldn't have liked him so much if Peterman weren't that kind of competitor.
ColoradoBills Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 41 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: Only quoting your conclusion to save space - but I agree. I am not trying to make an anti-McDermott argument. I remain firmly pro-McDermott. It was a dreadful mistake though and (and maybe these are my own biases showing through) but I strongly suspect there were personal reasons for McDermott persisting with him as long as he did. Starting him once is a bad mistake, but just about understandable. Starting him twice was incredibly foolish, but allowing him to remain on the roster after the Baltimore meltdown was inexcusable. 11 minutes ago, Shaw66 said: I don't agree, but it's certainly an open question. I liked Taylor, and I always thought starting Peterman against the Chargers was the bigger mistake. I think the start against the Ravens was simply because the most important thing to McD at that point was not starting Allen in the opening game of his rookie season. McD would have started me instead of Allen if I'd been on the roster. And he literally had no choice but to keep Peterman on the roster after Baltimore, because if I recall correctly there was no one else. Keeping him on the roster goes back to the QB situation having been mismanaged in the off-season. I agree Shaw. No one wanting to see Peterman in another game but cutting him and having Josh the only QB who knew the playbook wasn't a good option. They were looking for another QB since the beginning of the season. I remember they brought in Paxton Lynch and I'm not sure who else. Later we found out they were pushing Anderson to come out of retirement. Then he goes down with an injury. The whole QB thing ended up being very bad and I'm certainly not defending Beane/McDermott. The only thing that went right was JA looking better by the end of the season. I hope Beane/McDermott learned a lesson over that whole debacle because at the very least they should of brought in a QB to the practice squad to start the 2018 season. 2
BADOLBILZ Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 1 hour ago, GunnerBill said: If you are asking me personally..... I would need that spouse to be American as well in order to comply with your Visa requirements. ☺️ If I won a few million on the UK lottery (I only play about twice a year) I would quit my job, buy a green card, and write to the Bills asking them to give me an unpaid internship in the scouting department. 51 minutes ago, thebandit27 said: FWIW, I've done some initial exploring. There's just no way to make up for the loss in income (yet). Give me another 4-5 years and we'll see. Yeah there is this perception that the people running scouting departments or GM'ing clubs are simply the most talented football evaluators possible..............and that's not really how the system works. If you are willing to grind at a low paying job and make large family sacrifices for a long time........with some breaks and good timing you can ascend to a decent paying job in pro football. The reason the system is like this is because the owners KNOW that there are a million people who can do the same job so they don't need to starter shop at MIT. It's not rocket science.........they want a pool of people who are single minded about football and then they hope they develop some that are smart enough to handle the management jobs without worrying every day if that person is looking for another job(which is a major issue in most of the more complicated/tech professions). Every once in a while they find a Belichick............but most of the time it's a glorified gym teacher like.......Marvin Lewis (y'all thought I was going to say McDermott, admit it). And yeah the pay cut would be huge. The lower rungs of pro sports is a sub-minimum wage gig. I could just retire and do it but in my late 40's I'm not going to be traveling around scouting small colleges. Hell in my late 30's I had no interest in that kind of work. No thanks. My long list of interests trumps my desire to do that. I'm very interested in my hobby but I'd pretty much have to go to the top of a personnel department to even be interested in the job. If the stakes keep rising it will be interesting to see if more NFL owners start seeking out the cream of the crop in college and paying well like other professions do.......analytics becoming a factor encourages that........but as long as everyone is doing it this way then it's just going to be a bunch of dedicated JAG's working their way up the system. 3
K-9 Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 49 minutes ago, Shaw66 said: I have just come back to this thread and haven't read what comes before, but I thought your post was very interesting for a couple of reasons. First, you're correct about entry level positions in the NFL - they pay very little. But that is as it should be. Entry level positions at most places pay very little. That's how the system works. If you're young, you can live on very little, you enter low, work hard, move up. If you're older, you save your money until you have a kitty to live on while you take the pay cut to take an entry level position. No one is entitled to get mid-level pay for entry-level work at any business. If your legislators want to change the minimum wage laws, fine, then we'll all be able to pursue our dream jobs and employers will just have to support us. But that isn't how it works now. Bill Belichick worked for free in his first NFL job. Most star musicians worked for free in their earliest gigs. That's life. Second, Peterman. People keep using Peterman in an effort to prove something about McDermott, something about his competence. I just don't buy. I was one of the most vocal screamers after the disastrous Peterman start in place of Taylor in 2017, because like everyone else, I couldn't see how it was possible that McD could not have seen in practice what we all saw in the game. And I was equally vocal after the season opener in 2018, not so much because Peterman was so bad but because one Allen got in the game he was so obviously better. In terms of personnel decisions and winning football games, which is the point, those were so obviously bad decisions that there can be little argument about them. But taken from a broader perspective, and looking at them in the rear view mirror, they don't bother me so much, for several reasons: (1) McDermott is a young head coach, relatively inexperienced. As in any other big job, he's going to make mistakes. Even when he's experienced he's going to make mistakes, but early in his tenure he's likely to make more. And he's more likely to make them on offense, which is not his area of principal expertise. We haven't seen anything similar in his management of the defense. I have as much confidence in Milano as I did in Peterman, and McD obviously knew what he was doing with MIlano. McD also has a long-term focus. One game isn't as important to him as the long-term building process, at least while he's building a competitive team. So, I can understand benching Taylor for Peterman when that happened. I didn't like it, even before the disaster, but I can understand it. Peterman had the heart, the team focus, and the book-understanding of the offense that McD liked. McD by then had decided that Taylor wasn't his long-term answer, so he decided to give Peterman a try. Maybe Peterman would provide the spark McD said he was looking for. Maybe Peterman would show that he had promise as the long-term answer. Turns out Peterman was neither, but I can understand the reasoning. It doesn't change the fact that McD should have been able to see in practice that Peterman wasn't ready for prime time, but I chalk that up to McD's inexperience. You can be sure that McD has studied that decision in detail to understand where he went wrong and to change his decision making to minimize the likelihood of a similar mistake in the future. As for the second Peterman start, I'm sure that was done to protect Allen. I don't think the Bills wanted any part of Allen starting early in his rookie season. I suspect in June they assumed McCarron would win the starting job and would run the team until Allen really had gotten his feet wet. By late August they had figured out that McCarron wasn't what they needed, and they decided to go with Peterman. Why? Because in camp he had shown progress and they needed SOMEONE to play so they could protect their rookie. Being in that position is a knock on Beane, because he's the one who stayed out of the free agent QB free for all until McCarron was his only choice. And yes, in retrospect, that was a mistake, too, but it was Beane's, not McD's. From the perspective of today, however, McD's handling of Peterman (and Beane's handling of the QBs) is a footnote. Josh Allen is the starter, and the Bills have what looks like a credible backup. So for the first time in who know how many seasons, the focus of the Bills' future is not on the QB position. (And, by the way, if anyone actually wants to put blame on Beane for handling the QBs, he deserves ten times as much praise for the work he did landing Allen. The job is to get results, not to be pretty along the way. The process didn't look pretty, but the result certainly looks good.) So what does the Peterman saga tell us? It tells me that I have reason to have some lingering concern about McD's judgment, because he TWICE made the baffling decision to start Peterman. Still, I like where the Bills are, and I like McD's approach to his job. Would the Bills be in a different place in 2017 if McD hadn't started Peterman against the Chargers? Probably not. The Bills probably would have lost that game anyway, and even if they had won it, all that would have happened is they wouldn't have backed into wild card spot in the playoffs. Would the Bills be in a different place today if McCarron had started against the Ravens in 2018? No. If Allen had started against the Ravens? No. Peterman is not the hook to hang anti-McBeane arguments on. Although I'm not buying it, the argument that cleaning house wasn't necessary, and that McBeane got rid of some really good talent, makes more sense to me. Good food for thought. A little additional perspective on Peterman. I don’t think McD screwed the pooch nearly as much as we perceive that he did when it comes to Peterman. He basically gave Peterman the keys to the car twice and yanked him both times at the half. I think it’s the sheer spectacular level of his NP’s incompetence in the blowout losses he started that makes it seem so much worse. The San Diego debacle was the result of a coach trying to light a fire under his crap offense and I can at least understand it if I didn’t agree with it. It didn’t work in spectacular fashion and he was yanked at the half. It could be argued McD should have yanked him sooner in that game, but a coach will often give a player a chance to achieve some sort of positive result; anything at all, for that player to at least leave on a positive note. Obviously that wasn’t the case, but again, I understand why he let him finish the half. TT was reinserted for the second half and, had TT not gotten hurt, that would have been the last we would have seen of Peterman in ‘17, but he got a start vs. Indy and managed to help win a game. So, a small positive moving forward. That brings us to the ‘18 offseason and what do we see in Peterman? A QB that clearly outplayed McCarron and Allen all through OTAs, mini camp, training camp, and preseason. Now that’s not saying much at all, but he was the best of the three and earned the start in the opener vs the Ravens. And it was on Beane for not providing better depth at the position, which he owned and admitted, but McD had to go with the best player he saw at the position at the time. And more than a few pundits and other observers were impressed with Peterman and what he was showing that summer. McD isn’t the only coach to be fooled by fools gold. And its funny how Gruden and Co. were gushing over “practice” Peterman in Oakland this spring, too. He’s a helluva QB when it doesn’t matter apparently. Anyway, the Ravens debacle was enough for McD. NP was yanked at the half and would not have been seen the field again if not for Allen getting hurt. The Texans game was the final nail, obviously. And, again, I can’t put all the blame on McD for Beane not acting quick enough to find better depth. McD wanted to believe in Peterman, perhaps even needed to believe in him, for various reasons, including his ego. But he really only gave NP two opportunities in the regular season. Two opportunities that amounted to two halves or, one game of action. Which is why I don’t buy the argument that he was somehow married to the guy. McD gave Peterman a far shorter leash than we may perceive.
oldmanfan Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 24 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said: I agree Shaw. No one wanting to see Peterman in another game but cutting him and having Josh the only QB who knew the playbook wasn't a good option. They were looking for another QB since the beginning of the season. I remember they brought in Paxton Lynch and I'm not sure who else. Later we found out they were pushing Anderson to come out of retirement. Then he goes down with an injury. The whole QB thing ended up being very bad and I'm certainly not defending Beane/McDermott. The only thing that went right was JA looking better by the end of the season. I hope Beane/McDermott learned a lesson over that whole debacle because at the very least they should of brought in a QB to the practice squad to start the 2018 season. Yep. And Beane admitted that.
Mr. WEO Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 15 hours ago, Augie said: No GM or team gets every decision right 100% of the time. Often there are shades of gray. I think we get more right than wrong under the current regime. Some arm chair GM’s want to act like they are smarter than the GM and coaches by latching on to certain things that either failed miserably (yeah, that’s YOU, KB) or are more questionable (in this case Star). Eventually, they will be judged by results and either remain employed.....or not. But my point is this - those who act like they KNOW should go be a GM or HC. Are they making the millions every year that our FO makes? Can they not afford the pay cut? I get we all have opinions, but if you constantly belittle the FO decisions by cherry picking a few things that don’t work out, I sure hope you are 100% right EVERY SINGLE DAY at your job. I see this argument often and I have to say, it's not very compelling (in general, not pertaining to Bills FO). We see not infrequently NFL FO's making awful decisions that are recognized by fans when they are made as awful. There are bad GMs who get fired for being really bad GMs. So it's easy to conclude that many knowledgeable fans of the game probably would not be worse at GM'ing than the worst GMs have been. It's not necessarily a meritocracy in the hiring of NFL FO staff, as we all know...so there's no reason to believe that every GM has a better natural ability to make roster moves over every savvy fan. Of course, the savvy fan can't just "go and be a GM or HC", so why make that a point? In fact you could make a better point that the turnover in FO's is precisely because they have such a tiny (and incestuous) pool of talent to choose from. 1 1
BADOLBILZ Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 14 hours ago, Gugny said: Link? ask @oldmanfan he said it 1
BADOLBILZ Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 15 hours ago, oldmanfan said: You may have used a different word than consumed but you said pride affected his decisions. It's one thing to have different opinions; we can debate those honestly. But when you refuse to own your own words as you do that's another matter entirely. And Shaw already explained snap count differences between offense and defense but you just ignore things that show the error of your thoughts. There is a difference between being "consumed" by something and being "affected" by it. Affected spans the range of 1% and up..........consumed is all-encompassing(100%).
Bill from NYC Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 (edited) 20 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said: Yeah there is this perception that the people running scouting departments or GM'ing clubs are simply the most talented football evaluators possible..............and that's not really how the system works. If you are willing to grind at a low paying job and make large family sacrifices for a long time........with some breaks and good timing you can ascend to a decent paying job in pro football. The reason the system is like this is because the owners KNOW that there are a million people who can do the same job so they don't need to starter shop at MIT. It's not rocket science.........they want a pool of people who are single minded about football and then they hope they develop some that are smart enough to handle the management jobs without worrying every day if that person is looking for another job(which is a major issue in most of the more complicated/tech professions). Every once in a while they find a Belichick............but most of the time it's a glorified gym teacher like.......Marvin Lewis (y'all thought I was going to say McDermott, admit it). And yeah the pay cut would be huge. The lower rungs of pro sports is a sub-minimum wage gig. I could just retire and do it but in my late 40's I'm not going to be traveling around scouting small colleges. Hell in my late 30's I had no interest in that kind of work. No thanks. My long list of interests trumps my desire to do that. I'm very interested in my hobby but I'd pretty much have to go to the top of a personnel department to even be interested in the job. If the stakes keep rising it will be interesting to see if more NFL owners start seeking out the cream of the crop in college and paying well like other professions do.......analytics becoming a factor encourages that........but as long as everyone is doing it this way then it's just going to be a bunch of dedicated JAG's working their way up the system. Then when one reaches the top (GM), I always wondered how many owners demand a say in who gets drafted. I am 100% certain that when Paul Allen owned the Seahawks, he had zero input. He didn't even personally attend owners meetings. Otoh, I am sure that Mr. Wilson was way too involved with the football side. Remember when he said that he needed to become "more involved?" Oy! Fwiw if I hit the powerball a few times and purchase an NFL Team I will hire you, but I will demand some input in the draft. The people running the drafts for the Bills have left me with PTSD. Edited June 21, 2019 by Bill from NYC 1
oldmanfan Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said: There is a difference between being "consumed" by something and being "affected" by it. Affected spans the range of 1% and up..........consumed is all-encompassing(100%). Parse words all you want but you think McD's pride affected his decisions, and now you want to play word games instead of standing by your opinion. 9 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said: ask @oldmanfan he said it Did you not look at the above post. I own my opinions and when I am in error I say so. You don't do either.
Shaw66 Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 53 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: I see this argument often and I have to say, it's not very compelling (in general, not pertaining to Bills FO). We see not infrequently NFL FO's making awful decisions that are recognized by fans when they are made as awful. There are bad GMs who get fired for being really bad GMs. So it's easy to conclude that many knowledgeable fans of the game probably would not be worse at GM'ing than the worst GMs have been. It's not necessarily a meritocracy in the hiring of NFL FO staff, as we all know...so there's no reason to believe that every GM has a better natural ability to make roster moves over every savvy fan. Of course, the savvy fan can't just "go and be a GM or HC", so why make that a point? In fact you could make a better point that the turnover in FO's is precisely because they have such a tiny (and incestuous) pool of talent to choose from. Responding to this discussion generally, and only partly to what WEO says. What he says is implicit in what others are saying here. Plain and simple, it is almost an absolute certainty that McDermott and Beane know more about football and make more informed judgments about the game and personnel than anyone posting here. Anyone. The NFL is closer to being a pure meritocracy than almost any large organization, university, government that we have. It functions beautifully as a meritocracy. The notion that it's populated by a bunch of noobs who are lucky they can tie their shoes is just wrong. Success in the NFL is measured by wins, not by who you know. If Rex Ryan got the Bills job because of who he knew, how'd that work out for him? Less than two seasons of crappy performance, and he was out. There's turnover in the front offices of NFL teams not because the people getting fired are incompetent; it's because they aren't making the playoffs. Most teams don't make the playoffs, so most teams have front office turnover. Simple as that. Who you know may get you in the door at the bottom of the heap. Belichick knew people in the Colts organization; that's how he got himself a volunteer job at the beginning. But knowing people didn't get him promoted and promoted and promoted. Parcells didn't take Belichick with him every place he went because Bill's father was a coach. Making positive contributions that his bosses saw got him promoted. If he hadn't made positive contributions, he would have been teaching junior high school social studies somewhere. The guys at the top of the pyramid, the GMS, the HCs and the coordinators, the directors of scouting, got to those positions by being good at all the jobs below that that they did. They got promoted and promoted because they were good at those jobs and someone gave them a chance to step up to the next level to see if they could succeed there. It's exactly the same as players - JV in high school, then varsity, then recruiting and college, then training camp, then practice squad or worse for many of them. All along the way, the least capable are being left behind and the successful move on. It's a quintessential meritocracy, and it's the same off the field as it is on the field. McDermott's oline coach, his wideout coach, his special teams coach didn't produce. What happened? Gone. Only one thing matters - doing your job, winning at your job. Some of the coaches come up strictly through the pro game, many others come up through some combination of the pros and college, like Daboll, some strictly through college. But whichever way they've come up, they've demonstrated talent and drive and success. If my job depends on winning, if winning depends in part on the quality of people working for me, I'm not making my college roommate's son my offensive coordinator just for old time's sake. So when someone here makes himself out to be a smart guy who would certainly be in the front office somewhere but he just didn't want to make the sacrifice, financial or otherwise, I just laugh. I mean, it COULD be true, maybe he could. But when someone tells you that he could have won multiple Grammy awards if he'd only chosen to spend several years playing in a band in bars throughout the midwest, do you believe him? When someone tells you he could have been a brain surgeon except that he decided to move to Toledo to be with his girlfriend the physical therapist, do you believe him? Brain surgeons got to be brain surgeons for a reason. But somehow people here seem to think that GMs got be GMs by kissing someone's behind. The fact is that, just like on the playing fields, the NFL weeds out the weak, the less determined, the less able jlong before those people are getting hired into senior front office positions. The front offices are left with, by and large, the most qualified people in the country doing those jobs. We don't like to admit it, because, after all, any fool could see that Peterman wasn't the answer. But the truth is that McDermott is as smart as any of us, is as determined as the most determined of us. McDermott has spent over 20 years working 60-80 hours a week doing this: William & Mary (1998) Graduate assistant Philadelphia Eagles (1999–2000) Scouting administrative coordinator Philadelphia Eagles (2001) Assistant to head coach Philadelphia Eagles (2002–2003) Defensive assistant & quality control Philadelphia Eagles (2004–2006) Assistant defensive backs coach Philadelphia Eagles (2007) Secondary coach Philadelphia Eagles (2008) Linebackers coach Philadelphia Eagles (2009–2010) Defensive coordinator & secondary coach Carolina Panthers (2011–2016) Defensive coordinator Buffalo Bills (2017–present) Head coach It's foolhardy for any of us to think we understand what needs to be done better than McDermott. People will argue with me about that, but it's true. McDermott understands the significance of thousands of details about the game that we don't. We can't, because we haven't spent the time studying the game the way he has. Yes, there's the occasional Rex Ryan who gets hired for a second time as a head coach, but they're relatively few and far between. Winning is too important for an owner or a GM to hire less than the most competent people he can find. Pretty much everybody with a big job in the NFL has a resume like McDermott's, and just like McDermott they've succeeded at every level. I've got lots of opinions about the Bills, but I have only a thimbleful of the knowledge and wisdom about the game that McDermott and Beane have. I can argue about it and write about it, but I know this: If I'm in a conversation with Sean McDermott telling him who his starting wideouts should be, he's going to be laughing at me. Not to my face, because he's too much a gentleman to do that, but inside.
SoTier Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 48 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said: I agree Shaw. No one wanting to see Peterman in another game but cutting him and having Josh the only QB who knew the playbook wasn't a good option. They were looking for another QB since the beginning of the season. I remember they brought in Paxton Lynch and I'm not sure who else. Later we found out they were pushing Anderson to come out of retirement. Then he goes down with an injury. The whole QB thing ended up being very bad and I'm certainly not defending Beane/McDermott. The only thing that went right was JA looking better by the end of the season. I hope Beane/McDermott learned a lesson over that whole debacle because at the very least they should of brought in a QB to the practice squad to start the 2018 season. They must not have been looking very hard because they could have found somebody considerably better than Peterman without sinking to bringing in a first round bust or a retiree given that they found Barkley within a couple of days of Anderson getting hurt. Instead, they waited a month and signed Anderson who promptly got hurt. I can think of numerous reasons for the Bills to wait a month to replace Peterman, none of them very complimentary to McDermott and/or Beane. At minimum, I think the delay in finding a competent backup QB suggests that either or both didn't think that having a competent backup QB was particularly important, despite Allen's struggles and his propensity to run too often.
oldmanfan Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 7 minutes ago, SoTier said: They must not have been looking very hard because they could have found somebody considerably better than Peterman without sinking to bringing in a first round bust or a retiree given that they found Barkley within a couple of days of Anderson getting hurt. Instead, they waited a month and signed Anderson who promptly got hurt. I can think of numerous reasons for the Bills to wait a month to replace Peterman, none of them very complimentary to McDermott and/or Beane. At minimum, I think the delay in finding a competent backup QB suggests that either or both didn't think that having a competent backup QB was particularly important, despite Allen's struggles and his propensity to run too often. Beane acknowledged after the season they messed up on that. They now have Allen as starter and Barkeley as backup. Mistakes get made, the key thing now is to correct them and learn from it. What else should be done now - should we take them out back and shoot them? 1
Recommended Posts