John Warrow’s High Praise For Beane & McDermott Regime

[Royale with Cheese]

10 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I think it's kind of funny that people don't see this simple fact.   

 

Sammy was one of the most coveted receivers in the draft in the last 20 years.   He was as much of a can't-miss receiver prospect as the league sees.   Other than an occasional flash, he hasn't performed.  Robert Foster's occasional flashes in 2018 were as good and as numerous as Sammy's.  

 

The problem with the NFL, something some fans have trouble recognizing, is that the NFL doesn't give you anything as a player - you have to earn everything you get.  And it doesn't matter how good you were in college, you have to earn it in the NFL.  Sammy never earned it.   He had the talent, but he never did the work to be as good as he could have been.   He admitted it a year after he left Buffalo.  

 

People are still in love with the IDEA of Sammy.   Sammy the guy with speed, great moves, punt-returner type elusiveness, excellent hands, tackle breaking ability.  He had it all.   He just never put in the work to be what he could have been.   Now, like a lot of guys after five years in the league, those really top-end attributes have been muted by age and injury.   He still has enough to be a really valuable receiver, if the work-ethic and commitment to team and excellence finally emerge.  

 

I can understand the logic of complaining when you trade away a high pick, an identifiable talent who later becomes a star elsewhere, like a Marshawn Lynch.   There reasons he had to go, but maybe he could have been salvaged in Buffalo.   But I just scratch my head when people try to prove that a coach and a GM are doing a bad job when they give up on a failed superstar who can't become a consistent starting receiver for the best QBs in the league.   Do we think Julio Jones would be the number 3 guy in Kansas City?  

 

The simple fact is that through this point in his career, Sammy has underperformed his promise - badly - and has done nothing more than dozens of journeymen NFL receivers.   He just happens to get paid more than those others.  

 

 

 

[K-9]

5 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

And sometimes it's a wake up call that helps the next team, when the player gets he needs to straighten up.

True. And I’m hoping that’s the case with Sammy this year. If he can stay healthy, he’s gonna have a monster year in that offense.

[thebandit27]

16 minutes ago, K-9 said:

You know I’ve loved SW since his freshman year in college. And I’ve repeated the story several times how my friends in the scouting community would rave about his feet more than his other readily apparent attributes as a wideout prospect. I was totally on board with the trade to get the best WR prospect in the draft by a mile because it would help their second year QB prospect. 

 

I love Sammy Watkins and truly hope he breaks out in a big way this year. 

 

That said and per the bold text, in addition to the leverage the Bills had with their options to keep him, they also had Sammy’s self-admitted immaturity and the lingering foot issues that had severely limited his availability. Those two factors made their decision not to exercise his 5th year option an understandable one in my mind. 

 

I did not want to see him traded and was bummed when they did, but if I’m a new coach seeking to establish my own culture with my own philosophies and “process” I need complete buy in from everybody. ESPECIALLY the most talented players on the team. It’s essential that your best players serve as the best leaders and Sammy just wasn’t ready to be that guy, again, as he himself has alluded to. So the trade, even though it further depleted the talent level, made sense from that aspect. 

 

We can all act as though all good coaches find ways to reach their most challenging players and find ways to work with them in order to keep them and maybe that’s true for some good coaches. Other good coaches won’t tolerate a lack of buy in from anyone. It’s a mixed bag. But I can’t fault McD for running things the way he sees fit. That’s his prerogative as a head coach and no matter how much I may disagree with his decisions at times, I can respect them. Trading Sammy is one of those decisions.

 

I hear you.  I'm guilty of being a slave to the talent-wins-out mentality too often, especially at WR.

 

10 minutes ago, Magox said:

 

I get that and I know they could have had him that option year for, what?  I can't remember exactly, $13M or something like that.  

 

The thinking for his departure and reasonably so was three fold.  A) He didn't fit their culture, its well known and he even self-admits he was not a team first kind of guy that didn't get along with people including players in the organization.  I can feel the collective eye roll from some quarters about the "culture" thing, but it's real and even more so for a brand new coach and system that is being put in place where it is paramount that they establish that culture.  B) That they didn't value him as high as others.  They didn't believe his consistency, attitude and his susceptibility to injuries warranted the sort of contract that he would seek in the open market.  And C) The trade value for him was never going to be higher than what it was at that point and if they had already made the decision that he was not a long-term piece, it's best to cut bait and get the most that you could out of him, it wasn't as if the Bills were going anywhere anytime soon.  So they could live with the drop off in talent over the near term.

 

This was all very logical.

 

 

I recognize all of that, appreciate it, and don't wholly disagree with it.

 

My #1 objection to trading Watkins has always been this: does it make the team better? And, to me, the answer to that was a clear and resounding no.  I realize that they used the pick acquired to trade up for Josh Allen; I suppose that should matter to me, but I tend to default to the idea that if they'd have found another bargaining chip to use.

[Thurman#1]

On 6/25/2019 at 9:41 PM, SoTier said:

 

You can choose to give McDermott and Beane a pass because they chose to gut a team -- couldn't find any salvageable talent on the offense -- that had gone 24-24 over the previous 3 seasons, but I'm not.  It wasn't necessary as the spectacular successs of several new HCs who inherited under-achieving teams with worse records than the Bills has shown.    It's just one more poor decision on the part of McDermott and/or Beane.    

 

 

 

That's not me "choosing to gut a team." 

 

It's the universal understanding that they rebuilt. And that you simply can't intelligently judge a rebuild by wins in the first two years.

 

You wanted to reload, not rebuild? Fine. IMO, a really horrible decision, but whatever. A team in a horrible cap situation, with low to middling personnel built around a defensive system that only Rexy uses and a quirky offensive system designed by a coach, Roman, who'd left mid-season, a system built to compensate for no passing game by a good run game, and on top of that they had no franchise QB and no top five pick in a draft that people at the time felt was a bad one for QBs ... is in an absolutely dreadful position to reload. It's hard to imagine a worse situation to reload.

 

And it's very clear that not only don't you get this but you're aggressively against trying to get it. But I'll do what I can. Again, those coaches you're talking about were on reloading teams, teams that had had a GM in place putting a foundation together. More, the coaches you're talking about inherited these QBs: Goff going into his second year. Wentz going into his second year. Bledsoe/Brady. Trubisky in his 2nd year.

 

Whereas the Bills had Tyrod going into his sixth year. See the tiny little difference there? "Reload?" I can only shake my head and roll my eyes in pity.

[Royale with Cheese]

35 minutes ago, teef said:

the logic is insane.  i don't have anything against sammy either.  the reality is he just isn't worth the money thus far.  did the bills do a decent job replacing sammy?  no, but it doesn't excuse sammy's lack of production.  

 

i just find it particular that the people who try so hard to discount or down play anything the bills do, are the same ones making excuses for a guy who just hasn't lived up to his billing.  if sammy was on this team, being paid that much with similar production, those same people would be the first ones on here, screaming how awful our gm is for wasting money on a contract like that.  

 

Without a doubt.  

Then the argument would have been for people defending the contract "he's a threat!  It's not always about production!"

Then the argument would have been for the people hating the contract "that's not the type of contract you give to a decoy!".

[K-9]

6 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

That's not me "choosing to gut a team." 

 

It's the universal understanding that they rebuilt. And that you simply can't intelligently judge a rebuild by wins in the first two years.

 

You wanted to reload, not rebuild? Fine. IMO, a really horrible decision, but whatever. A team in a horrible cap situation, with low to middling personnel built around a defensive system that only Rexy uses and a quirky offensive system designed by a coach, Roman, who'd left mid-season, a system built to compensate for no passing game by a good run game, and on top of that they had no franchise QB and no top five pick in a draft that people at the time felt was a bad one for QBs ... is in an absolutely dreadful position to reload. It's hard to imagine a worse situation to reload.

 

And it's very clear that not only don't you get this but you're aggressively against trying to get it. But I'll do what I can. Again, those coaches you're talking about were on reloading teams, teams that had had a GM in place putting a foundation together. More, the coaches you're talking about inherited these QBs: Goff going into his second year. Wentz going into his second year. Bledsoe/Brady. Trubisky in his 2nd year.

 

Whereas the Bills had Tyrod going into his sixth year. See the tiny little difference there? "Reload?" I can only shake my head and roll my eyes in pity.

There is simply no “reloading” with a maxed out QB who isn’t gonna get you anywhere but stuck in perpetual mediocrity. And that tends to waste the prime years of your most talented players. 

[Royale with Cheese]

8 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

That's not me "choosing to gut a team." 

 

It's the universal understanding that they rebuilt. And that you simply can't intelligently judge a rebuild by wins in the first two years.

 

You wanted to reload, not rebuild? Fine. IMO, a really horrible decision, but whatever. A team in a horrible cap situation, with low to middling personnel built around a defensive system that only Rexy uses and a quirky offensive system designed by a coach, Roman, who'd left mid-season, a system built to compensate for no passing game by a good run game, and on top of that they had no franchise QB and no top five pick in a draft that people at the time felt was a bad one for QBs ... is in an absolutely dreadful position to reload. It's hard to imagine a worse situation to reload.

 

And it's very clear that not only don't you get this but you're aggressively against trying to get it. But I'll do what I can. Again, those coaches you're talking about were on reloading teams, teams that had had a GM in place putting a foundation together. More, the coaches you're talking about inherited these QBs: Goff going into his second year. Wentz going into his second year. Bledsoe/Brady. Trubisky in his 2nd year.

 

Whereas the Bills had Tyrod going into his sixth year. See the tiny little difference there? "Reload?" I can only shake my head and roll my eyes in pity.

 

I don't think you could have said that statement any better or more accurately...it's spot on.

[oldmanfan]

12 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

That's not me "choosing to gut a team." 

 

It's the universal understanding that they rebuilt. And that you simply can't intelligently judge a rebuild by wins in the first two years.

 

You wanted to reload, not rebuild? Fine. IMO, a really horrible decision, but whatever. A team in a horrible cap situation, with low to middling personnel built around a defensive system that only Rexy uses and a quirky offensive system designed by a coach, Roman, who'd left mid-season, a system built to compensate for no passing game by a good run game, and on top of that they had no franchise QB and no top five pick in a draft that people at the time felt was a bad one for QBs ... is in an absolutely dreadful position to reload. It's hard to imagine a worse situation to reload.

 

And it's very clear that not only don't you get this but you're aggressively against trying to get it. But I'll do what I can. Again, those coaches you're talking about were on reloading teams, teams that had had a GM in place putting a foundation together. More, the coaches you're talking about inherited these QBs: Goff going into his second year. Wentz going into his second year. Bledsoe/Brady. Trubisky in his 2nd year.

 

Whereas the Bills had Tyrod going into his sixth year. See the tiny little difference there? "Reload?" I can only shake my head and roll my eyes in pity.

Well stated

[eball]

18 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

He's definitely making mistakes on the job. Its yet to be determined if he's actually learning. 

 

They've demonstrated a lack of a coherent plan on what they've wanted. They hired Rex, fired him after two years. Told their GM who their new coach would be and then decided he didnt want to keep that GM.... Just reeks of incompetence. 

 

Hopefully McDermott proves him right.

 

I don't think you understand the definition of that word.

[Coach Tuesday]

We gonna hit 100 pages on this?

 

I guess this is what happens when a respected local writer offers "high praise" for a yet-unproven regime during a critical offseason.

[C.Biscuit97]

30 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I have referred often to what Ernie Accorsi says in his book GM.   It's something like "you cannot win with three prima donnas on your team, it's possible but not likely with two prima donnas, and it's possible with one."  The evidence of that is on view year after year in the NFL.   Who trades an OBJ?   A coach and a GM who understand that they need to build a team, and guy with OBJ's attitude makes it very difficult.  Th stories earlier this year about Aaron Rodgers and Mike McCarthy are another example.  Rodgers has made it very difficult to win in Green Bay.  

 

So bashing McBeane for unloading Watkins and Dareus, particularly, doesn't make sense to me.  It's bad for the team to ask the coach to focus his attention on the personal wants and needs of individual players.   Coaches need those players to show everyone else how to behave.   Those have both to be the MOST talented and have the best work ethics, not the worst.  

Clearly Watkins’ work ethic is far below Benjamin and Vontae Davis.

 

and Rodgers made it difficult to win in GB?  He’s the only reason they won! McCarthy sucked and so did their defense. 

7 minutes ago, eball said:

 

I don't think you understand the definition of that word.

Reeks means smells.

Edited June 26, 2019 by C.Biscuit97

[Shaw66]

3 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

We gonna hit 100 pages on this?

 

I guess this is what happens when a respected local writer offers "high praise" for a yet-unproven regime during a critical offseason.

It's what happens when some people can't understand that it's possible to be doing a good job at a task without yet having a lot to show for it. 

[mannc]

9 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

We gonna hit 100 pages on this?

 

I guess this is what happens when a respected local writer offers "high praise" for a yet-unproven regime during a critical offseason.

It's by far the best football discussion happening right now on TSW.  Feel free to go post in the "Kelly/Levy 8th best QB Coach Duo" thread...or the "Bills 19th Best Fanbase" thread. 

[Coach Tuesday]

10 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

It's what happens when some people can't understand that it's possible to be doing a good job at a task without yet having a lot to show for it. 

 

Sure it's possible - but since there is no objective evidence of it, it sure makes it hard to change minds... (not that Americans are persuaded by evidence that disagrees with their view of the world - they simply disregard it as "fake news").

Edited June 26, 2019 by Coach Tuesday

[mannc]

6 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

It's what happens when some people can't understand that it's possible to be doing a good job at a task without yet having a lot to show for it. 

"People" have no problem understanding that; they are just looking for evidence that the current Coach/GM truly know what they are doing.  There's evidence on both sides of that coin, but it's really all going to come down to how well and how quickly the team's 22-year old QB develops.  That's life in the NFL these days.   

[Shaw66]

1 minute ago, mannc said:

"People" have no problem understanding that; they are just looking for evidence that the current Coach/GM truly know what they are doing.  There's evidence on both sides of that coin, but it's really all going to come down to how well and how quickly the team's 22-year old QB develops.  That's life in the NFL these days.   

Some people aren't looking for that evidence very hard, because they won't 

 acknowledge the evidence all over the place.  

 

Still, you're right about the QB.  Do everything else right and get the QB wrong, you're nowhere. 

[mannc]

2 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Some people aren't looking for that evidence very hard, because they won't 

 acknowledge the evidence all over the place.  

 

 

Disagree.  It's a good football discussion and there is evidence to support both sides.  Where I differ from many here is that I believe this is a make or break season for McDermott (less so for Beane).  I think an 8-8 season in which the team is playing meaningless December games could spell doom....  

[dave mcbride]

10 hours ago, Magox said:

I am getting a kick out of all the conspiracy theories and rewriting's of history and facts.   

 

Sammy Watkins has massively underperformed expectations and his contract.  That is an indisputable position.   The Rams traded for him and decided after one season that they would just rather lose their 2nd round pick, let Sammy play elsewhere and pay the money to Cooks.   That is a fact.  Which it would be nearly impossible to reasonably argue that the Rams didnt make the right decision.  Right?  Or do one of you want to have a go at telling me that the Rams made the wrong decision?  That is now two teams that have decided to not to continue to pursue Watkins after observing him from up close.  Another fact.  Then he goes to the Chiefs and misses over a third of the season due to injuries and puts up pedestrian numbers with 40 receptions, 3 TD's, barely over 500 yards and an uninspiring 13 yards per reception.  Even if he had played all season at the rate that he was playing, he still would have had about around 750 yards and less than 60 receptions and around 5 TD's.

 

You guys want to know what Brandin Cooks did this past year with the Rams?  80 receptions and over 1200 yards.  That is double Sammy's production from the previous year.  Same offense,  same position the only difference is the player.

 

He's played with arguably 2 of the top 5 QB's this past 2 years and he still doesn't have a combined 1000 yards receiving.

 

What's the excuse?  Seriously, I would love to hear yet the umpteenth million excuse for Sammy's shortcomings.   Let's hear it.

 

To be fair to Watkins, he played 9 games plus a very short portion of a 10th game (against Denver the first time KC played them; he had a hamstring issue and came out of the game in the first quarter). Prorated, he was actually on pace for 70 receptions, 910 yards and 5 TDs. Also, if you sub in the numbers from the two playoff games in lieu of two missed games and pro-rate it (which I think you should -- playoff games are the most important games involving the highest stakes and the toughest competition), his pro-rated 16 game-season numbers were 72 receptions, exactly 1,000 yards, and 5 TDs.  Either way, he was on pace for for more than 60 receptions and 750 yards. 

 

I do realize he gets hurt too much, but anyone watching a healthy Sammy play vs. NE in the AFC championship game could see the lights-out talent on display. He was great in that game, and anyone who denies that wasn't watching. If he stays healthy -- and yeah, I know it's a huge if given past history -- he may well have a dominant season given the quality of the QB and the absence of Hill. He is still young, remember. He turned 26 just 12 days ago, and his huge physical talent and receiving skills are readily evident to those with eyes. Anyway, the book on him hasn't come close to being completed yet. 

[Royale with Cheese]

I'm kinda amused by this thread because generally, this board criticizes writers when they talk negatively about the Bills.  I mean Rodak was hated on here because of his negativity.  Same with Sullivan.

 

Now, we have a writer saying good things and he's getting the same treatment!

[K-9]

10 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

 

To be fair to Watkins, he played 9 games plus a very short portion of a 10th game (against Denver the first time KC played them; he had a hamstring issue and came out of the game in the first quarter). Prorated, he was actually on pace for 70 receptions, 910 yards and 5 TDs. Also, if you sub in the numbers from the two playoff games in lieu of two missed games and pro-rate it (which I think you should -- playoff games are the most important games involving the highest stakes and the toughest competition), his pro-rated 16 game-season numbers were 72 receptions, exactly 1,000 yards, and 5 TDs.  Either way, he was on pace for for more than 60 receptions and 750 yards. 

 

I do realize he gets hurt too much, but anyone watching a healthy Sammy play vs. NE in the AFC championship game could see the lights-out talent on display. He was great in that game, and anyone who denies that wasn't watching. If he stays healthy -- and yeah, I know it's a huge if given past history -- he may well have a dominant season given the quality of the QB and the absence of Hill. He is still young, remember. He turned 26 just 12 days ago, and his huge physical talent and receiving skills are readily evident to those with eyes. Anyway, the book on him hasn't come close to being completed yet. 

26 and we drafted him when he was 20! We forget how young these guys are sometimes. Still kids in the grand scheme of things but that’s often hidden under their prodigious talents. It’s a shame we didn’t get a fully baked Sammy, but that’s nothing to hold against him forever. I wish him well.