2017 revisited...McDermott or ALynn for HC??

[BurpleBull]

7 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

You were m mocking the choice of Shanahan by posters here.  Shanahan would have been a reasonable choice for them to want, "hot" candidate or not.  So if a "lot of fans" wanted them, they likely would have been correct in their choice--not worthy of your mocking post.

 

 

 

I already suggested that there should've been a receptiveness to any coaching candidate after the Rex Ryan ordeal, including lesser mentioned candidates like McDermott. 

 

If anything I'd be mocking those fans (now using McDermott's success to mock Anthony Lynn) for mocking McDermott, by using bigger named candidates like Shanahan and McDaniels, to brush aside McDermott as if certain that he'd go on to achieve nothing...not their preferred candidate.

Edited December 21, 2019 by BurpleBull

[GunnerBill]

5 hours ago, BurpleBull said:

 

I already suggested that there should've been a receptiveness to any coaching candidate after the Rex Ryan ordeal, including lesser mentioned candidates like McDermott. 

 

If anything I'd be mocking those fans (now using McDermott's success to mock Anthony Lynn) for mocking McDermott, by using bigger named candidates like Shanahan and McDaniels, to brush aside McDermott as if certain that he'd go on to achieve nothing...not their preferred candidate.

 

That was exactly how I read it. I think @Mr. WEO just misread this one. I did not think your post was mocking the concept of Kyle Shanahan personally it was mocking the tendency for fans to fixate on whomever the trendy candidate is that January. 

[BurpleBull]

12 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

That was exactly how I read it. I think @Mr. WEO just misread this one. I did not think your post was mocking the concept of Kyle Shanahan personally it was mocking the tendency for fans to fixate on whomever the trendy candidate is that January. 

 

That's precisely what I was trying to convey.

 

Hopefully this clears it up and we aren't entering Round 5, or whatever round we'd be entering on that matter. Lol

[Mr. WEO]

27 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

That was exactly how I read it. I think @Mr. WEO just misread this one. I did not think your post was mocking the concept of Kyle Shanahan personally it was mocking the tendency for fans to fixate on whomever the trendy candidate is that January. 

it was completely reasonable to focus on that particularly “trendy” candidate as some here did.  Mocking that choice as a fixation is and was wrong, as it turns out.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Mr. WEO

[GunnerBill]

9 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

it was completely reasonable to focus on that particularly “trendy” candidate as some here did.  Mocking that choice as a fixation is and was wrong, as it turns out.

 

He wasn't doing that though. He was talking in the general not the specific. I genuinely think you are just misunderstanding the point he is trying to make. 

[eball]

13 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

He wasn't doing that though. He was talking in the general not the specific. I genuinely think you are just misunderstanding the point he is trying to make. 

 

Weo thinks his job around here is to inject his version of "realism" into the discussion.  Too often it simply comes across as obnoxious.

[Thurman#1]

On 12/20/2019 at 10:29 PM, GunnerBill said:

 

Teams that do not fit either of your criteria reload all the time in the NFL. Seattle just did a reload despite being pretty cap restrained. Not exactly the same situation as the Bills, I grant you, because they were coming off a successful run but since the end of 2017 when they won their fewest games for about 6 years and went 9-7 and missed the playoffs they have pretty much totally reloaded. They didn't have loads of cap space to do it. They were just smart about it. They have a great GM and a great coach. The Falcons when Dan Quinn got there were not right against the cap but didn't have bundles of space either and they reloaded too. Now they had their Quarterbacks.... that makes a reload easier. But it was an option for the Bills in 2017. One they didn't take. One I didn't want them to take. But all you have proven is you really would not have agreed with a reload. You have not proven it was not an option.

 

 

Yeah, you gave 2017 Seattle as an example and pointed out exactly the problem with that example. They were damn close. They had Russell Wilson and we had Tyrod Taylor. Seattle had more money than Buffalo, $26 mill in March  and had far fewer important FAs they had to re-sign. The biggest guy they risked losing in FA that year was if I remember, Luke Willson.

 

And is going from 9-7 to 10-6 and a playoff game loss really a reload from 2017 to 2018? IMO they never changed much of anything, they kept their system going. They just recovered from a down year. The year before that down year, they went 10-5-1, won a playoff game and only lost to the SB-bound Falcons. I don't consider that a reload. That was a team with a terrific core just working their system.

 

As you yourself point out, our team was in a totally different situation.

 

Maybe we're using the word "reload" differently. To me, a reload means you're planning to be competitive that season. If your coach has been around a while, this is probably his last shot. If he's new, he's been hired with the assumption that he and the owner both agreed that the team wasn't that far away. If they thought the team was not ready to make the leap in this year, you don't usually hear the word "reload." Instead you hear about putting in our systems and building the culture and yadda yadda yadda.

 

As I thought about the Falcons, what I realized is that I hadn't followed them closely enough to have an educated opinion. I don't know why they improved under Quinn. They don't look to me like a reload because their improvement took two years. They only went from six wins to eight in Quinn's first year. But I guess I don't really have a good enough grasp of their situation.

 

In any case, both those teams had more cap money than the Bills did, a better cap situation going forward and both those teams had a proven franchise QB. The Bills had some decent talent if you ignored QB, but the Bills core players that year, the ones who were traded or cut in the rebuild outside of Dareus (who was wildly overpaid and expensive, at $16 mill / year, not to mention unwilling to accept McDermott's rules) were mostly coming due to be re-signed. Re-signing the guys we jettisoned like Robert Woods, Watkins, Darby, Gilmore, Preston Brown and Tyrod Taylor, nearly all of whom we'd probably have needed if we expected to be competitive immediately, would have meant kicking more cans down more road and put us in cap hell sooner rather than later.

 

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yeah, you gave 2017 Seattle as an example and pointed out exactly the problem with that example. They were damn close. They had Russell Wilson and we had Tyrod Taylor. Seattle had more money than Buffalo, $26 mill in March  and had far fewer important FAs they had to re-sign. The biggest guy they risked losing in FA that year was if I remember, Luke Willson.

 

And is going from 9-7 to 10-6 and a playoff game loss really a reload from 2017 to 2018? IMO they never changed much of anything, they kept their system going. They just recovered from a down year. The year before that down year, they went 10-5-1, won a playoff game and only lost to the SB-bound Falcons. I don't consider that a reload. That was a team with a terrific core just working their system.

 

As you yourself point out, our team was in a totally different situation.

 

Maybe we're using the word "reload" differently. To me, a reload means you're planning to be competitive that season. If your coach has been around a while, this is probably his last shot. If he's new, he's been hired with the assumption that he and the owner both agreed that the team wasn't that far away. If they thought the team was not ready to make the leap in this year, you don't usually hear the word "reload." Instead you hear about putting in our systems and building the culture and yadda yadda yadda.

 

As I thought about the Falcons, what I realized is that I hadn't followed them closely enough to have an educated opinion. I don't know why they improved under Quinn. They don't look to me like a reload because their improvement took two years. They only went from six wins to eight in Quinn's first year. But I guess I don't really have a good enough grasp of their situation.

 

In any case, both those teams had more cap money than the Bills did, a better cap situation going forward and both those teams had a proven franchise QB. The Bills had some decent talent if you ignored QB, but the Bills core players that year, the ones who were traded or cut in the rebuild outside of Dareus (who was wildly overpaid and expensive, at $16 mill / year, not to mention unwilling to accept McDermott's rules) were mostly coming due to be re-signed. Re-signing the guys we jettisoned like Robert Woods, Watkins, Darby, Gilmore, Preston Brown and Tyrod Taylor, nearly all of whom we'd probably have needed if we expected to be competitive immediately, would have meant kicking more cans down more road and put us in cap hell sooner rather than later.

 

 

I accept Seattle and Atlanta were different to Buffalo because they both had their franchise QBs and we didn't. 

 

But Seattle did have an old coach preparing for one more run. And it isn't just the guys they lost in FA. They lost over a 12 month period: Bennett, Avril, Sherman, Chancellor and then Thomas and Baldwin were all but done with injuries. Go look at their 2017 roster (the 9-7 "down year") and the 2019 roster. Radically different. I doubt many teams, beyond the Bills ironically, have turned over so many pieces in that time. But Seattle kept some key pieces, paid their QB and traded for a vet left tackle in that time too. It was a reload. Just because their down year wasn't a bottoming out doesn't change that. They looked at what they had and said "just adding a couple to this won't get it done, and they reloaded."