Shaw66

I think this list demonstrates that the receiver issue is quite manageable, so long as we assume Diggs will return to form. Personally, I think Diggs was dealing with undisclosed, or underdisclosed, injuries, and he'll be back. If that's true, they just need a quality #2, and they can fill in the #4 spot easily enough. The success of the passing game depends much more on what Brady does than some major overhauls of the wideout room.

First, in my experience, very few people get worse at their jobs, at least until age begins to erode their abilities. Very few people. Second, yes, some people refuse to change. However, you're ignoring that McDermott is a person whose core principles include a commitment to continuous improvement, lifelong learning, and change. He is all about growth and change to achieve objectives. For example, the Bills were among the very most successful teams transitioning their entire operation when COVID hit. His leadership allowed the Bills to continually change and revamp their procedures as new NFL rules were handed down. Why? Because McDermott has built an organization that embraces change. So, yeah, some coaches get fired because they have one and only one system and they don't change. That isn't McDermott. I think the weakness of the AFC East is a bit of a myth. During the first two decades of this century, the Bills-Jets-Dolphins had collective bad records because they had to play the Patriots twice a year. That meant that in most seasons, each of those teams had to go 10-4 against the rest of the schedule if they wanted to make the playoffs. And, in fact, over the period of the Pats dominance, the AFCE east teams had a better record against the Pats than the rest of the league had against the Pats. We're seeing the same thing now in the AFC West. When a truly dominant team comes along, the other teams in their division suffer.

For sure. In fact, I said as much in my post. It's what I see. That doesn't mean it's wrong. Or right.

I don't know what this means, exactly, but it's exactly correct. Mahomes has an approach to the game that is superior to Allen's, and it's something that Allen still needs to develop to be an all-time great. I'll mention a few things. When Mahomes comes on the field late, with the game on the line, he has an attitude that we all can feel. First and foremost, it is a total absence of fear. Everything about him says he expects to win. And his look says, "I know we're going to win." It's more that it says, "I know what I need to do at this moment. I'm going to do what I need to do." Allen is getting there. Earlier in his career, sometimes you could see the fear in his eyes. Late this season, it wasn't there. He was in charge, and confident about what he was doing. Still, he isn't so much in charge that you can feel his presence and his confidence. Some of it comes from having completely mastered the offense, from understanding every nuance of what needs to be done on every play. The importance of that attitude that others can see is that it affects his teammates on the field. The other players all admire the QB, because the QB knows so much and executes under fire. When the QB executes like Mahomes and is in charge like Mahomes, the players' attitude goes beyond admiration. Maybe it's trust. The other players trust Mahomes to get them into the right play, to execute the right play, and the other players know exactly what he expects of them. So, Patrick seems to raise the level of play of the whole offense. Josh has all the tools. Josh's punishing physical style already has won him the admiration of his teammates. They love him for that, and they'll follow him anywhere. However, he needs to show the mental power, the mastery of the game. He has to execute with discipline, something that Mahomes is great at. Patrick just never seems to make the wrong throw. His judgment is excellent. Josh is still growing into that. I know others in this thread have said, "Josh is great and he's not the reason the Bills haven't won," and I get that idea. However, the supremely good quarterbacks raise the level of all the players around them. We're seeing Mahomes, and we saw Brady. Peyton had it, too. I don't think Rodgers had it, and I think Allen currently is like Rodgers. Rodgers has amazing talent, and sometimes his amazing talent wins games for his team. But Rodgers didn't have his team behind him in the same way that Mahomes and Brady do/did. Rodgers demands that his teammates follow him; Mahomes brings his teammates along with him. Allen's teammates love him and all that, but when they're on the field with him, they don't execute for him the way the Chiefs execute. It's as though they're waiting for Allen to do it, whereas Mahomes gets his teammates to help him do it. Obviously, there's no data to support any of this, but it feels real to me. One of my strongest reactions to the Super Bowl was that I was hoping that Allen was watching Mahomes, because Allen has to do what Mahomes does. Physically, he doesn't need much of anything, but mentally he needs to have truly mastered the offense, the plays, the strategy, the situation, all of that, AND his has to project an attitude to the players that says, "I've got this; not just physically. I've got ALL of this."

Don't assume McDermott won't don something like you suggest.

BuffBIlls is right. What holes? I think people have memories that are too short. People need to remember the drought. Those teams had holes. I mean, every year, as free agency and the draft approach, it was completely obvious that the Bills had no one - I mean NO ONE - to play one or two or three positions. Those were real holes. The Bills don't have one hole on offense. All they have is a position - wide out, where it would be good to get better, but that's not a hole. Defensive holes? Well, if they lose Hyde or Poyer or both, those are holes. They don't have holes on the D line, at least until they lose someone in free agency. No holes at corner. All those positions are just places it would be good to upgrade. No holes at linebacker. This is a solid, championship caliber roster that needs to get better.

On second down in red zone at the end of the game, you didn't "expect" Allen to get the touchdown? I did. Each season is different. I didn't expect the Bills to go anywhere in the playoffs last season. I was prepared for the Bills to lose to the Bengals. I did expect more this season. I don't see why I have to wait for the Bills to prove it before I can expect that they will win. Waiting for them to prove is taking a negative attitude - "I'll believe when I see it" means, literally, "I don't believe it now." Why don't you believe it now? Because you believe that there is something wrong that keeps them from winning, based on previous performances. I don't believe previous performances control future outcomes. Think about this. Dawkins holds his ground for a fraction of a second longer against Jones and Allen hits Shakir in the end zone. Chiefs have the ball with a minute 43 and need a touchdown? Do they get it? I don't know. Most people around the league would say, yes, they get the TD. Why? Because Mahomes seems to ALWAYS get that score in that situation. So, if that's true, is it really the Bills fault that they lost? The point is, losing to the Chiefs is not the measure that something is wrong. Everyone loses to the Chiefs. The Bills are the only team good enough to have seen them in the playoffs for three of the last four years. That history doesn't justify not believing the Bills can win it all. All that needs to happen is for Dawkins to get a little better or the Bills to get better in some other way, and/or the Chiefs getting past their prime. Today, February 13, 2024, I believe they can do it. I don't have to see it first. Well, maybe some of what they've been doing is working on the wrong stuff. Or they've been attacking it the wrong way. But the whole point of the process is to figure it out, whatever it is, and fix it. Day after day, year after, work at continuous improvement. And multiple businesses in the US, here and around the world, use this process.

Well, I haven't seen the posts from Gunner and Bado, but I agree with this. I said it somewhere a couple days ago. One thing I don't like is that McDermott, and therefore Beane, go a bit too far with the philosophy that the Bills need great versatility in their players. Everyone has to be able to do everything that a person in their position can to. For receivers, for example, catch, run deep patterns, run short patterns. Offensive linemen have to be good at pulling, good at pass pro, good at road grading. Romo was right about Chris Jones the other night - he's a special talent because he makes big plays when the team needs one. Milano may be the only player the Bills have whose superior combination of talent and skills makes him a special playmaker. Niners have three on offense PLUS a couple on defense. Chiefs have at least Jones and Kelce. Of course, that point of view suggests that big game failures are more related to players rather than coaches. I don't think this problem is lost on McBeane, either. This problem is exactly why the Bills signed Von Miller. Exactly. His job when he came to Buffalo was to pressure the QB, and Mahomes in particular. He did in regular season in 2022. He hadn't recovered to be a factor this time around. But the point isn't whether Miller worked, or will work next season. The point is that McBeane are aware of the fact that they need game-changing talent somewhere in the lineup. Kincaid may be one of them. Milano is one. Bernard may actually be one. I'd guess that there will be on free agent the Bills sign who they want to be a game changer, probably a receiver.

I'd like to hear it too. The Bills have a process. It's about continuous improvement. One part of the process is self-evaluation, which includes what isn't working well enough and why. Based on what they learn, they adjust what they're doing. Coach differently, emphasize different things, adjust strategies, all of that. McDermott is evaluated, too. Now, they probably don't always succeed at improving what they targeted; no one succeeds all the time. But it's a proven process that leads to improvement, permanent improvement, over time. Now, you'll say they haven't improved over four years, but that's true only based on the final outcome: no Lombardi. But if you could see what their self-evaluation said each year and how they evolved and change in response to it, I'm sure you'd see that it's generally working in the way it was intended. There's an interesting interview with Belichick, maybe in March, after they'd beaten the Falcons in overtime. They were sitting in a restaurant/bar in Annapolis. The interviewer asked what they have to do to go back-to-back. He said he didn't know. (Well, I'm sure, he could talk about things in generalities, but as to specifics, he actually didn't know.) Instead he said everyone except him was back in Foxboro, doing what they were supposed to be doing today. Stuff like studying film, developing offensive and defensive strategies, etc. It was all designed to get better, to build on what they already knew. It was the off-season version of what he says in-season - we are focused on today and tomorrow and not on anything beyond this week's game. The process determines where improvement is necessary, who's responsible for the improvement, and what the strategies for improvement are. I think it would be really cool to sit in, maybe once a week or more, on various meetings, hear what they're targeting for improvement. It would be interesting.

Well, I agree with the first half. I've been saying here for years that people over-emphasize the importance of acquiring more talent. The NFL is designed to be sure that it's practically impossible to out-talent the rest of the teams in the league. You have to win with a few stars and a bunch of ordinary talent. Which means the success of teams depends on coaching. Where we disagree is on McDermott. You're saying, in some many words, that McDermott isn't a winner. I'm saying that he just hasn't won yet. That is, I believe in and the possibility, actually the likelihood, that McDermott will win, probably win more than once. You believe that the Bills that we've seen in the past is the most we can expect to get so long as McDermott is the coach. It's exactly what Eagles fans said about Reid. I think people learn and improve, and McDermott is dedicated to that principle, to the max. If anyone is going to improve, it's McDermott. It's very hard to win a Lombardi - very hard, and a lot of luck is required, too. There have been a few exceptions: Reid now, Belichick, Walsh, maybe Landry, Paul Brown, Noll, probably Shula. Most of the coaches who've won have been one and done, and they were fortunate to get one.

No, I don't agree. Coaches improve year after year. McDermott is way, way up the learning curve, and he's 49 years old. Pete Carroll didn't win the Super Bowl until he was 63. When he was 49, he was fired after three dismal seasons as head coach of the Patriots - Bill Belichick almost immediately turned the team into a winner. Pete Carroll learned a lot between age 49 and age 63, and McDermott will. The only difference between McDermott and whomever the Bills might hire to replace him is that the guy they hire will have to learn more than McDermott has to learn to succeed.

Okay, we'll call this Corollary One to the Schottenheimer Rule - If one part of the team hasn't performed in the past, that part of the team will continue not to perform in the future unless the coach is changed. It's the same thing. You're assuming that the future will be the same as the past, and that the people responsible for the past cannot improve. People change and get better at their jobs all the time, year after year.

This all well and good, but the point of the overtime rules ALWAYS has been sudden death. There are reasons for this, I suppose. One reason is that sudden death is exciting. It's dramatic. Another reason is TV. The networks like their schedules, and they want the games to end when they're supposed to end, or as soon thereafter as possible. Another reason is injury. Playing a full quarter to see if the tie is broken, and certainly having to play a second quarter, creates a war of attrition. It might be dramatic, but it isn't fair to the players. Remember how gassed the Bills and Chiefs were in 13 seconds? The Niners and the Chiefs this year, too. Those guys' bodies want it, need it, to end. The current system makes it reasonably fair to both teams. Essentially, the game is sudden death after the first possession. Would you rather go first or second? Sure, there's a difference, and analytics will determine what's the smarter move, but that doesn't make the game unfair.

I think that's true, but I think that's part of the plan, the process. There have already been exceptions - Benford and Shakir are good examples. In fact, I think in the later rounds the Bills go for guys with the brains and commitment necessary to get acclimated quickly. The first couple of rounds are for physical talent, and those are the guys who make take longer to get up to speed. But in any case, I think you're right. This coming season, more so than the past, the Bills are expecting some young players to step up. I think they have high hopes for Williams. I expect the Bills to go after a receiver early on, and I expect it will be someone they intend to count on as the 2024 season rolls along, a guy who makes a bigger impact as a rookie than Shakir. I also expect Bills will be looking a D lineman to contribute early. The Bills also need a good young corner. Having said that, I don't expect as much turnover as some others around here. If the Bills did nothing but brought in someone to be a solid #2 receiver, with some speed and route running talent, I'd be OK with that. Diggs, New Guy, Shakir, Kincaid, Knox, Cook - I'm good. Oline is set, although I would be surprised to see the Bills bring in someone who could challenge the existing lineup. There will be some changes in the D line, but the Bills don't need to clean house. Linebackers are set. The defensive backfield will have some changes, but there will be a lot of familiar faces. I should add that getting first and second year players to contribute is part of the process. McDermott explained it when he joined the team. The collective IQ that the team develops over time has to be taught to the rookies quickly, so they can get up to speed. McDermott's plan has always been to get to where he is right now - having a high-performing team that can continue to succeed even as good veterans leave the team. It's not like he just realized last week that he needs some young bloods - he and Beane have been planning for this for a couple of years.

No, you aren't wrong. It's because of the complexity of the systems McDermott wants to run. Most rookies contribute very little their rookie season. The best of them show great improvement in year two - Bernard and Cook. For many others, it's year three - Brown.

I think it was supposed to be Spencer Brown - What Say You? Missed by a bit.

Yes. And the "blueprint" is to have two standout #1 wide receivers, which is not sustainable. They were able to do it on Burrow's rookie contract, but those days are over.

If you're going to get rid of McDermott because he couldn't beat Kansas City, why would you replace him with a guy who got fired because he couldn't beat Kansas City? It's silly. Except for the fans of these teams, everyone thinks Shanahan and McDermott are two of the very best coaches in the league. The only reason to replace them seems to be that some people have created in their minds something I'll call the Schottenheimer Rule, which goes like this: If your team's coach has been good but hasn't won it all yet, your team's coach never will win. The Schottenheimer Rule is nonsense made up by people who are frustrated that their team hasn't won. It's an attempt to make it seem like there is some logic to their desire to scapegoat the head coach. If the Bills and the Niners fire their head coaches today, those two would be, BY FAR, the two best coaches available in the head coaching market over the past five years.

It's not "this" version of the Bills. It was "those" versions of the Bills. It's a different team every year. But my point was that EVERY team "chokes" against the Chiefs. The Bills, in fact, "choke" a little less than all the other teams, because (1) they get closer than everyone else who "chokes," and (2) they actually beat the Chiefs in the regular season. One or two things have to happen for the Bills to win the Super Bowl. The Bills have to get a little better and/or the Chiefs have to get a little worse. The Bills are working very hard on their piece of the puzzle, and they don't need to do a lot to get better and win it all.

Thanks for this. First, maybe I should go back and look at your other thread. I never opened it simply because of the title - I didn't see the point in talking about your or my emotional reaction to two Chiefs games. I like this explanation about your point there. I think the only difference between you and me is perspective. I think the proper perspective is that the league often has periods where there is a dominant team. The Niners were like that when they had Montana, Young, and Rice. They didn't win every year, but there was a feeling, a little bit, of the inevitably of losing to them when you played them. Then the Cowboys for a few years with Aikman and Smith. And while the Niners and Cowboys were doing that, the Bills were right behind them - the whole AFC felt that same inevitability. But the Bills were still just outside, knocking on the door. Then we had 20 years of the Patriots, a remarkable run, and now the Chiefs are doing it. Unfortunately, when the Bills finally got good and blew past the Pats, there were the Chiefs. What's truly unfortunate is that the team to emerge as the top dog is in the AFC, so there's an unusually big challenge standing the way for the Bills. The Bengals beat the Chiefs because the Bills had beaten up the Chiefs in the 13-second game. I choose to look at what's happened from the NFL perspective, not the Bills' perspective. From the NFL perspective, the Chiefs are the best team in the league. Period. No one beats them. It's why Mahomes and Kelce kept talking about being the underdogs. From their point of view, they were thinking, "Who are you kidding. We're the best team in the league." And they are. So, from my perspective, yes, of course, we can ask, "What's wrong with the Bills and how can they fix it?," but 30 other teams in the league are (mostly to a greater extent) asking the same thing. The only difference between the Bills and most of those 30 others is that the Bills are a lot closer to being able to answer that question. The Bills are in the same position the Manning Colts were in trying to get past the Patriots. The same position the 1950s Dodgers were in facing the Yankees in the World Series every year. Yes, the Bills have to get better, and yes, we want them to have a period of domination like the Chiefs are having now. That would be great. But it may just be the case that the Chiefs, like the Pats and the Yankees, always will be one step ahead, and the best the best challenger can do is break through one year, win one championship, and be satisfied with that. Now, people will say I'm a loser and I'm giving the Bills a pass, and I'm satisfied just with making the playoffs. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that Bills are very good - the Bills are date the Chiefs circle on the calendar every year, but that simply is very difficult to improve enough to get over a very high bar: Beating a generationally good team. The Colts kept losing to the Pats in different ways, and the Bills are losing to the Chiefs in different ways. (In fact, and this is not my point, but it is interesting, that Brady was the GOAT and Peyton, top-five all time, kept losing to him, and now Allen, who himself may end up top-five all time, keeps losing to Mahomes, whom people are starting to compare to Brady.) So, yeah, I really hate losing in various ugly fashions to the Chiefs, but the reality is the Bills were 13 seconds away from beating them once in the playoffs, and a Josh Allen step away from beating them last month in the playoffs, and there is no other team in the league that has played the Chiefs that tough consistently. And, yeah, there are things that the Bills could have done better to beat the Chiefs, and yeah, the Bills need to get better to achieve their goals. All of that. But that doesn't mean the Bills should change coaches or change GMs. The only reason the Niners haven't lost more to the Chiefs is that they play in the other conference, and the two chances Shanahan had, in the Super Bowl, he lost. Shanahan and McDermott are the only two coaches who have gotten their teams close to beating the Chiefs, and the fact that they haven't won is more a commentary on the Chiefs than on them. The Bills aren't losers. The Chiefs are winners. McDermott has his team knocking the door. The Bills know it, and the Chiefs know it. The way I look at it, of all the situations I can find my team in, the Bills are in the second best. They aren't hopeless losers, they aren't .500, hoping stick their noses under the playoff tent. They are a team that pretty much everyone who knows football understands to be on the very best teams in the league, with a quarterback who is well on his way to the Hall of Fame. I love being in this situation, and I want - oh, I want it so badly! - for the Bills to be the best in the league. They aren't quite there, but they're knocking on the door. Next year may be the year they blow down the door burst into the hall of champions. In short, without putting words in your mouth, your perspective is that something is wrong with the Bills and they can't do it better. My perspective is that the Bills are very good and just haven't been able to beat the dominant team of the era. It's just another step for the Bills to become the new dominant team, and 2024 is their next chance to do it.

Exactly. And the reason to be optimistic is that because the margin between how good the Chiefs (and a few other teams) are and how good the Bills are is so small only marginal improvement is necessary to be the best. So, for example, would you rather be, today, the Bills or the Browns? Would you rather be, today, the Bills or the Colts? Small improvement is all that's necessary. McBeane aren't limiting their objectives to small improvements only - they'll go big every time it makes sense, like going after Miller. But all they need is small improvement to be the best team in the league, small compared to how much improvement everyone else has to achieve to be the best. Think about the improvement that is reasonable to expect: Player improvement: Allen, Cook, Kincaid, Torrence, Bernard, Milano back, Benford, Rapp. And, yes, the receiving corps will improve. Coaching will improve. McDermott improves every season, because he demands it of himself. Brady is likely to improve (altho Dorsey didn't seem to). Through film study, the offenses and defenses will be adjusted, everything will be worked on much will improve. The whole point of McDermott's process is to create year-after-year improvement in all aspects of how the team functions. If I own the second or third or fourth best team in the league, I like where I am, because I know that my team has a better chance to become the best than 25 or 28 other teams. I'm going to keep building on what I have.

Wow. (1) The defense is one of the best in the league. (2) It typically takes more than a year to recover fully from a torn ACL. 2024 is when we find out what Miller has. (3) The two biggest holes were at linebacker, both caused by injury, both players will be back, in their prime. The Bills actually have no holes, at least until there are some free agent departures. They just have positions they'd like to get better at. Safety, wide receiver. Pretty much every team is always looking for another corner back, and better linemen. There are at least 20, probably 25 owners who would trade their entire organization for the Bills' organization. Who's happy with what they have? Chiefs, 49ers, Ravens, probably the Bengals, maybe the Rams, maybe Jags. Eagles, Seahawks, Steelers, Cowboys, Dolphins, and pretty much everyone else would trade and have an immediate upgrade at GM, Head coach, and quarterback.

Beast - I agree. I'm happy with the Bills and what they're doing. I think they will continue to get better The simple fact is that, like the Patriots before them, the Chiefs are the best team in the league right now and as they reminded us last week, they ALWAYS are the favorite in big games. Chiefs showed last night that they're beatable. They're great finishers, but they can be beaten. I don't know what the outcome would have been, but I agree with others that with Milano and Bernard in the lineup for the Divisional round last month, the Bills might have been in Las Vegas last night. The Bills have been the league's best hope to beat the Chiefs for the past four years. And for all the people who think McDermott isn't the guy, I just don't get it. There are only a few coaches in the league who consistently win a lot of games and have teams that look like they could be champions. McDermott, McVay, Shanahan. I'm not anointing the guy in Detroit until he does it for a few years. I'm much happier to bet on a coach and a GM who have gotten the Bills consistently close than any guys who may have potential but haven't done it yet. (McDermott had potential but hadn't done it when he arrived in Buffalo, and he's shown he can win.) McDermott is closer to being a Super Bowl winner than any other coach or coordinator in the league who's never won one. I'm sure McDermott is thinking that he's close and he's going to do it. Give him a team that's relatively healthy in January (with his top 10 players on the field - Miller, Milano, Bernard, Oliver, Allen, Diggs, Cook, Kincaid, at least four out of five Oline, something like that), and he'll tell you today he's ready to win it all. Two Bills learned a lot last night: McDermott and Allen. McDermott learned again that the most important key to stopping Mahomes is the pass rush. He wanted Miller to harass Mahomes, but he didn't have the real Miller last month. Allen watched Mahomes and saw what real poise on the field looks like. He saw the value of superior decision making, play after play. You know that Allen was watching and thinking, "I can do that." I think next season we will see the best version of Allen. He was nearly there this January; he now knows what it feels like, and he's seen Mahomes do it. It's all coming.

I think yours is a pretty good description. It's always a question of whether the Bills can match the opponent's offense, or be as stout as the opponent's defense. Which means, in both cases, they're dictating to the Bills. And that probably derives from McDermott's philosophy of being good at all phases (which necessarily means you aren't great, or dominant, at one). And that philosophy - being good at everything, is a good regular season philosophy. In the playoffs, you need to be able to dictate. I keep coming back to one event - signing Miller - that signifies that the Bills understand this distinction. They signed Miller for the playoffs. The Bills wanted to dictate to the offense by having a dominant threat on the edge. That's a playoff strategy. Hasn't worked yet.

This is all strictly my opinion, but I think there unquestionably are strategy changes necessary for the team to be as successful in the playoffs as they have been in the regular season. Absolutely. I think winning at this level is all about how the team functions, and very little about the talent. Look at today's game. 49ers on offense are better than the Chiefs. Yes, there's Mahomes vs. Purdy, but Kittle, McCaffrey, Samuel is a big talent differential over the Chiefs skill players. In my mind, it doesn't matter. Even with that differential, the Niners aren't and shouldn't be the prohibitive favorites. It's all about how one team plays against the other team. Although there are games where one player does something that flat out wins the game for his team, in most games talent doesn't determine the outcome. I think that's true because the draft and the salary cap make it impossible to aggregate enough talent simply to overwhelm the opponent. Total talent on teams is, more or less, evenly matched. That tells me that strategies are what it's all about. Training strategies, so that players are able to implement varied game plans from week to week, in the playoffs as well as the regular season. Offensive and defensive strategies - that is, the game plans. Play designs, which also are strategies. It's not that the players don't matter, but even with players, what drives the success of the team are strategies about the kind of players you want, how to get that kind of player, the proper mix of age and youth, all kinds of stuff like that. Teams succeed by having and implementing strategies at all levels of the operation, and the winners have (1) very good on-field strategies (who and how do we attack?) and (2) very good off-field strategies about how to accumulate and train players. So, what does tell me about the Bills? They have to do some things differently. Obviously true, because the things they've done haven't won a Super Bowl. That's not just luck. So, yes, strategy changes are necessary. One could argue, I suppose that all that's necessary is better luck in the execution of strategies for acquiring players, so that the roster is better, but as I said, talent usually isn't determinative. Sure, the Bills could have different players, but the players have been good enough to win more in the playoffs. Adjusting strategies is something that McDermott and most good coaches do. This time of year they evaluate in depth how well strategies have worked, how successful coaches have been in adjusting strategies, etc., and they make changes based on that evaluation. They change coaches, or they keep coaches and give them specific areas where they need to improve. McDermott's performance gets evaluated too, so that he can change and improve his strategies. And, of course, the Pegulas have to decide whether they think McDermott is capable of leading and implementing change. If they think all McDermott is doing is the same thing every season and just trying harder, they believe that's the right strategy. They have decide whether they need to make a change at that level in order to have someone who will install the strategies that will actually win in the playoffs.