Speculative article on friction between McDermott and Staff?

[Turbo44]

2 minutes ago, folz said:

 

Let me take a stab at showing why some think the article is disingenuous in a manner.

 

 

He starts off with what his obvious opinion and thrust of his slant for the article:

 

"Obviously, Sean McDermott owed more to the public."

 

This is obviously either bothering the writer himself, or he knows he can stoke his readership by bringing up something he knows they are upset about. But Sean McDermott doesn't owe the public an explanation. He is not a public servant. He works for the Pegulas and the NFL. Also, as a good leader, he is making sure that no one (player or coach) gets thrown under the bus. Do people really want him to point fingers? Or instead of saying, ultimately it was his responsibility/execution, did they want him to break down at the podium and say, "It's all my fault. I screwed up. Woe is me." A good leader doesn't do either of those things. A good leader handles their business internally, picks themselves up, and moves on. I just don't know what people want from him.

 

But, the real problem to me with the article is this:

 

"so many of the men who poured their blood, sweat and tears into the organization have been left completely in the dark...With those 13 seconds shrouded in mystery, players were forced to investigate themselves. Many, of course, declined to speak which is understandable considering their boss has refused to utter a word of substance on the matter. There’s little upside. But several did share their findings with Go Long on the condition of anonymity."

 

So he starts off telling us how "many" players feel...leading us to believe it is like a majority of the players. Then tells us "many" players declined to speak. So did many players feel what you said if many players declined to talk? And notice how he's amping up the animosity towards McDermott (and his feeling of the situation) with his emotionally-charged word choices (see bolded phrases above). This is what in the courtroom would be considered leading a witness (or in this case, a reader). So, after saying many players did not comment, he claims that "several did share their findings...on the condition of anonymity."  

 

Let's break that down. How many are several? The definition of several is "More than two, but not many." So, rather than that original "MANY" players he inferred he knew how they felt, we are down to maybe a small group of players. And he says the player's "share their findings" from these "investigations" that they were "forced" to make on their own. Ok, what did this small group of players conclude? What are the actual quotes that will bring us to a better understanding of what happened or what is going on? Well, Dunne offers us four quotes total from either 2, 3, or 4 players. The way they are placed in the article, it could only be two players talking, or it could be up to 4 players (definitely not "many").

 

“You preach accountability,” one player said. “But you don’t practice it.”

 

Said one player: “Everybody knew that if we just beat Kansas City, we would’ve beat any team.”

 

And another: “We definitely would’ve won the Super Bowl.” 

 

“You don’t get over,” one player said, “a game like that.”

 

The first quote is almost undoubtedly from McKenzie. The other three quotes have nothing to do with the 13 seconds or who is to be held accountable, etc. There is no investigative work here by the players or the writer. It is just what any player would say after a tough loss, or what you're expectation was. Nothing to do with McDermott or how he handled the situation then or since.

 

So, after starting off making us think that the majority of the team feels the way the writer is leading us, it all comes down to one anonymous quote, from one player. So, one player said the coach needs to practice accountability and from that we are to believe there is some kind of mutiny at One Bills Drive?

 

And with this one quote, he proves his thesis:

 

"The conclusion? This loss is on the head coach. Not the players. The coach." Who said it wasn't? Whenever you are a leader, every loss ultimately lies in your lap.

 

And why not throw a few of these in to make your readers feel the way you do about McDermott, "No coach can clap their way through this loss." "And the more you learn about this historic collapse, the more it appears the head coach once empowered as the judge, juror and executioner at One Bills Drive should be No. 3." He is trying to paint McDermott as some tyrannical leader, but gives no proof other than his own opinion and that one quote from one player.

 

 

And one last point. His whole thing that McDermott has also been closed mouth in-house again comes from Isiah, who admittedly missed the team meeting, and possibly 1-3 other players he talked to (but who didn't give him a quote about it), and who might not be high enough on the ladder to get explanations anyhow (do we really think McDermott didn't talk to say Josh, or Micah, or Jordan in their final meetings about what happened. Or that he, Frazier, Beane, and the Pegulas haven't discussed it, etc., etc.). Not saying it might not be true that McDermott was closed lip with parts of the organization (because their pay grade didn't warrant them being a part of those discussions), but this is the only other proof we get from Dunne, the following quote:

 

Everything ended very “abruptly,” one team source said.

 

So, the actual quote is "abruptly," the rest of the words are the writers. So what is the actual context to "abruptly?" We're supposed to take a one word quote from an anonymous source and extrapolate out that everyone hates McDermott or something? And who is a team source? A coach, a trainer, someone in the cafeteria? What would it really tell us anyhow unless we knew at least their position with the team.

 

It is what it is, a writer having a premise/agenda for an article, tries to find proof to back up his thesis. When there is very little to actually go on, take what little you have and make it seem like it is more, and use a lot of emotionally-charged words to direct your reader to your foregone conclusion.

 

More opinion piece, than any type of hard-hitting investigative journalism imo.

How about the specific info he talked about?

 

farewell resigning not being fired

the Diggs confrontation 

[ColoradoBills]

The Bills blew a chance at a Superbowl.  It happened and I am sure there are a lot of second guessing going on by staff and players.

It's only natural to have this happen in the offseason.

 

Come OTAs none of this will amount to a hill of beans.

[CoudyBills]

8 hours ago, HereComesTheReignAgain said:

Does anyone else find stories that are completely based on anonymous quotes really annoying?  You can say anything that you want, and simply state that you have sources that didn't want to be named.  

My guess is the single source is Mckittrick

[YoloinOhio]

16 minutes ago, Turbo44 said:

How about the specific info he talked about?

 

farewell resigning not being fired

the Diggs confrontation 

Sounds about right 

[Nihilarian]

1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

Dunne just said the kickoff team was told squib left and bass kicked it deep. There were 126 seconds and he doesn’t know if McDermott overruled it or if Farwell didn’t get the message to bass. He says you can draw conclusions. 

 

In my view that KO was irrelevant as I can see not allowing a return. Shades of the MCM.

 

My problem was with that "prevent defense" after the kick as all it did was prevent the win.  

[CoudyBills]

7 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

I do agree his wording was poor. He should've just said he needs to be better. You  can see a little change at the combine. He said execution starts and ends with the head coach.

 

He was probably pissed off and did a poor job of masking it.

[YoloinOhio]

12 minutes ago, Nihilarian said:

In my view that KO was irrelevant as I can see not allowing a return. Shades of the MCM.

 

My problem was with that "prevent defense" after the kick as all it did was prevent the win.  

I still think it’s on the defensive scheme/strategy not the kick. 13 seconds is how long they had to defend. The #1 D should have been able to prevent a TD regardless of how much field they had. 

[CoudyBills]

45 minutes ago, folz said:

 

Let me take a stab at showing why some think the article is disingenuous in a manner.

 

 

He starts off with what his obvious opinion and thrust of his slant for the article:

 

"Obviously, Sean McDermott owed more to the public."

 

This is obviously either bothering the writer himself, or he knows he can stoke his readership by bringing up something he knows they are upset about. But Sean McDermott doesn't owe the public an explanation. He is not a public servant. He works for the Pegulas and the NFL. Also, as a good leader, he is making sure that no one (player or coach) gets thrown under the bus. Do people really want him to point fingers? Or instead of saying, ultimately it was his responsibility/execution, did they want him to break down at the podium and say, "It's all my fault. I screwed up. Woe is me." A good leader doesn't do either of those things. A good leader handles their business internally, picks themselves up, and moves on. I just don't know what people want from him.

 

But, the real problem to me with the article is this:

 

"so many of the men who poured their blood, sweat and tears into the organization have been left completely in the dark...With those 13 seconds shrouded in mystery, players were forced to investigate themselves. Many, of course, declined to speak which is understandable considering their boss has refused to utter a word of substance on the matter. There’s little upside. But several did share their findings with Go Long on the condition of anonymity."

 

So he starts off telling us how "many" players feel...leading us to believe it is like a majority of the players. Then tells us "many" players declined to speak. So did many players feel what you said if many players declined to talk? And notice how he's amping up the animosity towards McDermott (and his feeling of the situation) with his emotionally-charged word choices (see bolded phrases above). This is what in the courtroom would be considered leading a witness (or in this case, a reader). So, after saying many players did not comment, he claims that "several did share their findings...on the condition of anonymity."  

 

Let's break that down. How many are several? The definition of several is "More than two, but not many." So, rather than that original "MANY" players he inferred he knew how they felt, we are down to maybe a small group of players. And he says the player's "share their findings" from these "investigations" that they were "forced" to make on their own. Ok, what did this small group of players conclude? What are the actual quotes that will bring us to a better understanding of what happened or what is going on? Well, Dunne offers us four quotes total from either 2, 3, or 4 players. The way they are placed in the article, it could only be two players talking, or it could be up to 4 players (definitely not "many").

 

“You preach accountability,” one player said. “But you don’t practice it.”

 

Said one player: “Everybody knew that if we just beat Kansas City, we would’ve beat any team.”

 

And another: “We definitely would’ve won the Super Bowl.” 

 

“You don’t get over,” one player said, “a game like that.”

 

The first quote is almost undoubtedly from McKenzie. The other three quotes have nothing to do with the 13 seconds or who is to be held accountable, etc. There is no investigative work here by the players or the writer. It is just what any player would say after a tough loss, or what you're expectation was. Nothing to do with McDermott or how he handled the situation then or since.

 

So, after starting off making us think that the majority of the team feels the way the writer is leading us, it all comes down to one anonymous quote, from one player. So, one player said the coach needs to practice accountability and from that we are to believe there is some kind of mutiny at One Bills Drive?

 

And with this one quote, he proves his thesis:

 

"The conclusion? This loss is on the head coach. Not the players. The coach." Who said it wasn't? Whenever you are a leader, every loss ultimately lies in your lap.

 

And why not throw a few of these in to make your readers feel the way you do about McDermott, "No coach can clap their way through this loss." "And the more you learn about this historic collapse, the more it appears the head coach once empowered as the judge, juror and executioner at One Bills Drive should be No. 3." He is trying to paint McDermott as some tyrannical leader, but gives no proof other than his own opinion and that one quote from one player.

 

 

And one last point. His whole thing that McDermott has also been closed mouth in-house again comes from Isiah, who admittedly missed the team meeting, and possibly 1-3 other players he talked to (but who didn't give him a quote about it), and who might not be high enough on the ladder to get explanations anyhow (do we really think McDermott didn't talk to say Josh, or Micah, or Jordan in their final meetings about what happened. Or that he, Frazier, Beane, and the Pegulas haven't discussed it, etc., etc.). Not saying it might not be true that McDermott was closed lip with parts of the organization (because their pay grade didn't warrant them being a part of those discussions), but this is the only other proof we get from Dunne, the following quote:

 

Everything ended very “abruptly,” one team source said.

 

So, the actual quote is "abruptly," the rest of the words are the writers. So what is the actual context to "abruptly?" We're supposed to take a one word quote from an anonymous source and extrapolate out that everyone hates McDermott or something? And who is a team source? A coach, a trainer, someone in the cafeteria? What would it really tell us anyhow unless we knew at least their position with the team.

 

It is what it is, a writer having a premise/agenda for an article, tries to find proof to back up his thesis. When there is very little to actually go on, take what little you have and make it seem like it is more, and use a lot of emotionally-charged words to direct your reader to your foregone conclusion.

 

More opinion piece, than any type of hard-hitting investigative journalism imo.

A fantastic response from McD would be to come out and say I don't owe anyone out of the building anything.  That would be epic.

[YoloinOhio]

4 minutes ago, CoudyBills said:

A fantastic response from McD would be to come out and say I don't owe anyone out of the building anything.  That would be epic.

It’s pretty obvious that like with any organization, some people are in on certain meetings and some aren’t. 

[Warcodered]

54 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Why are people upset at Dunne for this? 

see below

52 minutes ago, folz said:

 

Let me take a stab at showing why some think the article is disingenuous in a manner.

 

 

He starts off with what his obvious opinion and thrust of his slant for the article:

 

"Obviously, Sean McDermott owed more to the public."

 

This is obviously either bothering the writer himself, or he knows he can stoke his readership by bringing up something he knows they are upset about. But Sean McDermott doesn't owe the public an explanation. He is not a public servant. He works for the Pegulas and the NFL. Also, as a good leader, he is making sure that no one (player or coach) gets thrown under the bus. Do people really want him to point fingers? Or instead of saying, ultimately it was his responsibility/execution, did they want him to break down at the podium and say, "It's all my fault. I screwed up. Woe is me." A good leader doesn't do either of those things. A good leader handles their business internally, picks themselves up, and moves on. I just don't know what people want from him.

 

But, the real problem to me with the article is this:

 

"so many of the men who poured their blood, sweat and tears into the organization have been left completely in the dark...With those 13 seconds shrouded in mystery, players were forced to investigate themselves. Many, of course, declined to speak which is understandable considering their boss has refused to utter a word of substance on the matter. There’s little upside. But several did share their findings with Go Long on the condition of anonymity."

 

So he starts off telling us how "many" players feel...leading us to believe it is like a majority of the players. Then tells us "many" players declined to speak. So did many players feel what you said if many players declined to talk? And notice how he's amping up the animosity towards McDermott (and his feeling of the situation) with his emotionally-charged word choices (see bolded phrases above). This is what in the courtroom would be considered leading a witness (or in this case, a reader). So, after saying many players did not comment, he claims that "several did share their findings...on the condition of anonymity."  

 

Let's break that down. How many are several? The definition of several is "More than two, but not many." So, rather than that original "MANY" players he inferred he knew how they felt, we are down to maybe a small group of players. And he says the player's "share their findings" from these "investigations" that they were "forced" to make on their own. Ok, what did this small group of players conclude? What are the actual quotes that will bring us to a better understanding of what happened or what is going on? Well, Dunne offers us four quotes total from either 2, 3, or 4 players. The way they are placed in the article, it could only be two players talking, or it could be up to 4 players (definitely not "many").

 

“You preach accountability,” one player said. “But you don’t practice it.”

 

Said one player: “Everybody knew that if we just beat Kansas City, we would’ve beat any team.”

 

And another: “We definitely would’ve won the Super Bowl.” 

 

“You don’t get over,” one player said, “a game like that.”

 

The first quote is almost undoubtedly from McKenzie. The other three quotes have nothing to do with the 13 seconds or who is to be held accountable, etc. There is no investigative work here by the players or the writer. It is just what any player would say after a tough loss, or what you're expectation was. Nothing to do with McDermott or how he handled the situation then or since.

 

So, after starting off making us think that the majority of the team feels the way the writer is leading us, it all comes down to one anonymous quote, from one player. So, one player said the coach needs to practice accountability and from that we are to believe there is some kind of mutiny at One Bills Drive?

 

And with this one quote, he proves his thesis:

 

"The conclusion? This loss is on the head coach. Not the players. The coach." Who said it wasn't? Whenever you are a leader, every loss ultimately lies in your lap.

 

And why not throw a few of these in to make your readers feel the way you do about McDermott, "No coach can clap their way through this loss." "And the more you learn about this historic collapse, the more it appears the head coach once empowered as the judge, juror and executioner at One Bills Drive should be No. 3." He is trying to paint McDermott as some tyrannical leader, but gives no proof other than his own opinion and that one quote from one player.

 

 

And one last point. His whole thing that McDermott has also been closed mouth in-house again comes from Isiah, who admittedly missed the team meeting, and possibly 1-3 other players he talked to (but who didn't give him a quote about it), and who might not be high enough on the ladder to get explanations anyhow (do we really think McDermott didn't talk to say Josh, or Micah, or Jordan in their final meetings about what happened. Or that he, Frazier, Beane, and the Pegulas haven't discussed it, etc., etc.). Not saying it might not be true that McDermott was closed lip with parts of the organization (because their pay grade didn't warrant them being a part of those discussions), but this is the only other proof we get from Dunne, the following quote:

 

Everything ended very “abruptly,” one team source said.

 

So, the actual quote is "abruptly," the rest of the words are the writers. So what is the actual context to "abruptly?" We're supposed to take a one word quote from an anonymous source and extrapolate out that everyone hates McDermott or something? And who is a team source? A coach, a trainer, someone in the cafeteria? What would it really tell us anyhow unless we knew at least their position with the team.

 

It is what it is, a writer having a premise/agenda for an article, tries to find proof to back up his thesis. When there is very little to actually go on, take what little you have and make it seem like it is more, and use a lot of emotionally-charged words to direct your reader to your foregone conclusion.

 

More opinion piece, than any type of hard-hitting investigative journalism imo.

 

[The Wiz]

8 hours ago, Billsflyer12 said:

If you felt this way about your boss would you put your name on it publically?

A REAL man would. 

 

[Cray51]

58 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Why are people upset at Dunne for this? 

Because he has added his personal feelings into an article that could mean something if it was substantive.

 

he takes one quote, adds his own thoughts into it, writes like he was personally wronged by McDermott, and calls it a day.

 

if he did real reporting, and took the single individuals quote and used it to ask more questions and dive deeper in, I could at least respect his effort.

 

this feels like a one of those Instagram accounts with 200 followers that posts a bunch of hot takes as insider rumors to generate clicks

[Turbo44]

Not sure we’re going crazy about this. I don’t know if Tyler has a vendetta with McD - haven’t heard that one. He detailed some occurrences not known before (Farwell resigning, Diggs near altercation, etc) and it was interesting. He had several quotes from players and isn’t it a sportswriters job to give his intake/opinion?

[eball]

1 hour ago, ScottLaw said:

Why are people upset at Dunne for this? 

So a guy who has nothing to do with the Bills just wrote an article in which he concludes the loss was all McD’s fault, and then goes one step further by concluding the coach refused to accept responsibility.

 

ALL WITH NO PROOF. 

 

You’re right, nothing to see here. 
 

So, Scott, which team should we all be afraid of next season?

[Turbo44]

47 minutes ago, CoudyBills said:

My guess is the single source is Mckittrick

Dinner specifically said on WGR that McKenzie was not contacted at all for this

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

I could have sworn I commented in here.  
 

is there another thread on this?

 

did I say anything offensive?

 

 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Lose to the Jags on a 4 th and 16 with a pass play call. 

 

when Bass was kicking 50 yarders with ease FG goes to OT. 

 

Tenny 4th & 1 at TEN 3. Allen slipped 

FG goes to OT. 
 

18 seconds left and no squib kick

 

of course people will grumble 

[Dr. K]

1 hour ago, folz said:

 

Let me take a stab at showing why some think the article is disingenuous in a manner.

 

 

He starts off with what his obvious opinion and thrust of his slant for the article:

 

"Obviously, Sean McDermott owed more to the public."

 

This is obviously either bothering the writer himself, or he knows he can stoke his readership by bringing up something he knows they are upset about. But Sean McDermott doesn't owe the public an explanation. He is not a public servant. He works for the Pegulas and the NFL. Also, as a good leader, he is making sure that no one (player or coach) gets thrown under the bus. Do people really want him to point fingers? Or instead of saying, ultimately it was his responsibility/execution, did they want him to break down at the podium and say, "It's all my fault. I screwed up. Woe is me." A good leader doesn't do either of those things. A good leader handles their business internally, picks themselves up, and moves on. I just don't know what people want from him.

 

But, the real problem to me with the article is this:

 

"so many of the men who poured their blood, sweat and tears into the organization have been left completely in the dark...With those 13 seconds shrouded in mystery, players were forced to investigate themselves. Many, of course, declined to speak which is understandable considering their boss has refused to utter a word of substance on the matter. There’s little upside. But several did share their findings with Go Long on the condition of anonymity."

 

So he starts off telling us how "many" players feel...leading us to believe it is like a majority of the players. Then tells us "many" players declined to speak. So did many players feel what you said if many players declined to talk? And notice how he's amping up the animosity towards McDermott (and his feeling of the situation) with his emotionally-charged word choices (see bolded phrases above). This is what in the courtroom would be considered leading a witness (or in this case, a reader). So, after saying many players did not comment, he claims that "several did share their findings...on the condition of anonymity."  

 

Let's break that down. How many are several? The definition of several is "More than two, but not many." So, rather than that original "MANY" players he inferred he knew how they felt, we are down to maybe a small group of players. And he says the player's "share their findings" from these "investigations" that they were "forced" to make on their own. Ok, what did this small group of players conclude? What are the actual quotes that will bring us to a better understanding of what happened or what is going on? Well, Dunne offers us four quotes total from either 2, 3, or 4 players. The way they are placed in the article, it could only be two players talking, or it could be up to 4 players (definitely not "many").

 

“You preach accountability,” one player said. “But you don’t practice it.”

 

Said one player: “Everybody knew that if we just beat Kansas City, we would’ve beat any team.”

 

And another: “We definitely would’ve won the Super Bowl.” 

 

“You don’t get over,” one player said, “a game like that.”

 

The first quote is almost undoubtedly from McKenzie. The other three quotes have nothing to do with the 13 seconds or who is to be held accountable, etc. There is no investigative work here by the players or the writer. It is just what any player would say after a tough loss, or what you're expectation was. Nothing to do with McDermott or how he handled the situation then or since.

 

So, after starting off making us think that the majority of the team feels the way the writer is leading us, it all comes down to one anonymous quote, from one player. So, one player said the coach needs to practice accountability and from that we are to believe there is some kind of mutiny at One Bills Drive?

 

And with this one quote, he proves his thesis:

 

"The conclusion? This loss is on the head coach. Not the players. The coach." Who said it wasn't? Whenever you are a leader, every loss ultimately lies in your lap.

 

And why not throw a few of these in to make your readers feel the way you do about McDermott, "No coach can clap their way through this loss." "And the more you learn about this historic collapse, the more it appears the head coach once empowered as the judge, juror and executioner at One Bills Drive should be No. 3." He is trying to paint McDermott as some tyrannical leader, but gives no proof other than his own opinion and that one quote from one player.

 

 

And one last point. His whole thing that McDermott has also been closed mouth in-house again comes from Isiah, who admittedly missed the team meeting, and possibly 1-3 other players he talked to (but who didn't give him a quote about it), and who might not be high enough on the ladder to get explanations anyhow (do we really think McDermott didn't talk to say Josh, or Micah, or Jordan in their final meetings about what happened. Or that he, Frazier, Beane, and the Pegulas haven't discussed it, etc., etc.). Not saying it might not be true that McDermott was closed lip with parts of the organization (because their pay grade didn't warrant them being a part of those discussions), but this is the only other proof we get from Dunne, the following quote:

 

Everything ended very “abruptly,” one team source said.

 

So, the actual quote is "abruptly," the rest of the words are the writers. So what is the actual context to "abruptly?" We're supposed to take a one word quote from an anonymous source and extrapolate out that everyone hates McDermott or something? And who is a team source? A coach, a trainer, someone in the cafeteria? What would it really tell us anyhow unless we knew at least their position with the team.

 

It is what it is, a writer having a premise/agenda for an article, tries to find proof to back up his thesis. When there is very little to actually go on, take what little you have and make it seem like it is more, and use a lot of emotionally-charged words to direct your reader to your foregone conclusion.

 

More opinion piece, than any type of hard-hitting investigative journalism imo.

This is my take on the article precisely.

 

I can see why Dunn is angry and can imagine that some players are too. But whatever is substantive in this article is poisoned by Dunn's animus. 

[CoudyBills]

18 minutes ago, Turbo44 said:

Dinner specifically said on WGR that McKenzie was not contacted at all for this

That's not good.  Every team has a malcontent, multiple is a problem.

[Dopey]

Coach wants to wrestle every single person in the building, but no one wants to get on there hands and knees.