JA17 postgame on-field interview

[Logic]

48 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

That's Tim Graham's Bills-centric interpretation.

 

 

Those are all about how he coaches and treats direct employees. He may not be a good boss or head football coach. Dunne never said he's a bad guy, mean to strangers, lies to his family, etc.

 

I have a HORRIBLE VP in charge of our department right now. She's a nice enough lady and we have even have some mutual friends. I know she's a great mom who has raised nice, honest kids. But she's horrible at work where office politics come into play.

 

Same thing.

I still say that traits like jealousy, narcissism, and refusal to take accountability are all a reflection of one's character. I don't think "jealous narcissist who deflects blame" is strictly a "workplace description", I think it's a character description.

I get your point, I'm just not on the same page. We can agree to disagree.

[boyst]

2 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

I don't want to turn this into Ty Dunne thread Part II, but over in that thread some of the quotes Dunne used absolutely rise to the level of questioning his qualities as a person - functionally describing McDermott in a way that's usually inconsistent with being a good person.  Part of being a good person is having a degree of empathy for others, and treating other people well. 

Some of the anonymous sources Dunne quoted described McDermott: "He has zero relationship with the offensive players. Zero. None. Absolutely zero. He’s insecure. He wants the relationship that he can’t have with the players. Because he’s not physically, mentally, or socially able to.”

 

 

"Narcissist" has become a pop-psych buzzword for a spectrum that ranges from normal and healthy concern for one's own self-interest (like keeping your job) to extreme forms where people are self-absorbed to a pathological degree where they don't understand that other people's feelings exist, a  psychosocial disability. 
 

If you describe someone as not "physically, mentally, or socially" able to have relationships with players; insecure and jealous of people who do - IMO, you're describing them as having narcissism to the degree of it being a psychosocial disability incompatble with being a good person.

 

 

Well, sure.  And at the risk of harping, when a coaching assistant Dunne anonymously quoted said that Mcdermott is "insecure" "jealous" and something to the effect of "mentally and psychologically incapable of having relationships with players", they were speaking of McDermott's traits as a person.   Were they not?

 

 

Yes. Which is why josh only spoke of him personally. I think it's telling what he did not say. 

[JohnNord]

47 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Because after years of taking Leadership trainings and assessments which delineate between our At-Work personalities vs our "real" personalities, I know how to separate stuff that happens at work and not take it personally.

 

I read the articles. That wasnt MY takeaway. But I'm more focused on him as a coach, and not judging him as a person anyways.

You’re one of the few.  Just about everyone on the Bills and in the media said that it was personal

[NoSaint]

5 hours ago, JÂy RÛßeÒ said:

Somewhat smaller audience, but true.  Also only references that he's a good guy, not that he's a good coach.

and no one’s accusing McDermott of loving terrorists, they are saying it was a doofus level decision to use the analogy as a coach.

[Since1981]

“Love you Josh Allen!”

that’s all I got

 

(the immortal words of Beez)

Edited December 11, 2023 by Since1981

[DrDawkinstein]

5 minutes ago, JohnNord said:

You’re one of the few.  Just about everyone on the Bills and in the media said that it was personal

 

Personal would be talking about how he treats family. Or stories about mistreating strangers or fans. Like a story about lying to hid kids about a trip or something. None of that is there, and I'd bet EVEYRONE who gave even the most negative anecdotes would agree that he is a good guy outside of the building.

 

Everything in the article (off the top of my head) was about happenings in the building/about the team, and how he handles it.

 

Folks are free to have their own interpretation. I dont care if "the media" agrees with me. And of course the players will rally around it as "a personal attack". I wont tell them they're wrong. I just dont see it that way given my perspective.

 

14 minutes ago, boyst said:

Yes. Which is why josh only spoke of him personally. I think it's telling what he did not say. 

 

He was like "You can question coaching decisions" *leans over to the media* "(and pleeease question those decisions)" *wink wink*

[ProcessTruster]

5 hours ago, JÂy RÛßeÒ said:

 

Given a chance to back his coach on national TV when Tracy Wolfson teed up the "what did this team show after the tumultuous week you guys had to deal with?" question, Josh instead was all about how the players "rallied behind each other, played for each other".

 

Probably reading too much into it, but still...

 

 

 probably.

 

players play the games, coaches don't play the games.   Josh and the players could give a sh-t about the tumult.   they are trying to play and win football games.. they are the stars, they are the ones who win or lose games.  and they know it.  

[Beck Water]

56 minutes ago, boyst said:

Yes. Which is why josh only spoke of him personally. I think it's telling what he did not say. 

How so?

 

I wouldn’t expect Josh to defend McDermott as a coach.  This is the NFL, talking means nothing, coaches and players live and die by results.

[boyst]

37 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

How so?

 

I wouldn’t expect Josh to defend McDermott as a coach.  This is the NFL, talking means nothing, coaches and players live and die by results.

We didn't hear him say we trust coach, we trust the process, etc.

 

It's a very subtlennuance that I noticed to shape my opinion.

 

For the record the story upset me because it was not cool. It went way too far. I don't like McDermotts coaching. And I will make fun of him for his job and performance. However that was too much. 

[ganesh]

6 hours ago, LABILLBACKER said:

All Josh says is the right things, all the time. It's a testament to his parents. We are so unbelievably blessed to have him.

And lets not lose him in some rage.....I hope Josh goes on to be the greatest Bills player every to play this game

[Freddie's Dead]

Josh Allen is a true leader.  Dude gets it.  Hopefully we'll have an HC worthy of him someday (bring on the eyerolls!!!).

Edited December 12, 2023 by Freddie's Dead

[In Summary]

18 hours ago, ChevyVanMiller said:

I’m sure they deleted it because the All-22 angles clearly show that Toney never looked the official’s way.

A sideline reporter making something up?

[Beck Water]

15 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

Personal would be talking about how he treats family. Or stories about mistreating strangers or fans. Like a story about lying to hid kids about a trip or something. None of that is there, and I'd bet EVEYRONE who gave even the most negative anecdotes would agree that he is a good guy outside of the building.

 

I think you're getting it mixed here, Dr, with all due respect for all the at-work trainings you speak of in another post.  The issue IMHO is that there are two definitions of "personal" at use here.  You are using one of them, and myself and various others critiquing the Dunne article are using the other.

 

There's a delineation between work life, and personal life, true.  That's one definition of "personal".  Dunne's article is not talking about "personal" in that sense, everything described happened at OBD or around the team, correct.  We agree there.

 

But there's also, at work, describing someone's behavior in a way that makes it PERSONAL, vs. describing the actual behavior and its effects or impact.  In this definition, "making it personal" doesn't mean you're talking about how the guy treats his wife, kids, and dog or behaves at the Church Trivia Night.  It means you're stepping from what someone actually said ("I pay you to coach those guys, not be friends with them" about Hall's truck), to inferences about WHY they said it, their inner life and psychological motivations ("He's insecure...he's jealous...he's physically, psychologically, and mentally incapable of having relationships with the players").

 

That's what's meant by "making it personal" in the context of on the job observations and feedback, and that's the meaning being used in my and others comments about the article.  It went from describing actual incidents and observed behaviors at work, to making statements about McDermott's inner life and psychological motivations, which the source Dunne quotes can not directly observe and is likely not qualified to assess - they're not his therapist or a psychologist, they're his former employees.

 

The problem I and a number of others here have with Dunne's article is that he quoted and gave voice to a number of anonymous sources who made it personal in this sense of the word, and thus took it beyond an expose' of various factual things McDermott said and did (some of which are bizarre or damning enough on their own) into a personal attack or character attack.

 

And yes, Dr., there is plenty of on the job training and supervisor training that discusses how to avoid "making it personal' (by this definition) when dealing with co-workers and colleagues.  It's not a unique or unusual usage of the word.

I kind of felt like I'd said what I wanted to say about this and I was gonna shut up, but this seemed worthwhile to put out there.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by Beck Water

[Beck Water]

21 hours ago, Logic said:

I still say that traits like jealousy, narcissism, and refusal to take accountability are all a reflection of one's character. I don't think "jealous narcissist who deflects blame" is strictly a "workplace description", I think it's a character description.

I get your point, I'm just not on the same page. We can agree to disagree.

 

You say that because those things commonly ARE regarded as reflections of one's character.

 

They are also commonly described as "making the issue personal". 

 

"Don't make it personal" as standard advice to people managers and leaders dealing with problematic behavior doesn't mean "don't talk about an employee's home life at work" (one definition of personal)

 

It means stick to the issue at hand: the observed workplace behavior, the impact it has on team members or deliverables, and so forth. 

 

Refusal to take accountability is a perceived issue or behavior at work.

 

Attributing that issue or behavior to a cause like jealousy, insecurity, psychological inability to form relationships, or narcissism is, in fact, "making it personal" or making it about that person's character.

 

That would be why, as @JohnNord commented above, "Just about everyone on the Bills and in the media said that it was personal".  They said so because according to the definition of personal they're using (commenting on the inner person, their internal motivations, psychosocial traits, or character), it was personal.

 

I go back to my Rorschach Test now

 

[QB Bills]

I think if you read between the lines, it's pretty obvious that Allen isn't all that enamoured with McDermott. And rightfully so.

 

He'd likely never do it, but I would totally support him pushing for a head coaching change.

[Buffalo03]

On 12/11/2023 at 1:32 PM, JÂy RÛßeÒ said:

 

Given a chance to back his coach on national TV when Tracy Wolfson teed up the "what did this team show after the tumultuous week you guys had to deal with?" question, Josh instead was all about how the players "rallied behind each other, played for each other".

 

Probably reading too much into it, but still...

 

 

I'd be willing to bet if he was specifically asked "do you have Sean McDermott's back?". The answer would have been yes

[jkeerie]

1 minute ago, Buffalo03 said:

I'd be willing to bet if he was specifically asked "do you have Sean McDermott's back?". The answer would have been yes

I just rewatched the game on NFL Network.  In Tracy Wolfson's mid-game report when they were talking about McD, she mentioned the meeting with the players and that Hyde and Allen both stood up to express their support.  We only knew about Hyde because he was interviewed by our local press.

[Buffalo03]

6 minutes ago, jkeerie said:

I just rewatched the game on NFL Network.  In Tracy Wolfson's mid-game report when they were talking about McD, she mentioned the meeting with the players and that Hyde and Allen both stood up to express their support.  We only knew about Hyde because he was interviewed by our local press.

Exactly. Allen not saying anything in the post game interview doesn't mean anything

[Beck Water]

On 12/11/2023 at 7:13 PM, boyst said:

We didn't hear him say we trust coach, we trust the process, etc.

 

It's a very subtlennuance that I noticed to shape my opinion.

 

For the record the story upset me because it was not cool. It went way too far. I don't like McDermotts coaching. And I will make fun of him for his job and performance. However that was too much. 

 

Thanks for your response.  I think it's the "not cool" aspect (on which I agree with you) Josh and some others are reacting to.   To me, what Josh said about "you can criticize the coaching (implied: that's fair game).  You can criticize my decision making, (implied: that's fair game). But then expressing his view that some of it amounted to a character or personal attack, and that's as you say, "not cool, went way too far".

 

So to that point, if Josh had said stuff that defended McDermott as a coach or team builder, it wouldn't have addressed the fundamental problem he sees.  If the article had stuck to an expose' of who was responsible for many key on-field decisions like 13 seconds (McDermott) and factual reactions to various events (like Hall's truck), I don't think there would be as much problem with it - but it wouldn't have drawn in as many subscriptions as it probably did.  Drama draws clicks.
 

But I don't think we can conclude either way what Josh thinks of McDermott as a coach and a team builder, because it wasn't the issue at hand (if that makes sense).

 

 

Edited December 14, 2023 by Beck Water