First, I have no complaints about McDermott's results to date. If we don't win a playoff game this season, I probably will start to fear Marvin Lewis syndrome creeping into the team. But as of now, the aggregate results are acceptable. Next, I want everything in the original post to be true. However, I am not convinced it is true.
I have a hard time separating Jordan's competitive nature from his talent. I am short and lack athletic ability, bless me with 1000x Jordan's burning desire to win, and it would mean nothing to an NBA team.
My understanding is that the average NFL head coach spends 100 hours a week working during the season. Here the headline from an article written in 2006. "No Sleep Till Touchdown NFL coaches, the hardest-working men in human history." I think the entry point to be a consistent winning NFL coach is to be in the top 0.1% of the general population in terms of competitiveness. Any NFL coach who is not part of that group will likely not be an NFL head coach for long.
I believe McDermott is part of the top 0.1% group. I am just not convinced that it provides the team any particular edge vs. the competition. McDermott will put the work in. If he is a really talented coach, his teams will win. If his talent is average, the teams over time will perform at an average level.
In terms of competitiveness providing insight to the players for the team, I imagine that there is some effort + desire + talent = production formula that exists even if it can't be easily quantified. I also expect, at the NFL level, the standard deviation for talent is much greater than the standard deviation for effort and desire. I think the teams that win the most consistently are the teams with the best talent (including coaching). If McDermott's coaching talent equal's Michael Jordan's basketball talent, Bills fans are in for a great long ride. If McDermott's coaching talent equal's Michael Jordan's baseball talent, maybe not so much, notwithstanding the burning desire.