Is it time to move on from McDermott?

[Simon]

6 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

He brought in a consulting firm that presented a number of candidates and recommended McDermott.

 

fwiw, Whaley pushed really hard for them to hire McDermott at the time.

It was essentially the first time he had the opportunity to provide any legitimate input in that area.

Russ was also the primary driver in the Marrone hire in addition to the Ryan hire.

[Shaw66]

5 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:

I spent about the last 1000 posts trying to prove a case could and likely should be made for moving on, but man is that negative. It's just not worth all the posts from my perspective. At the same time, I think it's fair to ask his supporters where does the line get drawn? 

 

We have had as much regular season success as any major sports franchise since 2020, but we did that in the 90's as well. I hear people dismiss the postseason as the "tournament" but from my perspective, more often than not, the best team does in fact win the Super Bowl. It doesn't happen every time, but most of the time it's how it unfolds. 

 

I think it's very fair to ask if we did the same thing all over again the next 4 years, would it be enough to these posters? If the answer is yes, and it would seem likely it has to be (given what points are made by his supporters) then these threads and all the debates involved are kind of pointless. It would just show a fundamental difference in how both groups look at success and what they ultimately want. So again, really curious how McD's supporters feel about this. Winning is fun, losing is not fun, I like to have fun. But at the end of the day I really want just one. To me that has to be the goal. Eventually I feel like you can't ride the same horse who hasn't been able to accomplish that forever. Maybe some feel you can or you should. I would like to hear perspective on that if that is the case. 

Well, people have been dancing around this idea for a while now, and it's looking a little clearer to me now.  

 

Creating a championship NFL football team is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do.  The process of building a team is complicated, the play on the field is complicated, everything is complicated.  And it's made that much more difficult because you face opponents who are very talented and who are trying to do the same thing. 

 

Here's one example: Should you build to win in a window and then rebuild, or should you build to be consistently good and take a Super Bowl when everything falls just right.  Most of us here look at that question one way or the other; we don't agree, and I'm not sure there's a right answer. Belichick and McDermott and Tomlin build for consistent success, while other teams build for the short term, usually with a cheap quarterback and some good luck acquiring star talent.  But that is by definition short-lived, because you can't consistently have a talent edge over the whole league.  Still, by building that way, when it falls right, you can race to a championship.  The Eagles have sort of done that.  Their QB is getting more expensive now, and they won't be able to hold on to all their talent.  

 

But that's just one kind of question about how to build; there are hundreds or thousands of decisions that have to be me made about how to build. 

 

Every team has the same objective - to win Super Bowls.  It's not like the Bills aren't trying.  The discussion here largely revolves around the basic question of whether the players are good enough and whether the coaching is good enough.  But as someone just said, the Bills have drafted a lot of good players who just don't seem to stand up and make plays.  Oliver and Kincaid (at least on one play) are guys we look at say, "If they'd make the plays we know they can, the Bills would be fine."  I'm in that camp.  Then the question becomes, "Are they the wrong guys, or are they coached wrong?"  And we can debate that.  Personally, I think it's a bit of both - they're coached to be consistent, and being consistent means they have to go where they're told, even if the opportunity to make a play is in the other direction.  But they also LIKE playing that way, and they've been drafted BECAUSE they like playing that way.  

 

We all can talk about what we think the Bills need to do to get over the hump. Here's where I come out:  McDermott and Beane understand more about what the Bills are doing right and wrong than any of us.  They're smart football people.  If they're drafting the wrong people, they'll figure that out.  If they're using the wrong defensive philosophy, they'll figure that out.  For example, I've said before that I think McDermott's eight- or ten-player rotation on the D line is a problem, because it means that you have take the money you can spend on D line and spread it around to 8 or 10 players, so that you have a light of guys who are at least decent.  If you spread it unevenly, around maybe 6 guys, you can have more talent with that six.  Then you play them more, and you hope do don't have a lot of injuries, which would leave with having to play some less talented, cheap talent that's been sitting on the end of the bench.  The Eagles played the Chiefs like that, with a couple of guys getting a lot more snaps than McDermott gives to any defensive lineman.  Chiefs play Chris Jones that way, too.  

 

Now, McDermott isn't stupid.  He sees that and he understands it. He believes in the growth mindset and continuous improvement, which means he believes that change is necessary to get better.  So, I expect McDermott's philosophy about his D line, and about other things, will continue to evolve, and I expect that what he tells Bean that he wants in a player will evolve, too.  How do I know that?  Well, McDermott's view of the wide receiver room clearly has evolved, and the passing game became more effective.  His view of the running game evolved, and the run game got better. 

 

The growth mindset is characterized by a simple question:  What is your response when something doesn't go right?  Some people respond with, "I got it wrong."  People with the growth mindset respond with, "I didn't get it right yet."  

 

McDermott is not going to keep doing the same thing, over and over.  He has shown himself to be an excellent coach who hasn't gotten it right yet.  If he weren't an excellent coach, there would be all kinds of things that we could agree are wrong about the Bills.  The truth we pretty much all agree that the Bills are doing almost everything right, and if they'd only do a little more right, they'd be winning Super Bowls.  Why is it that the Bills are doing almost everything right?  Because Sean McDermott is the head coach, and Rex Ryan, and Doug Marrone, and Gailey, and Jauron, and blah, blah, blah aren't the head coach. 

 

The Bills have a guy who is doing it and he will get better. 

[Mikie2times]

30 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Well, people have been dancing around this idea for a while now, and it's looking a little clearer to me now.  

 

Creating a championship NFL football team is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do.  The process of building a team is complicated, the play on the field is complicated, everything is complicated.  And it's made that much more difficult because you face opponents who are very talented and who are trying to do the same thing. 

 

Here's one example: Should you build to win in a window and then rebuild, or should you build to be consistently good and take a Super Bowl when everything falls just right.  Most of us here look at that question one way or the other; we don't agree, and I'm not sure there's a right answer. Belichick and McDermott and Tomlin build for consistent success, while other teams build for the short term, usually with a cheap quarterback and some good luck acquiring star talent.  But that is by definition short-lived, because you can't consistently have a talent edge over the whole league.  Still, by building that way, when it falls right, you can race to a championship.  The Eagles have sort of done that.  Their QB is getting more expensive now, and they won't be able to hold on to all their talent.  

 

But that's just one kind of question about how to build; there are hundreds or thousands of decisions that have to be me made about how to build. 

 

Every team has the same objective - to win Super Bowls.  It's not like the Bills aren't trying.  The discussion here largely revolves around the basic question of whether the players are good enough and whether the coaching is good enough.  But as someone just said, the Bills have drafted a lot of good players who just don't seem to stand up and make plays.  Oliver and Kincaid (at least on one play) are guys we look at say, "If they'd make the plays we know they can, the Bills would be fine."  I'm in that camp.  Then the question becomes, "Are they the wrong guys, or are they coached wrong?"  And we can debate that.  Personally, I think it's a bit of both - they're coached to be consistent, and being consistent means they have to go where they're told, even if the opportunity to make a play is in the other direction.  But they also LIKE playing that way, and they've been drafted BECAUSE they like playing that way.  

 

We all can talk about what we think the Bills need to do to get over the hump. Here's where I come out:  McDermott and Beane understand more about what the Bills are doing right and wrong than any of us.  They're smart football people.  If they're drafting the wrong people, they'll figure that out.  If they're using the wrong defensive philosophy, they'll figure that out.  For example, I've said before that I think McDermott's eight- or ten-player rotation on the D line is a problem, because it means that you have take the money you can spend on D line and spread it around to 8 or 10 players, so that you have a light of guys who are at least decent.  If you spread it unevenly, around maybe 6 guys, you can have more talent with that six.  Then you play them more, and you hope do don't have a lot of injuries, which would leave with having to play some less talented, cheap talent that's been sitting on the end of the bench.  The Eagles played the Chiefs like that, with a couple of guys getting a lot more snaps than McDermott gives to any defensive lineman.  Chiefs play Chris Jones that way, too.  

 

Now, McDermott isn't stupid.  He sees that and he understands it. He believes in the growth mindset and continuous improvement, which means he believes that change is necessary to get better.  So, I expect McDermott's philosophy about his D line, and about other things, will continue to evolve, and I expect that what he tells Bean that he wants in a player will evolve, too.  How do I know that?  Well, McDermott's view of the wide receiver room clearly has evolved, and the passing game became more effective.  His view of the running game evolved, and the run game got better. 

 

The growth mindset is characterized by a simple question:  What is your response when something doesn't go right?  Some people respond with, "I got it wrong."  People with the growth mindset respond with, "I didn't get it right yet."  

 

McDermott is not going to keep doing the same thing, over and over.  He has shown himself to be an excellent coach who hasn't gotten it right yet.  If he weren't an excellent coach, there would be all kinds of things that we could agree are wrong about the Bills.  The truth we pretty much all agree that the Bills are doing almost everything right, and if they'd only do a little more right, they'd be winning Super Bowls.  Why is it that the Bills are doing almost everything right?  Because Sean McDermott is the head coach, and Rex Ryan, and Doug Marrone, and Gailey, and Jauron, and blah, blah, blah aren't the head coach. 

 

The Bills have a guy who is doing it and he will get better. 

I appreciate the thought out post. My question was phrased a specific way and I don't see you explicitly stating an answer.  

 

I can infer from the post that your answer is as long as McD keeps showing growth he has an indefinite amount of time. Growth from the perspective you're stating doesn't seem to be anchored to a clear result as far as I can tell and more to continued improvements. I guess that's a bit tricky given how close and how far we have come. One could argue how much more improving can we make without actually getting to the Super Bowl?

 

I will ask it in a very clear way. If the Bills go to multiple AFC championship games and a couple divisional games and never miss the playoffs the next 4 years, but don't make a Super Bowl, is McD still your guy?  

[Jrb1979]

31 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:

I appreciate the thought out post. My question was phrased a specific way and I don't see you explicitly stating an answer.  

 

I can infer from the post that your answer is as long as McD keeps showing growth he has an indefinite amount of time. Growth from the perspective you're stating doesn't seem to be anchored to a clear result as far as I can tell and more to continued improvements. I guess that's a bit tricky given how close and how far we have come. One could argue how much more improving can we make without actually getting to the Super Bowl?

 

I will ask it in a very clear way. If the Bills go to multiple AFC championship games and a couple divisional games and never miss the playoffs the next 4 years, but don't make a Super Bowl, is McD still your guy?  

My answer is it depends on if their philosophy has changed in terms of drafting and signing players. If they continue with the mantra of culture and scheme fit and still don't win in 4 years then I move on. 

 

Now if they start taking BPA in the draft and look at talent first and worry about culture second. They don't win I keep giving them a chance. A good example would be, if there is 2 WRs in the draft that the Bills can draft. One is a blue chip can't miss elite but has a bit ego, and the other has a high ceiling, a good team player, they take the high ceiling, IMO it's time to move on. 

 

For me I'm take the can't miss guy 10 out of 10 times regardless of ego 

[Mikie2times]

30 minutes ago, Jrb1979 said:

My answer is it depends on if their philosophy has changed in terms of drafting and signing players. If they continue with the mantra of culture and scheme fit and still don't win in 4 years then I move on. 

 

Now if they start taking BPA in the draft and look at talent first and worry about culture second. They don't win I keep giving them a chance. A good example would be, if there is 2 WRs in the draft that the Bills can draft. One is a blue chip can't miss elite but has a bit ego, and the other has a high ceiling, a good team player, they take the high ceiling, IMO it's time to move on. 

 

For me I'm take the can't miss guy 10 out of 10 times regardless of ego 

I would say, what good is your culture if you cant draft the somewhat troubled BPA?

 

As far as McD goes, I think if this keeps going and we repeat the last 4 years again, I think you really need to just look at change for the sake of it. It's not about being good or bad. It's just refreshing the routines, systems, and voices. Larry Bird once said every 3 years a team should replace it's HC. For 90% of coaches the most they should have is 3 years. After that players just don't hear you the same way. You don't impact the team the same way as you once did. All of which makes sense.

 

What I hope we don't see is something like a Landry, Shula, Harbaugh or Tomlin where the HC basically takes up a permanent post. That is not a good model IMO. All 4 of those guys won a Super Bowl, but after the last SB appearance they have gone 448-301 in the regular season, 47 separate seasons, and no Super Bowl appearances. It seems like many of the McD proponents are arguing for that type of stability/approach without actually saying it. I at least want to find out if that is what they see in the scenario I provided. 

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 12:24 AM by Mikie2times

[FireChans]

2 hours ago, Mikie2times said:

will ask it in a very clear way. If the Bills go to multiple AFC championship games and a couple divisional games and never miss the playoffs the next 4 years, but don't make a Super Bowl, is McD still your guy?  

Of course he is.

 

These folks just want to watch competitive ball. 
 

They want to win a SB of course, but that’s secondary to the ride they are on.

 

If you can’t see the merits of moving on from McD now, you never will. 

[Shaw66]

3 hours ago, Mikie2times said:

I appreciate the thought out post. My question was phrased a specific way and I don't see you explicitly stating an answer.  

 

I can infer from the post that your answer is as long as McD keeps showing growth he has an indefinite amount of time. Growth from the perspective you're stating doesn't seem to be anchored to a clear result as far as I can tell and more to continued improvements. I guess that's a bit tricky given how close and how far we have come. One could argue how much more improving can we make without actually getting to the Super Bowl?

 

I will ask it in a very clear way. If the Bills go to multiple AFC championship games and a couple divisional games and never miss the playoffs the next 4 years, but don't make a Super Bowl, is McD still your guy?  

Well, it depends.  Probably yes, but it depends on whether he actually seems to be growing. 

 

I don't know, for example, whether his philosophy about the D line will evolve, but if he's playing the same 8 man rotation and getting the same results, that will be a signal to me that he isn't growing.  The league is changing around him, and if he isn't changing with it, then his growth mindset won't be getting the job done.  

 

If Allen storms out training camp in 2027 and demands a trade, then maybe I have a different view.  On the other hand, if Allen storms out and Trubisky takes them to the Championship game, then, certainly, keep the coach. 

 

It all depends on what the team is doing. 

 

I've come down to thinking that there is only one metric that matters - winning the Lombardi.  All the other objective metrics - stats, AFC East titles, etc. really don't matter.  But I also think that that metric, winning it all, is NOT the measure of the success of the coach.  Some great coaches have never won a Super Bowl, and some bad coaches have.  The measure of a good coach is more complicated and more subjective than winning a Lombardi. 

 

I think McDermott is a better coach today than he was three years ago, and he was better three years ago than six years ago.  Four years from now, if I think he still growing and the quality of his teams is still growing, I'm still going with him.  

2 hours ago, Jrb1979 said:

My answer is it depends on if their philosophy has changed in terms of drafting and signing players. If they continue with the mantra of culture and scheme fit and still don't win in 4 years then I move on. 

 

Now if they start taking BPA in the draft and look at talent first and worry about culture second. They don't win I keep giving them a chance. A good example would be, if there is 2 WRs in the draft that the Bills can draft. One is a blue chip can't miss elite but has a bit ego, and the other has a high ceiling, a good team player, they take the high ceiling, IMO it's time to move on. 

 

For me I'm take the can't miss guy 10 out of 10 times regardless of ego 

I like this, at least the first para.  You're saying something similar, and the point is the same - if things don't progress, then it's time to move on. 

 

However, I don't agree with culture second.  Culture's first, and McD won't ever change that, and it unquestionably has built great success.  What has to change is football decision making.  They need to be smarter about the people they acquire, especially in the first and second rounds.  That's where they need to go after play makers - given where they draft, they won't get one every time, but they need to hit on one or two, so they have a true monster DT or a true shutdown corner or a real stud at some other position.  To do that, I think their philosophy about players has to evolve.  

[SoTier]

I think we need to revive the old "beating a dead horse" emogi for threads like this.

 

Guess what, guys, dolls, and whomever else keeps beating this dead horse: the Bills are not moving on from McDermott until/unless the Bills have multiple losing seasons or repeatedly miss the playoffs without some valid excuse such as a serious injury to Allen.  If the Bills lost in the WC round multiple times in a row, that might motivate Pegula to seek a new coach, but I can't see him moving on from McDermott otherwise.

 

Why would he?  He's a relative newcomer to the NFL owners' club and he's got one of the best teams in the NFL.  Better than any of his AFCE rivals.  Better than legendary NFL franchises like the Steelers and the Cowboys.  He's not moving on from McDermott until he's dissatisfied with McDermott no matter how much some anonymous fans on a message board complain.

 

[Mikie2times]

26 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Well, it depends.  Probably yes, but it depends on whether he actually seems to be growing. 

 

I don't know, for example, whether his philosophy about the D line will evolve, but if he's playing the same 8 man rotation and getting the same results, that will be a signal to me that he isn't growing.  The league is changing around him, and if he isn't changing with it, then his growth mindset won't be getting the job done.  

 

If Allen storms out training camp in 2027 and demands a trade, then maybe I have a different view.  On the other hand, if Allen storms out and Trubisky takes them to the Championship game, then, certainly, keep the coach. 

 

It all depends on what the team is doing. 

 

I've come down to thinking that there is only one metric that matters - winning the Lombardi.  All the other objective metrics - stats, AFC East titles, etc. really don't matter.  But I also think that that metric, winning it all, is NOT the measure of the success of the coach.  Some great coaches have never won a Super Bowl, and some bad coaches have.  The measure of a good coach is more complicated and more subjective than winning a Lombardi. 

 

I think McDermott is a better coach today than he was three years ago, and he was better three years ago than six years ago.  Four years from now, if I think he still growing and the quality of his teams is still growing, I'm still going with him.  

I like this, at least the first para.  You're saying something similar, and the point is the same - if things don't progress, then it's time to move on. 

 

However, I don't agree with culture second.  Culture's first, and McD won't ever change that, and it unquestionably has built great success.  What has to change is football decision making.  They need to be smarter about the people they acquire, especially in the first and second rounds.  That's where they need to go after play makers - given where they draft, they won't get one every time, but they need to hit on one or two, so they have a true monster DT or a true shutdown corner or a real stud at some other position.  To do that, I think their philosophy about players has to evolve.  

Again, quality post. Certainly for every team it's the combination of talent and coaching. In my mind McD doesn't fall that far outside another beloved Buffalo coach, Marv Levy. Levy was able to accomplish something pretty remarkable in the resilience, character, and consistency he was able to instill in those teams. I know it taught me a life lesson or two. He was a hall of fame coach. But ultimately, was he good enough in the X's and O's, roster/player development, assistant coaching decisions, draft contributions, and all those other things? Probably not. I know a lot of Bills fans look at Marv as one of the main reasons we never won one. 

 

With this team and Allen, we have considerable talent as well. If I have a degree of hope with McD it's just that I don't feel that talent resides on the side of the ball he specializes in. But at the same time he very well could be a large part of the reason why. We just don't know. Further, not many great coaches have had an MVP QB and never been to a Super Bowl. It sort of ups the anti a little bit by having a guy like Josh. As it upped the anti for Marv having Bruce, Thurman, Andre, Jim, etc. Allen is really what puts the pressure on McD and I think it's what gives clarity to the bold part. When you have a guy like Allen, I don't know that you can be considered great unless certain things happen. Winning a Super Bowl, going to a Super Bowl. Perhaps more forgiveness exists with a lesser QB. But I'm not sure any great coaches exist that haven't been to a championship game with an MVP QB. McD to me is still not in Levy's class yet, but in the same mold. Which certainly isn't bad company, but might not be championship company. 

[Shaw66]

30 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:

Again, quality post. Certainly for every team it's the combination of talent and coaching. In my mind McD doesn't fall that far outside another beloved Buffalo coach, Marv Levy. Levy was able to accomplish something pretty remarkable in the resilience, character, and consistency he was able to instill in those teams. I know it taught me a life lesson or two. He was a hall of fame coach. But ultimately, was he good enough in the X's and O's, roster/player development, assistant coaching decisions, draft contributions, and all those other things? Probably not. I know a lot of Bills fans look at Marv as one of the main reasons we never won one. 

 

With this team and Allen, we have considerable talent as well. If I have a degree of hope with McD it's just that I don't feel that talent resides on the side of the ball he specializes in. But at the same time he very well could be a large part of the reason why. We just don't know. Further, not many great coaches have had an MVP QB and never been to a Super Bowl. It sort of ups the anti a little bit by having a guy like Josh. As it upped the anti for Marv having Bruce, Thurman, Andre, Jim, etc. Allen is really what puts the pressure on McD and I think it's what gives clarity to the bold part. When you have a guy like Allen, I don't know that you can be considered great unless certain things happen. Winning a Super Bowl, going to a Super Bowl. Perhaps more forgiveness exists with a lesser QB. But I'm not sure any great coaches exist that haven't been to a championship game with an MVP QB. McD to me is still not in Levy's class yet, but in the same mold. Which certainly isn't bad company, but might not be championship company. 

That's interesting.  

 

First, it's a minor point, but even if it's true that every great coach has been to a Super Bowl if he had a great QB, it doesn't mean it can't happen.  For example, for the last several years, McDermott and Allen couldn't get past Mahomes and Reid, and that is a comment more on Reid and Mahomes.  And Shula had Marino for 10 or 12 years and only got there once, and Jimmy Johnson had Marino for four and never got there. 

 

But that isn't the point.  The real point is that McDermott is light years ahead of Levy.  After Levy lost one of his Super Bowls, maybe the first, he was asked whether he wished he had done more to motivate his players.  He said it's the players' job to motivate themselves.  Right there, I knew that Levy's reputation exceeded his coaching ability.  McDermott understands that EVERYTHING is his job, and if his players aren't properly motivated, it's on him.  

 

As poor as some of the coaching has been in McDermott's playoff losses, it wasn't any worse than Levy in XXV.  The Giants showed him the game plan to beat them in the regular season, and Levy never adjusted.  And he let his players go out and get drunk the night before the game.  

 

And the talent Levy had was much better.  Kelly threw to Reed and Lofton.  And Thurman was better than anyone McDermott has had at running back.  Put Bruce Smith on the Dline opposite Rousseau and the Bills would have one or two Super Bowls already.  There were first-ballot Hall of Famers on that team.  

 

It's much harder to win now.  It was possible to acquire enough talent to be just flat out better than most teams, and the Bills happened to do it.  In this era, it's very very difficult to out talent anyone.  Eagles did it this year. 

 

I think McDermott is much better than Levy.  Much better. 

 

And thanks.  You're saying some good and interesting things, and even if we may come out in different places, the things you're saying make a lot of sense. 

Edited Tuesday at 03:52 AM by Shaw66

[Jrb1979]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Well, it depends.  Probably yes, but it depends on whether he actually seems to be growing. 

 

I don't know, for example, whether his philosophy about the D line will evolve, but if he's playing the same 8 man rotation and getting the same results, that will be a signal to me that he isn't growing.  The league is changing around him, and if he isn't changing with it, then his growth mindset won't be getting the job done.  

 

If Allen storms out training camp in 2027 and demands a trade, then maybe I have a different view.  On the other hand, if Allen storms out and Trubisky takes them to the Championship game, then, certainly, keep the coach. 

 

It all depends on what the team is doing. 

 

I've come down to thinking that there is only one metric that matters - winning the Lombardi.  All the other objective metrics - stats, AFC East titles, etc. really don't matter.  But I also think that that metric, winning it all, is NOT the measure of the success of the coach.  Some great coaches have never won a Super Bowl, and some bad coaches have.  The measure of a good coach is more complicated and more subjective than winning a Lombardi. 

 

I think McDermott is a better coach today than he was three years ago, and he was better three years ago than six years ago.  Four years from now, if I think he still growing and the quality of his teams is still growing, I'm still going with him.  

I like this, at least the first para.  You're saying something similar, and the point is the same - if things don't progress, then it's time to move on. 

 

However, I don't agree with culture second.  Culture's first, and McD won't ever change that, and it unquestionably has built great success.  What has to change is football decision making.  They need to be smarter about the people they acquire, especially in the first and second rounds.  That's where they need to go after play makers - given where they draft, they won't get one every time, but they need to hit on one or two, so they have a true monster DT or a true shutdown corner or a real stud at some other position.  To do that, I think their philosophy about players has to evolve.  

That's where I disagree on the first and second round picks. Yes they need to hit on them better, but that's where the culture part comes in.  If you have 2 players available to draft, one being elite and will have an impact day 1 but has an attitude. They 2nd player has a high ceiling and will come to work hard everyday and is a team player. They will almost always take that 2nd option as it fits the culture they have built. 

 

IMO they should always be taking the better player regardless of ego or attitude. 

[CircleTheWagons99]

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

 

-Albert Enstein

[Low Positive]

10 minutes ago, CircleTheWagons99 said:

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

 

-Albert Enstein

A little Google Search would tell you that Einstein never said that. 

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
A favorite of politicians (and pretty much everybody else), this quote has been wrongly attributed to Benjamin Franklin as well as—but there’s no evidence either of them said it. “The Ultimate Quotable Einstein,” an authoritative complication of his most memorable utterances, identified the quote as a misattribution, and mentioned its use in the 1983 novel “Sudden Death” by Rita Mae Brown. On his website, Quote Investigator, O’Toole traced, the link between insanity and repetition back to at least the 19th century, but noted its use in a Narcotics Anonymous pamphlet as well as novels (including Brown’s), TV shows and various other sources.

 

https://www.history.com/news/here-are-6-things-albert-einstein-never-said

[Thrivefourfive]

8 hours ago, Mikie2times said:

I appreciate the thought out post. My question was phrased a specific way and I don't see you explicitly stating an answer.  

 

I can infer from the post that your answer is as long as McD keeps showing growth he has an indefinite amount of time. Growth from the perspective you're stating doesn't seem to be anchored to a clear result as far as I can tell and more to continued improvements. I guess that's a bit tricky given how close and how far we have come. One could argue how much more improving can we make without actually getting to the Super Bowl?

 

I will ask it in a very clear way. If the Bills go to multiple AFC championship games and a couple divisional games and never miss the playoffs the next 4 years, but don't make a Super Bowl, is McD still your guy?  

I’ll take this one.. the answer is: because McDermott brings consistent success his supporters will let him die in office. In the end, when he’s won no SBs, they’ll argue: We never would’ve won one the other either.. We’re the Bills! But at least we were always in the playoffs instead of another drought. Uh huh. 

 

LLLLa-Who-Zerzzz

3 hours ago, Low Positive said:

A little Google Search would tell you that Einstein never said that. 

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
A favorite of politicians (and pretty much everybody else), this quote has been wrongly attributed to Benjamin Franklin as well as—but there’s no evidence either of them said it. “The Ultimate Quotable Einstein,” an authoritative complication of his most memorable utterances, identified the quote as a misattribution, and mentioned its use in the 1983 novel “Sudden Death” by Rita Mae Brown. On his website, Quote Investigator, O’Toole traced, the link between insanity and repetition back to at least the 19th century, but noted its use in a Narcotics Anonymous pamphlet as well as novels (including Brown’s), TV shows and various other sources.

 

https://www.history.com/news/here-are-6-things-albert-einstein-never-said

Teacher! Teacher! 🤣 I think the point carries the day… a whoever said the thing.

 

[Shaw66]

8 hours ago, Jrb1979 said:

That's where I disagree on the first and second round picks. Yes they need to hit on them better, but that's where the culture part comes in.  If you have 2 players available to draft, one being elite and will have an impact day 1 but has an attitude. They 2nd player has a high ceiling and will come to work hard everyday and is a team player. They will almost always take that 2nd option as it fits the culture they have built. 

 

IMO they should always be taking the better player regardless of ego or attitude. 

An attitude like, say, Stefon Diggs?

 

Furthermore, drafting at 30, you don't find day one impact players.  You find Worthy and Coleman. 

[OldNMBillsFan]

9 hours ago, Mikie2times said:

I know a lot of Bills fans look at Marv as one of the main reasons we never won one. 

The combined stats for Jim Kelly's 4 games in the Super Bowls.  A 56% Completion Rate, 2 TD's, 7 INT's and a whopping passer rating of 56.9. I would say it's hard to argue on why the Bills didn't win any of those games with Kelly's performance in those 4 games.

[Jrb1979]

45 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

An attitude like, say, Stefon Diggs?

 

Furthermore, drafting at 30, you don't find day one impact players.  You find Worthy and Coleman. 

Not quite the extreme is Diggs but in the mold. 

 

You do find guys that make an impact day one that low in the draft. Look at Brian Thomas Jr. 

[Shaw66]

2 hours ago, Jrb1979 said:

Not quite the extreme is Diggs but in the mold. 

 

You do find guys that make an impact day one that low in the draft. Look at Brian Thomas Jr. 

Diggs wasn't extreme.  I'm guessing McDermott will not knowingly take another Diggs.  Two good years and two years screwing up the team chemistry. 

 

Yes, you find them, but they're accidents. If people knew how good those late first rounders were going to turn out, they wouldn't have lasted until late in the first round.  Brian Thomas Jr. wasn't available when the Bills and Chiefs drafted, and the Bears thought Odunze was better.  At the end of the first round, you take guys who look like they have promise, like Rousseau and Coleman, and you hope they emerge.  It's a crapshoot for impact players at that point in the draft.  

 

I think the way a team that's near the top of the league adds impact players is through free agency.  You make a bold move for a Garrett, or you understand that a guy like Zack Baun will impact your defense.  In fact, it worked for the Rams with Miller; it just didn't work out for Beane. I wouldn't be surprised to see Beane do it again.  

[DrDawkinstein]

3 hours ago, OldNMBillsFan said:

The combined stats for Jim Kelly's 4 games in the Super Bowls.  A 56% Completion Rate, 2 TD's, 7 INT's and a whopping passer rating of 56.9. I would say it's hard to argue on why the Bills didn't win any of those games with Kelly's performance in those 4 games.

 

And a part of that is Marv not setting curfews like our opponents and letting Jim stay out all hours boozing and carousing with Berman.

[Gregg]

3 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

And a part of that is Marv not setting curfews like our opponents and letting Jim stay out all hours boozing and carousing with Berman.

 

That certainly didn't help but looking back at it the only Super Bowl the Bills should have won was the Giants game. The Bills were the better team. Thurman should have gotten the ball more that day even with only 19 minutes of TOP as the Giants hogged the ball all game. The Redskins physically overpowered the Bills, and the Cowboys were the better team although the Bills did hang in the 2nd Cowboys game leading at half.