Tyler Dunne story on McDermott - 3 parts, 25 interviews, one damning conclusion

[Kincaid Kool-Aid]

6 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

 

You're right but I think maybe we can probably read between the lines.  Allen's public defense of McD as a coach after the game wasn't particularly strong though he said McD is one of the best humans walking the planet.  Mitch Morse's defense was big - something like, "I'd do anything for that man."  So was Ed Oliver's and his comment that McD was a "great man" and the article was "bullsh*t."  Listening to some of the players call out "We got your back, coach!" when McD was delivering his postgame speech was pretty emotional.  Though I don't know how many were yelling it out or cheering in agreement.  

 

This doesn't mean any of Dunne's facts are wrong.  Nor does it invalidate all of his opinions.  And there might be players and coaches who silently agree with him.   But I'm pretty sure that Micah Hyde, for example, isn't one of them after hearing him speak.   

 

It's like the elephant story I told earlier in this thread.  Dunne is the blind man holding onto the trunk and describing the elephant as long like a snake.  Dunne has a bit of truth but I don't think he has the whole picture.  And I think confirmation bias is at work.  I'm guessing Dunne has a negative view of McD and sought out the people who agreed with him more aggressively than he sought out the people who didn't.  

 

It would be interesting for a more unbiased journalist to interview a bunch of players and coaches and tell the whole story.  I'm sure it wouldn't all be roses.  But I personally doubt if it would stink the way Dunne's story does.  

All fair points. I just still feel like it took a lot of time for these players to say anything outside Hyde until today. As others have pointed out repeatedly, if that’s my coach who I love and respect and I think he was slandered, I’m making a point to come out immediately to set the record straight. Forcefully.

 

Point is, I guess we’ll never truly know how accurate Dunne was in capturing true player sentiment until years from now when this era is over, if we ever know.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Kincaid Kool-Aid

[Simon]

12 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

It just was an odd look for the face of the franchise to decline to comment when all he needed to say was “We support coach”. Hyde spoke up so clearly some players weren’t distracted by saying a few kind words of support. 

 

I'd guess McDermott told them to to ignore the bullspit and stay focused on Sunday and they did.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a bunch of them having something to say about it now that the game is over.

[Mikie2times]

Super excited about the win and the late defense was solid and McD DESERVES respect for the play calling on the last drive. 
 

Does it feel at all like the Bills rolled out the full court press on this postgame? It seemed almost planned. Just spading a spade. Completely makes sense that the team was jacked over a big win but they did everything but interview McD’s dog.  Many said the Dunne article was slanted. This seems slanted. 
 

Regardless of any of it the answer to if McD learned and if things changed isn’t getting answered from one game or even multiple games. It warrants a review when the season ends. Today was a good start. I’m pretty certain all any of us want is to win. 

[hondo in seattle]

6 hours ago, Wayne Arnold said:

 

 

 

We can argue semantics until we're blue in the face. In the end, it's irrelevant what you want to call Dunne's reporting and completely misses the point I'm making.

 

The point is that this existing mindset from a segment of the fanbase that a reporter shouldn't report certain opinions about a millionaire coach of a football team because it might hurt his feelings is completely absurd.

 

We need to bring all perspectives about this head coach to light because many people pay their hard-earned money and spend time out of their lives rooting for this team that he's in charge of. And because it's a competitive sport, our goal as fans is to witness this team winning the Super Bowl. And if there are many people out there who have experience working closely with that coach and believe he doesn't have the leadership qualities and/or coaching chops it takes to get that team there, then it should be reported to the public.

 

To think Dunne "could have listened to his higher angels and taken a higher road" by not reporting what former players and colleagues really think about McDermott is a disservice to the fanbase.

 

 

 

I see your point.

What I've been saying is that sport is entertainment.  It's not politics.  Political reporting will always be brutal.  Sports reporting doesn't need to be.

But I haven't been saying Dunne shouldn't have written an article about McD or sat on the fruits of his research.   But I do think he could have contextualized them much better by, for one, providing counterbalancing views.   Ed Oliver said McD is a "great man" (and called the article "bullsh*t").  Micah Hyde professed his support for McD (and rightly pointed out the article does no good).  Mitch Morse said he'd do anything for McD.  Josh reportedly said he loved McD both as a coach and a human.  And so on.  Why is there is so little of that in the article?  

 

Attacking a man's character and reputation is serious business.  If Dunne wants to publish the negative comments, fine.  But he should have researched the positive as thoroughly as he researched the negative.    

 

 

 

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

I see your point.

What I've been saying is that sport is entertainment.  It's not politics.  Political reporting will always be brutal.  Sports reporting doesn't need to be.

But I haven't been saying Dunne shouldn't have written an article about McD or sat on the fruits of his research.   But I do think he could have contextualized them much better by, for one, providing counterbalancing views.   Ed Oliver said McD is a "great man" (and called the article "bullsh*t").  Micah Hyde professed his support for McD (and rightly pointed out the article does no good).  Mitch Morse said he'd do anything for McD.  Josh reportedly said he loved McD both as a coach and a human.  And so on.  Why is there is so little of that in the article?  

 

Attacking a man's character and reputation is serious business.  If Dunne wants to publish the negative comments, fine.  But he should have researched the positive as thoroughly as he researched the negative.    

 

 

 

 

It wasnt all negative. Positive parts are quoted all over this thread.

 

And if any former player or coach had positive things to say, Dunne would have included them as he did for Smith and DiMarco.

 

Problem with trying to include current players is, what else CAN they say? Even if they dont like McD. It's even more inauthentic than talking to disgruntled former employees.

[SinceThe70s]

20 minutes ago, Kincaid Kool-Aid said:

All fair points. I just still feel like it took a lot of time for these players to say anything outside Hyde until today. As others have pointed out repeatedly, if that’s my coach who I love and respect and I think he was slandered, I’m making a point to come out immediately to set the record straight. Forcefully.

 

Point is, I guess we’ll never truly know how accurate Dunne was in capturing true player sentiment until years from now when this era is over, if we ever know.

 

WRT the bolded, another point of view is that if the players respond immediately it gives legs to the report. If they think it's utter BS responding just keeps the story public and maybe the reporter gets more pub. It's kind of like trolls on this (or any other) site. Some folks are just looking for attention for personal gain or attention.  Ignore them and it goes away quickly. 

 

I think the Bills played this perfectly.

 

FYI: all of the above doesn't make me question whether Sean should be the coach past this year

[ToGoGo]

39 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

I see your point.

What I've been saying is that sport is entertainment.  It's not politics.  Political reporting will always be brutal.  Sports reporting doesn't need to be.

But I haven't been saying Dunne shouldn't have written an article about McD or sat on the fruits of his research.   But I do think he could have contextualized them much better by, for one, providing counterbalancing views.   Ed Oliver said McD is a "great man" (and called the article "bullsh*t").  Micah Hyde professed his support for McD (and rightly pointed out the article does no good).  Mitch Morse said he'd do anything for McD.  Josh reportedly said he loved McD both as a coach and a human.  And so on.  Why is there is so little of that in the article?  

 

Attacking a man's character and reputation is serious business.  If Dunne wants to publish the negative comments, fine.  But he should have researched the positive as thoroughly as he researched the negative.    

 

 

 

Very serious business. 
 

Especially a man who puts character first. Allen said it best today, “McDermott is one of the better humans I know”. 
 

I’ve been appalled the last month way more than I have been posting. To get after McD’s character and call him a phony. I just can’t imagine. 
 

Very serious spiritual test for him. “Do you really want to win a SB for this ungrateful fanbase?” “Will you forgive them?” 

[Big Blitz]

I’ve never questioned McDs character and never doubted that he’s a great coach.

 

This blatant character hit piece this week was absolutely ridiculous.  And it truly says something how these guys defended him after the game  - that clears up 25% of my issue with him - that they are tuning him out.  

 

I have repeatedly called moving on from him a business decision in order to maximize your unicorn QB.  His decision on OC last likely wasted TWO seasons.  That OC decision is the other 75%. 

He’s obviously not getting fired.  And that’s that.  And it is a huge deal to see these guys stand up for him.  

 

But he better get OC right.  And the GM needs to find FOUR more WRs to bring in here next season.  

Edited December 11, 2023 by Big Blitz

[folz]

8 hours ago, Wayne Arnold said:

 

We can argue semantics until we're blue in the face. In the end, it's irrelevant what you want to call Dunne's reporting and completely misses the point I'm making.

 

The point is that this existing mindset from a segment of the fanbase that a reporter shouldn't report certain opinions about a millionaire coach of a football team because it might hurt his feelings is completely absurd.

 

We need to bring all perspectives about this head coach to light because many people pay their hard-earned money and spend time out of their lives rooting for this team that he's in charge of. And because it's a competitive sport, our goal as fans is to witness this team winning the Super Bowl. And if there are many people out there who have experience working closely with that coach and believe he doesn't have the leadership qualities and/or coaching chops it takes to get that team there, then it should be reported to the public.

 

To think Dunne "could have listened to his higher angels and taken a higher road" by not reporting what former players and colleagues really think about McDermott is a disservice to the fanbase.

 

I pointed this out earlier in the thread, but thought it might need repeating:

 

I just think you need to read the article a little more critically (take off your "I think McD should be fired" glasses for just a moment and think about it as if this article were written about you or a family member). The reason I believe it to be a "hit" piece is not because Dunne shared a couple of embarrassing stories from former players (big deal), and its not because he used actual quotes from his sources that may not be flattering for McDermott, which of course just shows that Dunne is cherry-picking stories and quotes from disgruntled people to try to paint a particular narrative (already not the most noble endeavor for an "honest" journalist)...

 

It is a hit piece because the article is riddled with personal attacks from Dunne (not his sources) directed at McDermott. Tell me if the following phrases (none of which came from his sources, these are Dunne's own words) sound like good, honest journalism or just personal attacks. Dunne wrote the following things about McDermott (and this is just a small sample):

 

he's "tangibly nervous"

"He's quick to blame"

"he put Dorsey's head on a stick"

"the honeymoon is over" with players (i.e. he's lost the locker room)

he's always "pointing a finger at his breadwinning quarterback"

he "finds a way to deflect blame"

he's "a coaching relic routinely paralyzed by fear"

he's "forever horrified of what could go wrong"

he's "Oblivious to reality"

"the head coach...administers mass lobotomies on his team."

 

Is that someone just reporting what his sources told him, or is that someone with an agenda?

 

Do you not see how Dunne is using very emotional language to influence, that he blurs the line between what is his opinion and what are the opinions of the 25 interviewees. I mean, not one of those people said that McDermott was "a coaching relic" or "oblivious to reality", etc. None of the above are source quotes. But Dunne  makes you think that all 25 people he talked to basically concur with all of his final conclusions, which seem to just be a lot of personal attacks. How would you feel if someone wrote an article about you basically calling you a nervous, fearful, coward who is so clueless that he actually makes those around him stupid, and then intimate that you basically have 25 people to back that up, and the next thing you know you are being lampooned on a national comedy show. Would you still feel that this was just a truthful writer doing his job? This is the coach of a .500 win football team, not some presidential candidate with dirty laundry. Just because someone is in the public eye doesn't mean they are fair game to personal attacks. You can criticize the job they are doing, etc. but leave the name calling on the playground with the kiddies.

 

In the world of logic, grammar, and rhetoric, one only uses fallacies, such as ad hominem (personal) attacks, when they know their argument isn't actually that strong, and/or when they just want to destroy someone (revenge). I don't know if Dunne has a beef or is just trying to get subs, but this article is not just some honest journalist looking out for the good people of western New York who deserve to know the truth because they spend their hard earned money on this product. 

[Simon]

4 minutes ago, folz said:

I pointed this out earlier in the thread, but thought it might need repeating:

 

Missed it earlier and am glad you repeated it.

That was the most on point thing that I've seen in any of these 114 pages.

[Scott7975]

5 hours ago, ToGoGo said:

They made up their mind and those fans will be passive aggressive for the rest of his SB winning tenure. 

can he at least get to the Super Bowl first?

[Trogdor]

4 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

I see your point.

What I've been saying is that sport is entertainment.  It's not politics.  Political reporting will always be brutal.  Sports reporting doesn't need to be.

But I haven't been saying Dunne shouldn't have written an article about McD or sat on the fruits of his research.   But I do think he could have contextualized them much better by, for one, providing counterbalancing views.   Ed Oliver said McD is a "great man" (and called the article "bullsh*t").  Micah Hyde professed his support for McD (and rightly pointed out the article does no good).  Mitch Morse said he'd do anything for McD.  Josh reportedly said he loved McD both as a coach and a human.  And so on.  Why is there is so little of that in the article?  

 

Attacking a man's character and reputation is serious business.  If Dunne wants to publish the negative comments, fine.  But he should have researched the positive as thoroughly as he researched the negative.    

 

 

 

Sports reporting is plenty brutal, but I think coaches get passes that players don't. It probably doesn't help that the Buffalo sports media is soft, these themes would probably be daily topics in other markets. Like 50% of WGR are Bills employees at this point and just ignore negative things. 

[mjt328]

On 12/8/2023 at 10:00 AM, BFLO said:

The purpose of news journalism is to speak truth to power. To reveal what the rich and powerful do behind closed doors. To attempt to hold them accountable for their actions. 

 

The problem with journalists today (sports or otherwise), is they have already decided beforehand what the "truth" is the public needs to know.  So they have no interest in telling both sides of the story.

 

To Tyler Dunne, the purpose of the article was not to show what really happens behind-the-scenes at One Bills Drive.  Or just to let people know what Sean McDermott is like as a coach, and then let them draw their own conclusions.

 

He has already drawn the conclusion that McDermott is a bad coach and needs to be fired, and that is the "truth" he must expose to the public.  

 

 

On 12/8/2023 at 10:00 AM, BFLO said:

Imagine if Bob Woodward had spent half his time interviewing Nixon's sycophants to get some positive quotes during the Watergate investigation instead of revealing the scandal. 

 

It's laughable. 

 

What's laughable is how every investigative reporter on the planet thinks they can publish a bunch of anonymous gossip, and then equate it with exposing the next Watergate.

 

There is nothing remotely similar about these two stories.

 

 

On 12/8/2023 at 10:00 AM, BFLO said:

There's no balance to the article? So? There's no balance to the coverage of McDermott either. 99% of it is empty, vapid, fluff. It's a breath of fresh air to get an article that brings a little balance to the overall coverage. 

 

It's sports journalism.  It's almost always going to be empty fluff and generic quotes.  

 

Again.  Dunne had the opportunity to write a very interesting expose on McDermott that nobody has ever done.  He could have included the 9-1-1 story, the sneaker thing, and other embarrassing stuff.  Nobody has a problem with him including any of that. 

 

Where the story falls short is how he makes ZERO attempt to get feedback from coaches or players who support McDermott.  They clearly exist.  If his intent as a journalist was speaking the TRUTH, then he would have considered it absolutely vital to get a clear picture of how everyone in the locker room sees the coach.  Not just those who don't like him.  But that didn't fit his agenda, which was making it appear like nobody on the team respects him.  

 

And why didn't Dunne give at least SOME context about where his 25 anonymous quotes came from?  Isn't that an important part of the truth?  He didn't necessarily have to give names.  But people are obviously going to give more credibility to a "respected veteran who has been in the locker room many years" versus "a position coach who was fired after one season" or a "player who was benched and later cut."  The fact his information was left out, gives me a pretty good idea which side his information probably came from.

 

Side note:  

I'm a former newspaper reporter myself, so I have a very strong opinion about how journalism is done nowadays.

I fully understand the concept of "speaking truth to power."  But it can't just be one side of the truth.  It can't just be the bits and pieces of the truth that will convince readers what they need to believe.  Reporters need to TRUST their readers to be given both sides of a story, and still come to the right conclusions.

 

[DC Greg]

8 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

I’ve never questioned McDs character and never doubted that he’s a great coach.

 

This blatant character hit piece this week was absolutely ridiculous.  And it truly says something how these guys defended him after the game  - that clears up 25% of my issue with him - that they are tuning him out.  

 

I have repeatedly called moving on from him a business decision in order to maximize your unicorn QB.  His decision on OC last likely wasted TWO seasons.  That OC decision is the other 75%. 

He’s obviously not getting fired.  And that’s that.  And it is a huge deal to see these guys stand up for him.  

 

But he better get OC right.  And the GM needs to find FOUR more WRs to bring in here next season.  

In addition to finding an O coordinator and getting that right, he should also cede all in game head coaching decisions to someone else. Maybe just someone in the headset, but when to call timeouts, when to challenge, when to go for it, etc. If we had someone who could manage those critical calls, especially at the end of halves, McD could stay there as a figurehead. If that makes the people who don’t want to see the poor multimillionaire who ended the drought lose his job, great.

 

That graphic they showed last night told the tale… since 2021, Bills are now 9-14 in one score games. 22-1 in all other games. The reason they suck in the clutch is bad coaching. It’s an unfortunate reality we’re stuck with.

[BFLO]

8 minutes ago, mjt328 said:

 

The problem with journalists today (sports or otherwise), is they have already decided beforehand what the "truth" is the public needs to know.  So they have no interest in telling both sides of the story.

 

To Tyler Dunne, the purpose of the article was not to show what really happens behind-the-scenes at One Bills Drive.  Or just to let people know what Sean McDermott is like as a coach, and then let them draw their own conclusions.

 

He has already drawn the conclusion that McDermott is a bad coach and needs to be fired, and that is the "truth" he must expose to the public.  

 

 

 

What's laughable is how every investigative reporter on the planet thinks they can publish a bunch of anonymous gossip, and then equate it with exposing the next Watergate.

 

There is nothing remotely similar about these two stories.

 

 

 

It's sports journalism.  It's almost always going to be empty fluff and generic quotes.  

 

Again.  Dunne had the opportunity to write a very interesting expose on McDermott that nobody has ever done.  He could have included the 9-1-1 story, the sneaker thing, and other embarrassing stuff.  Nobody has a problem with him including any of that. 

 

Where the story falls short is how he makes ZERO attempt to get feedback from coaches or players who support McDermott.  They clearly exist.  If his intent as a journalist was speaking the TRUTH, then he would have considered it absolutely vital to get a clear picture of how everyone in the locker room sees the coach.  Not just those who don't like him.  But that didn't fit his agenda, which was making it appear like nobody on the team respects him.  

 

And why didn't Dunne give at least SOME context about where his 25 anonymous quotes came from?  Isn't that an important part of the truth?  He didn't necessarily have to give names.  But people are obviously going to give more credibility to a "respected veteran who has been in the locker room many years" versus "a position coach who was fired after one season" or a "player who was benched and later cut."  The fact his information was left out, gives me a pretty good idea which side his information probably came from.

 

Side note:  

I'm a former newspaper reporter myself, so I have a very strong opinion about how journalism is done nowadays.

I fully understand the concept of "speaking truth to power."  But it can't just be one side of the truth.  It can't just be the bits and pieces of the truth that will convince readers what they need to believe.  Reporters need to TRUST their readers to be given both sides of a story, and still come to the right conclusions.

 

If you want the other side of the story, read the other 99.9% of McD coverage. Where's the criticism for that coverage not telling both sides of the story?

 

The Dunne article is the first time we've gotten this side of the story. We wouldn't need a Dunne article to balance the scales if the other reporters did their jobs. 

 

The purpose of this article was to tell us the side of the story we haven't already heard. Why waste any time in it fluffing up McD by repeating the stuff we've already heard 1000 times? 

 

In conclusion. You don't need to "tell both sides" in every piece of journalism, especially when one side of the story has already dominated the coverage of that subject, and you're telling the opposite side of the story. 

[Beck Water]

10 hours ago, Simon said:

 

I'd guess McDermott told them to to ignore the bullspit and stay focused on Sunday and they did.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a bunch of them having something to say about it now that the game is over.

 

Exactly..."Tune.  Out.  The  Noise."

 

You want your players reading this head-spinning opus and then talking about it, or you want their heads in the game plan and watching film?  The latter.

[BillsDad51]

Peter King has a nice take on McDermott in this morning's FMIA.

[C.Biscuit97]

The 911 speech hit this week!!!

[Beck Water]

2 minutes ago, BFLO said:

If you want the other side of the story, read the other 99.9% of McD coverage. Where's the criticism for that coverage not telling both sides of the story?

 

The Dunne article is the first time we've gotten this side of the story. We wouldn't need a Dunne article to balance the scales if the other reporters did their jobs. 

 

The purpose of this article was to tell us the side of the story we haven't already heard. Why waste any time in it fluffing up McD by repeating the stuff we've already heard 1000 times? 

 

In conclusion. You don't need to "tell both sides" in every piece of journalism, especially when one side of the story has already dominated the coverage of that subject, and you're telling the opposite side of the story. 

 

I probably should just shut up and let this go.

 

There's indeed not a problem with telling "the other side of the story" or "an untold story" of what went on behind the scenes.  It's what we'd like to see from journalists.

 

The problem is an opinion piece where a claimed large number of anonymous sources vent their personal opinion and interpretation of what went on behind the scenes.

 

That's....really not a piece of journalism.  No editor of a reputable media organization would let that pass, even today.

[DrDawkinstein]

Ok, the Bills went out and got McD a win and rallied around him in the postgame.

 

At what point can Simon or Scott put this thread out of its misery?