Insights into McDermott team-building philosophy

[BillsVet]

@BADOLBILZ I believe has said it before: McD is a significant improvement as a Monday through Saturday coach from his Bills HC predecessors.  

 

Evaluating McD on a scheme/personnel vision is another matter.  

 

As in, given that McD's vision/brand of football dictates how they acquire personnel, are those schemes appropriate?  Especially with having a veritable franchise QB and the league placing a premium on scoring?  I've long hoped they'd revisit the offense identity taking precedence with Josh, but I'm not seeing it.  

 

And, how does building up a complete defense (as McD desires/pursues) provide Buffalo a matchup advantage over teams that emphasize offense in light of rule disadvantages defensively (PI, RTP, etc.)?  

 

The cap is also beginning to run into how he builds a team.  With Josh's contract hitting in 2023, the days of being 8-9 deep on DL and paying big contract for the back 7 will run into acquiring the talent to be a productive offense.  Something's gotta give.   

 

[HappyDays]

6 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Hap, your post above makes total sense.

 

This one really does not, IMO. Did McDermott use what he knew of Carolina's draft prep from before he left them? Of course he did. It would only make sense. It's neither immoral nor unprofessional.

 

But for Beane to use info he acquired on Carolina's dime to help McDermott after he was up in Buffalo? This would be industrial espionage not to mention flat-out immoral. Neither McDermott nor Beane is that kind of man. All you have to do is look at how Beane took it when the Commanders didn't stop trying to get their RB back after the Bills and McKissic had agreed to a contract. Beane believes in the spirit of the law, not just the letter.

 

So I should clarify. I don't mean Beane was secretly running our draft from the shadows. I mean that I'm almost positive McDermott already knew Beane was going to be our GM, and Beane knew it too. So I'm sure they had conversations about the types of players they liked in the draft and who McDermott should target. Beane didn't run the draft but he was very heavily involved, albeit indirectly.

[GunnerBill]

7 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

So I should clarify. I don't mean Beane was secretly running our draft from the shadows. I mean that I'm almost positive McDermott already knew Beane was going to be our GM, and Beane knew it too. So I'm sure they had conversations about the types of players they liked in the draft and who McDermott should target. Beane didn't run the draft but he was very heavily involved, albeit indirectly.

 

I agree to an extent. But our best talent evalutor so far in the regime wasn't even in Carolina he was in Miami at the time. Do I think Beane said to McDermott "draft Dion Dawkins, I really like him" - no. Do I think they talked about the type of player and the profile they wanted and that helped narrow McDermott's focus to Dawkins? Yes. And did he likely know Carolina's nareowing down process was similar? Yes, hence he traded above them. On White even now I believe that on defensive back more than any other position, McDermott calls the shots. They draft the DBs McDermott likes. 

Edited May 20, 2022 by GunnerBill

[HappyDays]

11 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

On White even now I believe that on defensive back more than any other position, McDermott calls the shots. They draft the DBs McDermott likes. 

 

Dave Aranda was the LSU DC when White was there. So yes that one was definitely McDermott's call with input from his good friend.

[HappyDays]

4 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

I believe the abve 100%. My point is that I don't think that he had Allen in mind when he traded away the #10 a year earlier. It is impossible for me to believe that he was thinking, "let me pass on Watson and Mahomes because I will draft Josh Allen next year."  Too many variables (injury for one) to believe that was the intent.

 

I doubt they specifically had Allen in mind during the 2017 draft. They just hadn't done nearly enough work on that QB class to take a big swing. Scouting a potential franchise QB is a year long process at least. It's watching several years of tape going back to high school. It's speaking with the player's coaches and teammates from high school and college. It's talking to people around the college town to gauge what kind of person you're dealing with. It's meeting the player a few times in person for private workouts and interviews. Some teams even hire a private investigator to dig up skeletons in the closet. You're handing over the reins of your franchise. That isn't a decision you cobble together over a matter of weeks, and that's realistically what McDermott had after getting hired. That's why it's ridiculous to criticize the strategy that year. There was a 0% chance of us drafting a QB high that year.

[Sharky7337]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I'm thinking of changing it to "Revisiting the 2017 and 2018 Drafts."   How's that?

Clearly you put a lot of effort in and its pretty neat.

 

But really it's more like, Phil Jackson team building. 

 

I think it's cool how you are trying to apply that insight to the bills.

 

I'm just mad you didn't take me inside their heads for real. Was kinda expecting that. Hahahah

Edited May 20, 2022 by Sharky7337

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, Sharky7337 said:

Clearly you put a lot of effort in and its pretty neat.

 

But really it's more like, Phil Jackson team building. 

 

I think it's cool how you are trying to apply that insight to the bills.

 

I'm just mad you didn't take me inside their heads for real. Was kinda expecting that. Hahahah

I'd love to be in their heads!

 

I know it was primarily about Jackson; I'm writing for a specialized audience, and I didn't think it was necessary to say much about the McDermott side of the comparison.  I think most of the people who are regulars here have a pretty good idea of what McDermott has said about his process.  I was surprised to find Jackson saying many of the same things.  

[blacklabel]

Good stuff as always, Shaw. 

 

McDermott has probably read Jackson's book. He's known to be a guy that studies not just coaching strategies but overall leadership and team building philosophies from all sorts of different industries. 

 

I definitely agree that he believes a team plays better when they're closer as people on and off the field. When asked how they got to four straight those 90s Bills guys still say it today, they played for each other and they truly felt like a family. McDermott has been trying to build that since day one. 

 

McDermott and Beane also have the same boxes to check when it comes to what type of players they want on the team. Team first guys who wanna win and excel at what they do. The Bills have some stars but overall they always put forward a huge team effort and you never know who might have a standout game. AJ Klein had his flaws but he put a smackdown on the Seahawks in 2020. Gabe Davis had only 35 catches all season and then went apeschnitt in the playoffs. It feels like they've filled out the team so that the big plays can come from anywhere.

 

I read about this awhile back but I'd assume McDermott follows these philosophies as well. What I read was about coaches being confused when they'd bring in these guys who had awesome film but then suddenly it wasn't being applied at the next level. All the talent was right there, they just couldn't figure out how to unlock it. That's when one of the coaches on the team realized the whole "my way or the highway" stuff couldn't apply to every facet of coaching, especially when it came to teaching the X's and O's. They figured out that each player learns differently. Some can study and apply, others need to be hands on, some you toss right in the deep end and they figure it out, it all just depends on what type of learning the players understand the best. I think McDermott takes the time to figure out how to best reach his team. 

 

Overall it's been great to watch these last five seasons. Hasn't all been perfect but it never is and what's important is they've built the team to keep coming back and not just have a flash in the pan type season every two or three years. Consistency and competency, it eluded the franchise for nearly two decades but we've got it now. It's weird to see teams following the Bills model when for years it was the Bills model that told teams "so this is what ya don't do." Go Bills. 

[folz]

14 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Since this thread was started comparing Jackson (and a basketball team) to McD (and a football team),  you can’t credibly come at me by pointing out the differences between the two types of teams.  We all already understood the differences.

 

Also, this is hardly a team of former ne’er do wells, scamps and rejects.  This roster is pretty stacked. And last year it was the top Defense and a top Offense.  Both just got better in the off-season.   Therefore it’s entirely reasonable to extend the OPs subject of comparing the two coaches team building skills with the results.  Entering his 6th year, McD knows the team and organization at least as well as Jackson knew the Bulls when they won their first ring.

 

Especially since the stunning collapse in the last game of the season (including a significant coaching failure) it is absolutely reasonable to expect McDs “team building” to payoff with a SB appearance this year.  
 

I don’t understand why anyone would truly have a hard time understanding this
 

 

 

Sorry if I came at you a bit hard on this...it was in reaction not just to your post, but to a number of off-season posts (since the 13 seconds) of not just questioning McDermott (which is obviously ok), but people thinking it might be time to move on from him, when imo we wouldn't be where we are without him and might not be able to sustain what we have without him. Kind of a "the grass is always greener" thing.

 

I took your post to mean, "look Jackson won a championship within a year of taking over, McDermott has had 5 years and still no championship...if he doesn't win a Super Bowl soon (this year), he should be gone." I obviously read into your specific post too much. From your response, you are talking about from "now" with McDermott (after the team has already been built), when I thought you were counting from when he started. And I read the "soon" kind of as an "or else"...i.e. "or else he should be fired."

 

Sorry if I misinterpreted your meaning. I'm just surprised by how many posters would be willing to move on from McDermott if say, he doesn't win the Super Bowl this year. Heck, some posters were ready to move on from him after the 13 seconds. I mean, yes, this team is built to win a Super Bowl now, but so many things can happen to derail a team: injuries, bad luck, weather, bad referees, etc., etc. Only one team a year wins it all...if the Bills don't win the Super Bowl this season, it will depend on the circumstances around it if McDermott should take a ton of heat for it. But yes, we all want that Super Bowl. And ultimately everything is on the head coach, but I would just hate to lose him and everything he's built.

 

I'm envisioning an early 2000s Tampa Bay scenario, where Tony Dungy built that team into a Super Bowl contender and then they fired him "for not being able to win the big game...too soft...whatever" and they bring in Gruden. Sure, Gruden won them a Super Bowl (that first year with Dungy's team---and who's to say Dungy might not have done the same if he stayed in place, he did eventually win one with Indy)---but then the team fell apart. Gruden followed up the Super Bowl year with a 7-9 season and a 5-11 season. It was 18 years until they made the big game again, with only two early wild card exit playoff appearances in those years. I just want to see the sustained success that Beane and McDermott always preach.

[GoBills808]

16 minutes ago, folz said:

 

 

I'm envisioning an early 2000s Tampa Bay scenario, where Tony Dungy built that team into a Super Bowl contender and then they fired him "for not being able to win the big game...too soft...whatever" and they bring in Gruden. Sure, Gruden won them a Super Bowl (that first year with Dungy's team---and who's to say Dungy might not have done the same if he stayed in place, he did eventually win one with Indy)---but then the team fell apart. Gruden followed up the Super Bowl year with a 7-9 season and a 5-11 season. It was 18 years until they made the big game again, with only two early wild card exit playoff appearances in those years. I just want to see the sustained success that Beane and McDermott always preach.

I can't speak for anyone else but I would take one Super Bowl and some 7-9 seasons over making the playoffs every year but never winning one.

[eball]

One can differentiate, just from reading some of the responses in this thread, those who examine and contemplate life and relationships, from those who are more “reactive” in life to what happens to them.  Not suggesting either group is “good” or “bad” but it’s interesting the different ways in which we all go through our lives and perceive what goes on around us.

 

I don’t believe the Bulls won six consecutive championships with Michael Jordan only because he was the best player in the game.  There are many, many great players who never achieve team supremacy.  One who immediately comes to mind is Dan Marino.  He may have been the greatest pure passer the league has ever seen, but never even reached a Super Bowl after his 2nd year.  A lot of people bemoaned the fact that Shula “never put together a good running game” to take pressure off of Marino, but is that what really happened?  I doubt it.  Marino’s ego was his worst enemy.

 

Look, it’s an obvious reality that you need great players to win championships, but discounting the relationship aspect of team building and failing to understand the power of getting every man on that roster believing in (a) the same things and (b) each other is naive, IMO.

 

McDermott (and Beane) are outstanding team builders and understand the chemistry/DNA necessary in their players to achieve greatness.  That doesn’t mean they are infallible — McD himself admits he still has much to learn and improve upon — but there is no duo I’d rather have leading the Buffalo Bills at this point in time.

 

I truly believe we are at the cusp of the greatest era of Buffalo Bills football ever known.

 

[GunnerBill]

28 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I can't speak for anyone else but I would take one Super Bowl and some 7-9 seasons over making the playoffs every year but never winning one.

 

I do think this is a legitimate discussion point right now. Obviously if it was guaranteed 1 win vs 10 years of contention but guaranteed never winning one then I think 99% would take the one.... but in terms of if you offered fans 1 guaranteed but only 2 playoff seasons in the next decade (which I think was basically Tampa post Dungy) or to take their chances the next 10 years and see what will be then I think it would be an interesting poll. 

[Shaw66]

42 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I do think this is a legitimate discussion point right now. Obviously if it was guaranteed 1 win vs 10 years of contention but guaranteed never winning one then I think 99% would take the one.... but in terms of if you offered fans 1 guaranteed but only 2 playoff seasons in the next decade (which I think was basically Tampa post Dungy) or to take their chances the next 10 years and see what will be then I think it would be an interesting poll. 

But, of course, there are no guarantees.   It's impossible to know in the beginning of the season that you are guaranteed to win the Super Bowl.  There is no amount of moves in the draft and free agency that can assure that.   The best you can do is make your team more probable or less probable that you will win it.   

 

The choice that you DO have is this:  Do we build our team with a low probability of making the playoffs for ten years, but a high probability of winning the Super Bowl when you make it, or with a relatively high probability of making the playoffs and a lower probability of winning it all?

 

The Rams chose the first option.  They gave up a lot of draft capital to get Stafford and Miller, and it worked.   But it may not have worked out that way, and in either case they've made it more difficult for the team to be good five years from now, because Stafford is on the back end of his career, and Miller is gone.  The opportunities to replace that talent are limited, because they traded high picks. 

 

McBeane clearly have taken the second option.  They've said as much over and over.  They won't mortgage the future, as the saying goes.  

 

I like McBeane's choice, both from a team building point of view and a fan point of view.   As a fan, if there WERE guarantees, I'd take a Lombardi over ten years in the playoffs, but that isn't a choice.  What IS a choice is two years in the playoffs with a 50% chance of a Lombardi each time versus ten years in the playoffs with a 20% of a Lombardi each time.  As fan, I like the second option because it means my team is in the playoffs every year.   I also like it because the probability of Lombardi is the same or better.  

 

And, of course, we have two real-time examples:  Rams or Bills?   The choice is obvious, isn't it?

 

 

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Shaw66 said:

 

And, of course, we have two real-time examples:  Rams or Bills?   The choice is obvious, isn't it?

 

 

 

Right now, yea. The Rams. I actually fall more on your side of the fence if long term v short term. But the Rams approach has worked (and actually the representation of them as purely short term is overplayed... 5 winning seasons in a row under this regime... the Buccs are the better "all in" example... the Rams really value the draft, they just crush those middle rounds) and as yet, the Bills approach hasn't. 

[GoBills808]

14 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

But, of course, there are no guarantees.   It's impossible to know in the beginning of the season that you are guaranteed to win the Super Bowl.  There is no amount of moves in the draft and free agency that can assure that.   The best you can do is make your team more probable or less probable that you will win it.   

 

The choice that you DO have is this:  Do we build our team with a low probability of making the playoffs for ten years, but a high probability of winning the Super Bowl when you make it, or with a relatively high probability of making the playoffs and a lower probability of winning it all?

 

The Rams chose the first option.  They gave up a lot of draft capital to get Stafford and Miller, and it worked.   But it may not have worked out that way, and in either case they've made it more difficult for the team to be good five years from now, because Stafford is on the back end of his career, and Miller is gone.  The opportunities to replace that talent are limited, because they traded high picks. 

 

McBeane clearly have taken the second option.  They've said as much over and over.  They won't mortgage the future, as the saying goes.  

 

I like McBeane's choice, both from a team building point of view and a fan point of view.   As a fan, if there WERE guarantees, I'd take a Lombardi over ten years in the playoffs, but that isn't a choice.  What IS a choice is two years in the playoffs with a 50% chance of a Lombardi each time versus ten years in the playoffs with a 20% of a Lombardi each time.  As fan, I like the second option because it means my team is in the playoffs every year.   I also like it because the probability of Lombardi is the same or better.  

 

And, of course, we have two real-time examples:  Rams or Bills?   The choice is obvious, isn't it?

 

 

The choice in that case is obvious, yes. It’s the Rams hands down.

[Shaw66]

14 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Right now, yea. The Rams. I actually fall more on your side of the fence if long term v short term. But the Rams approach has worked (and actually the representation of them as purely short term is overplayed... 5 winning seasons in a row under this regime... the Buccs are the better "all in" example... the Rams really value the draft, they just crush those middle rounds) and as yet, the Bills approach hasn't. 

Of course, I was pulling probabilities out of thin air, and I think we understand each other.   

 

It doesn't make sense to look at the Rams historically.   Five years ago, they were on the McBeane methodology - they drafted their franchise qb, and they were using their draft and free agency much more like the Bills are now.   For example, they signed Robert Woods.  

 

I think it's fair to say they changed their methodology when they traded Goff for Stafford.  That was not a franchise-building trade; that was a win-now trade.   Trading for MIller certainly was that, also.  Signing Beckham, too.   Given his history, no one is signing Beckham for the long-term or for his short-term locker-room presence (contrast signing Beckham with the Bills signing Miller, for example).   The Rams clearly decided they wanted to maximize winning potential in the relative short-term.

 

And crushing the middle rounds doesn't mean they are taking a long-term approach.  It just means they've been good at drafting there.  It's a fool's game to think you're going to load up your team with Cooper Kupp talent just by taking a bunch of third and fourth round guys.  Kupp is the exception, not the rule.   The Rams didn't draft Aaron Donald in the third round.  You need top-end talent, and the only way you can get enough of it in the long-term is by drafting it in the first couple of rounds, or by trading those picks for young talent (Diggs), not old talent (Stafford and Miller).   That's my view, anyway.  

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Of course, I was pulling probabilities out of thin air, and I think we understand each other.   

 

It doesn't make sense to look at the Rams historically.   Five years ago, they were on the McBeane methodology - they drafted their franchise qb, and they were using their draft and free agency much more like the Bills are now.   For example, they signed Robert Woods.  

 

I think it's fair to say they changed their methodology when they traded Goff for Stafford.  That was not a franchise-building trade; that was a win-now trade.   Trading for MIller certainly was that, also.  Signing Beckham, too.   Given his history, no one is signing Beckham for the long-term or for his short-term locker-room presence (contrast signing Beckham with the Bills signing Miller, for example).   The Rams clearly decided they wanted to maximize winning potential in the relative short-term.

 

And crushing the middle rounds doesn't mean they are taking a long-term approach.  It just means they've been good at drafting there.  It's a fool's game to think you're going to load up your team with Cooper Kupp talent just by taking a bunch of third and fourth round guys.  Kupp is the exception, not the rule.   The Rams didn't draft Aaron Donald in the third round.  You need top-end talent, and the only way you can get enough of it in the long-term is by drafting it in the first couple of rounds, or by trading those picks for young talent (Diggs), not old talent (Stafford and Miller).   That's my view, anyway.  

 

I think it has been consistent actually. They have traded high picks for players and built the roster in the middle rounds. Donald is actually the exception, he was old regime. 

[GoBills808]

28 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think it has been consistent actually. They have traded high picks for players and built the roster in the middle rounds. Donald is actually the exception, he was old regime. 

Correct. Here’s a good article on their strategy you articulate: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-rams-love-trading-early-draft-picks-how-much-value-do-they-find-in-the-later-rounds/amp/

[Shaw66]

24 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think it has been consistent actually. They have traded high picks for players and built the roster in the middle rounds. Donald is actually the exception, he was old regime. 

You're right.  Until last month, they hadn't drafted in the first round since Goff in 2016.  

 

Still, it's too early to tell whether that works.  They can't have first-round talent on their second contracts if they don't draft in the first round.   I don't know their roster, but I doubt they're getting first-round talent with those mid-level picks.   Kupp, sure, but that's just one year.  

 

As usual, I'm learning stuff talking with you.  Thanks. 

[Punching Bag]

3 hours ago, eball said:

One can differentiate, just from reading some of the responses in this thread, those who examine and contemplate life and relationships, from those who are more “reactive” in life to what happens to them.  Not suggesting either group is “good” or “bad” but it’s interesting the different ways in which we all go through our lives and perceive what goes on around us.

 

I don’t believe the Bulls won six consecutive championships with Michael Jordan only because he was the best player in the game.  There are many, many great players who never achieve team supremacy.  One who immediately comes to mind is Dan Marino.  He may have been the greatest pure passer the league has ever seen, but never even reached a Super Bowl after his 2nd year.  A lot of people bemoaned the fact that Shula “never put together a good running game” to take pressure off of Marino, but is that what really happened?  I doubt it.  Marino’s ego was his worst enemy.

 

Look, it’s an obvious reality that you need great players to win championships, but discounting the relationship aspect of team building and failing to understand the power of getting every man on that roster believing in (a) the same things and (b) each other is naive, IMO.

 

McDermott (and Beane) are outstanding team builders and understand the chemistry/DNA necessary in their players to achieve greatness.  That doesn’t mean they are infallible — McD himself admits he still has much to learn and improve upon — but there is no duo I’d rather have leading the Buffalo Bills at this point in time.

 

I truly believe we are at the cusp of the greatest era of Buffalo Bills football ever known.

 

Marino may have been the best "pure passer" whose college record was broken by our own Alex Van Pelt but he was terrible at so many other parts of QB job.

Phish signed multiple college RBs to take off relief of Marino but his fakes were so bad his RBs got demolished so they had no running game.

 

I wonder if Bills have someone on staff who does psych profiles on potential players.

Some players they have brought in definitely have not bought into their philosophy.

[Punching Bag]

4 hours ago, folz said:

I'm envisioning an early 2000s Tampa Bay scenario, where Tony Dungy built that team into a Super Bowl contender and then they fired him "for not being able to win the big game...too soft...whatever" and they bring in Gruden. Sure, Gruden won them a Super Bowl (that first year with Dungy's team---and who's to say Dungy might not have done the same if he stayed in place, he did eventually win one with Indy)---but then the team fell apart. Gruden followed up the Super Bowl year with a 7-9 season and a 5-11 season. It was 18 years until they made the big game again, with only two early wild card exit playoff appearances in those years. I just want to see the sustained success that Beane and McDermott always preach.

 

I do not think Gruden's Bucs could have won without him previously being head coach of Raiders and knowing them so well.  The results post Superbowl year showed that Gruden's Bucs were mostly Dungy's Bucs and his ability to build winning teams was overrated.

[RocCityRoller]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Still, it's too early to tell whether that works.

 

Well the Rams have been to 2 Super Bowls winning 1. I'll take that.

 

They trade potential in picks for known quantities in the NFL.

I'd rather have a known quantity 4 or less years than long term 'potential' with Edmunds/ Ford/ Oliver/ Epenesa

One of Beane's best 2 best moves in the first round was trading the pick for Diggs.

 

Even when losing 'rental players' like Von Miller or OBJ they back fill with Bobby Wagner and Allen Robinson, not seeing a fail point here.

[Shaw66]

56 minutes ago, RocCityRoller said:

 

Well the Rams have been to 2 Super Bowls winning 1. I'll take that.

 

They trade potential in picks for known quantities in the NFL.

I'd rather have a known quantity 4 or less years than long term 'potential' with Edmunds/ Ford/ Oliver/ Epenesa

One of Beane's best 2 best moves in the first round was trading the pick for Diggs.

 

Even when losing 'rental players' like Von Miller or OBJ they back fill with Bobby Wagner and Allen Robinson, not seeing a fail point here.

I'll take the Patriots.   Go to the playoffs for 20 years running, get to the Super Bowl half the time.  Once you get to the Super Bowl, it's 50-50.   Patriots didn't chase talent.  Once in a while they signed or traded for a Randy Moss, but generally they built a winning culture with a great QB and good, but not great, role playing football players.  

 

The Rams are the flavor of the month.   See how they look a year or two from now. 

Edited May 21, 2022 by Shaw66

[Mr. WEO]

6 hours ago, folz said:

 

Sorry if I came at you a bit hard on this...it was in reaction not just to your post, but to a number of off-season posts (since the 13 seconds) of not just questioning McDermott (which is obviously ok), but people thinking it might be time to move on from him, when imo we wouldn't be where we are without him and might not be able to sustain what we have without him. Kind of a "the grass is always greener" thing.

 

I took your post to mean, "look Jackson won a championship within a year of taking over, McDermott has had 5 years and still no championship...if he doesn't win a Super Bowl soon (this year), he should be gone." I obviously read into your specific post too much. From your response, you are talking about from "now" with McDermott (after the team has already been built), when I thought you were counting from when he started. And I read the "soon" kind of as an "or else"...i.e. "or else he should be fired."

 

Sorry if I misinterpreted your meaning. I'm just surprised by how many posters would be willing to move on from McDermott if say, he doesn't win the Super Bowl this year. Heck, some posters were ready to move on from him after the 13 seconds. I mean, yes, this team is built to win a Super Bowl now, but so many things can happen to derail a team: injuries, bad luck, weather, bad referees, etc., etc. Only one team a year wins it all...if the Bills don't win the Super Bowl this season, it will depend on the circumstances around it if McDermott should take a ton of heat for it. But yes, we all want that Super Bowl. And ultimately everything is on the head coach, but I would just hate to lose him and everything he's built.

 

I'm envisioning an early 2000s Tampa Bay scenario, where Tony Dungy built that team into a Super Bowl contender and then they fired him "for not being able to win the big game...too soft...whatever" and they bring in Gruden. Sure, Gruden won them a Super Bowl (that first year with Dungy's team---and who's to say Dungy might not have done the same if he stayed in place, he did eventually win one with Indy)---but then the team fell apart. Gruden followed up the Super Bowl year with a 7-9 season and a 5-11 season. It was 18 years until they made the big game again, with only two early wild card exit playoff appearances in those years. I just want to see the sustained success that Beane and McDermott always preach.

 

 

I didn't say they need to win the SB this season or McD is out (no need to keep repeating that).  But he has to get this stacked team to the SB this year (his 6th) or it can be legitimately questioned  whether he ever will.  "Teambuilding" is one thing.  Coaching in the big games is another matter altogether...

 

Paxton, Cartright and Horace Grant are not quite a stacked roster lol.  The Bills are.

 

Dungy (perhaps the most overrate NFL HC of all time) didn't build much of a team:  the Defense was consistently excellent.  The Offenses were mediocre or awful.  Gruden took that 9-7 and won a SB.  After that, the team "fell apart" because his QBs were Griese (not Bob), Simms (not Phil), Bruce Gradkowski, and Jeff Garcia.

 

McD has to bring them past KC and to the SB.   He has all the talent he's going to get, and it is sufficient for the task.

[LeGOATski]

5 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

I didn't say they need to win the SB this season or McD is out (no need to keep repeating that).  But he has to get this stacked team to the SB this year (his 6th) or it can be legitimately questioned  whether he ever will.  "Teambuilding" is one thing.  Coaching in the big games is another matter altogether...

 

Paxton, Cartright and Horace Grant are not quite a stacked roster lol.  The Bills are.

 

Dungy (perhaps the most overrate NFL HC of all time) didn't build much of a team:  the Defense was consistently excellent.  The Offenses were mediocre or awful.  Gruden took that 9-7 and won a SB.  After that, the team "fell apart" because his QBs were Griese (not Bob), Simms (not Phil), Bruce Gradkowski, and Jeff Garcia.

 

McD has to bring them past KC and to the SB.   He has all the talent he's going to get, and it is sufficient for the task.

Yeah, part of me fears them being like the Packers with Rodgers all these years consistently failing to make the SB.

[GunnerBill]

7 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

I didn't say they need to win the SB this season or McD is out (no need to keep repeating that).  But he has to get this stacked team to the SB this year (his 6th) or it can be legitimately questioned  whether he ever will.  "Teambuilding" is one thing.  Coaching in the big games is another matter altogether...

 

Paxton, Cartright and Horace Grant are not quite a stacked roster lol.  The Bills are.

 

Dungy (perhaps the most overrate NFL HC of all time) didn't build much of a team:  the Defense was consistently excellent.  The Offenses were mediocre or awful.  Gruden took that 9-7 and won a SB.  After that, the team "fell apart" because his QBs were Griese (not Bob), Simms (not Phil), Bruce Gradkowski, and Jeff Garcia.

 

McD has to bring them past KC and to the SB.   He has all the talent he's going to get, and it is sufficient for the task.

 

I think Gruden is the most overrated coach in NFL history.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think Gruden is the most overrated coach in NFL history.

 

 

Nah...everyone dumps on Gruden.  Mostly rightly so.  Dungy wasted the primes of a lot of guys' careers--chief among them Manning's.

[Shaw66]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think Gruden is the most overrated coach in NFL history.

You got my vote!

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 5/19/2022 at 11:59 AM, Shaw66 said:

I'd be interested to see an article that pulls together quotes from McDermott about his team-building philosophy.   I think he's said a lot about it at one time or another, but I haven't seen someplace where it's put together in a coherent whole.  And McDermott hasn't written his book yet.  

 

In the meantime, I happen to be reading Phil Jackson's memoir, Eleven Rings, and when he talks about what it takes to build championship teams, I hear a lot of McDermott.  I'm finding that what Jackson says helps me understand what McDermott is doing. 

 

I think that it's easier to see principles and concepts at work in basketball than in football, because with only five players on the court, the strategies are simpler.  I think it's true with respect to coaching philosophies, as well. 

 

Jackson says that at the core of his philosophy is the notion that what wins is teamwork taken to the extreme.  Players without coaching just keep trying to score, to work to get the ball in their hands, to do what they want to do.  Coaches tend to tell players what to do and what not to do, and after a while, the players are fighting, emotionally, with the coaches.  He says, for example, that Doug Collins, who preceded Jackson as coach of the Bulls, had about 50 plays, and he called a play every time the Bulls were coming up the floor.   Jackson figured out that he had to let the players play, and let them decide more.   His job was to let the players control the game, but control it from a truly cooperative perspective. 

 

For teams to succeed, he says, coaches should control as little as possible.   So, for example, he loved the triangle offense, because it didn't have plays.  Instead, it was a framework for the players to follow on the court, a system that managed the spacing on the floor but left the players free to see the defense and make decisions on their own about where the ball should go to attack the defense.   And Jackson understood that allowing the players to control the flow of the offense would work best if the players knew each other, cared about each other, and understood what the other players were trying to do on the floor.   So, Jackson had his team meditate as a group, sit quietly with just the coaches and the players.  He encouraged relationships between the players.  He created social activities for the team to share in .  He wanted his players to know about the personal and family lives of the other players, because the more they knew and cared about each other, the more they would cooperate and support each other on the floor.   He wanted players to know where teammates wanted the ball, what role each player wanted to play on the team.  

 

Jackson's success with the Bulls began when he got Jordan's attention and told him the team would win more if he scored less and he helped his teammates have more success.  As Jordan moved into that role, he began to see that Jackson was right.  If you remember those teams, it was amazing how much ordinary players contributed to the success of the team - Paxson and Kerr, Cartright and Wennington, guys who had great success with the Bulls just being very good at what they do.   (Think about all of the Bills players who aren't great but who are great contributors to the team.)  Jordan could still be the star, but the team began winning more.   Jordan's burning desire to win, all the time, at everything, got Jordan to change how he played so he could win more.  

 

Jackson says he delegated as much as he could.  He gave responsibility to various coaches, and he asked the coaches to give as much responsibility as possible to the players.   He said he spent a lot of time during games just watching - he and the coaches spent their coaching time teaching players to make good decisions on the floor, and when the game started, he had relatively little to do.  Sure, he had in-game decisions to make, but it seems he spent a lot of in-game time just reminding players to do the things they'd learn to do to support their teammates. 

 

Jackson wanted guys who were fierce competitors and who were open to new ideas, so long as the new ideas were about winning more.   He said Dennis Rodman really was a unique guy, as we all know, but he was a fierce competitor.  When the Bulls got Rodman, Jackson talked to him told him he would let Rodman be who he was, but Rodman would have to mold his play to support what his teammates were doing, and they would support him.  He said Rodman fit in quickly, and because he got to know his teammates on a personal level, his teammates were able to put up with Rodman's peculiarities. 

 

Rodman joined the team the same time Steve Kerr did, just at the time Jordan was coming back from his two-year baseball experiment.  Jordan, of course, was a fierce competitor.  Pippin was.   Rodman was.  And Kerr was.  In training camp, Kerr wouldn't back down from Jordan, and Jordan got so pissed off that he punched Kerr in the face.   After they kissed and made up, Jordan came to realize that Kerr was just another competitor like himself, they became closer, and the team got better.  Jordan understood that by supporting Kerr's style of play, the team would win more, so that's what he did. 

 

What Jackson was able to achieve with his teams was a cooperative chemistry among the players, an environment where the players supported each other and helped each other become better.  The coaches created an environment for that to happen, but the players created the chemistry.  Jackson says, in different words but meaning the same thing, that he built an environment where the players became the best versions of themselves.  And the team became better than the sum of its parts, because the synergy of thinking and playing as a unit made the team better than just the individual talent of the players. He wanted his players and coaches to feel like a tribe, willing to die for each other.   No one else was inside the tribe; in fact, one the biggest problems Jackson had with Rodman was when Rodman brought his girlfriend - Madonna - into the clubhouse after a game.   That was a huge no-no.   There were very clear times when the team, and the team alone, needed to be together.  

 

The key for Jackson was having a star who understood the importance of these concepts and who was willing to give up the ball to let other players contribute.  First Jordan (and Pippin), then Kobe and Shaq.   McDermott has Allen, a fierce competitor in his own right, but a guy who has his ego in check.  Allen came to the Bills already having bought into the notions that by having real personal relationships with his teammates, his teammates can do more.  

 

There are multiple passages in Jackson's book that sound just like things McDermott has said or could have said.  I can imagine Jackson and McDermott talking.  I understand better now how McDermott is creating an environment for the players to get closer and closer, to get more connected with each other, to understand what each other wants to happen on the field, how they become more and more committed to each other.   That's exactly what Jackson tried to build.  

 

What McDermott is building is powerful.  

Real nice Shaw, I just paid $13.50 for Eleven Rings on my Kindle. Don’t you dare start a thread on Titanic. 
 

 

[GunnerBill]

3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Nah...everyone dumps on Gruden.  Mostly rightly so.  Dungy wasted the primes of a lot of guys' careers--chief among them Manning's.

 

So I do think Dungy is overrated. He isn't a HOF level coach in my mind. But Manning's playoff collapses both pre and post dated Dungy. 

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

So I do think Dungy is overrated. He isn't a HOF level coach in my mind. But Manning's playoff collapses both pre and post dated Dungy. 

 

 

Dungy's playoff collapses predate Manning, hence Gruden.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Dungy's playoff collapses predate Manning, hence Gruden.

 

Also fair. But other than that one run with Dungy's team Gruden's record as a coach is really poor. 

[Mr. WEO]

16 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Also fair. But other than that one run with Dungy's team Gruden's record as a coach is really poor. 

 

Yeah Gruden is a bum too, but he was never "rated" as highly as Dungy, so he can't be more overrated.

Edited May 21, 2022 by Mr. WEO

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Yeah Gruden is a bum too, but he was never "rated" as highly as Dungy, so he can't be more overrated.

 

Meh. I think he was. Maybe recent events have finally take the lustre off. But I feel like his comeback was a bigger deal than his ability deserved. 

[Mr. WEO]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Meh. I think he was. Maybe recent events have finally take the lustre off. But I feel like his comeback was a bigger deal than his ability deserved. 

 

 

Everything in the NFL is a "BIG DEAL"!!--it's manufactured as such.

 

The NFL creates/encourages/thrives on bad behavior and controversy like no other pro sports business that has ever existed.   It's all 24hr/365 day free advertising which has really rendered all other sports as  playoff-time attractions only (if that).    MLB is slipping into the same national irrelevancy as the NHL did years ago.  It's because the NFL owns the news cycle year round.

[Shaw66]

50 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Meh. I think he was. Maybe recent events have finally take the lustre off. But I feel like his comeback was a bigger deal than his ability deserved. 

I thought his comeback was laughable.   Frankly, I thought if you listened to him as announcer, you could tell that he didn't think very deeply about football.  He seemed shallow and without any quality understanding of what it took to develop a winning culture.  His work as an announcer cemented an impression that I already had: that he was given a very talented, well-coached team, a team that Dungy had built, and was the right cheerleader to take the team to the championship.   Then he went to the Raiders and proved it.  He chased talent out the door (which in itself isn't bad - McBeane did the same thing with talent that didn't fit their model), but there was no evidence that Gruden had a coherent vision of what he was building.  

 

I mean, compare the impact he had on the Raiders to the impact of McVey, or the impact of Shanahan, or others we can name.   And, of course, McDermott.   When the right coach takes over a team, the impact is almost immediate.  The team doesn't necessarily become an instant winner, but the nature of the team, how it approaches it's business, changes.   And, to bring it back to where I started this thread, that's how we know Phil Jackson was a great coach.   He did it twice.   He took over two different teams (admittedly already with good talent), and changed the personality of the team.   It made all the difference.  Gruden never showed that to me.  (People can say, well, he changed Tampa Bay and won a Super Bowl, but look at his record after that one year.   It's a serious of false starts and unsuccessful seasons.)

[eball]

22 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I do think this is a legitimate discussion point right now. Obviously if it was guaranteed 1 win vs 10 years of contention but guaranteed never winning one then I think 99% would take the one.... but in terms of if you offered fans 1 guaranteed but only 2 playoff seasons in the next decade (which I think was basically Tampa post Dungy) or to take their chances the next 10 years and see what will be then I think it would be an interesting poll. 

 

It shouldn’t be.  Give me the current organization and roster and I’ll take my chances over the next 10 years.  Easy decision.

 

[Chandler#81]

Great summary, @Shaw66, thanks. In short, every [Grateful] Dead-head I know is just a peace and love hippie at heart.

aaahhUUUUMMMM! aaahhUUUUMMMM!😉✌️

[Mr. WEO]

7 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I thought his comeback was laughable.   Frankly, I thought if you listened to him as announcer, you could tell that he didn't think very deeply about football.  He seemed shallow and without any quality understanding of what it took to develop a winning culture.  His work as an announcer cemented an impression that I already had: that he was given a very talented, well-coached team, a team that Dungy had built, and was the right cheerleader to take the team to the championship.   Then he went to the Raiders and proved it.  He chased talent out the door (which in itself isn't bad - McBeane did the same thing with talent that didn't fit their model), but there was no evidence that Gruden had a coherent vision of what he was building.  

 

I mean, compare the impact he had on the Raiders to the impact of McVey, or the impact of Shanahan, or others we can name.   And, of course, McDermott.   When the right coach takes over a team, the impact is almost immediate.  The team doesn't necessarily become an instant winner, but the nature of the team, how it approaches it's business, changes.   And, to bring it back to where I started this thread, that's how we know Phil Jackson was a great coach.   He did it twice.   He took over two different teams (admittedly already with good talent), and changed the personality of the team.   It made all the difference.  Gruden never showed that to me.  (People can say, well, he changed Tampa Bay and won a Super Bowl, but look at his record after that one year.   It's a serious of false starts and unsuccessful seasons.)

The pre and post SB Bucs were covered upstream.  The Dungy Bucs were a lopsided team—all D.  He had no idea how to build an Offense, yet with that same team, Gruden went all the way.  Subsequent to that he had a series of awful QBs, one after another.  It was over.

 

Plain and simple, Dungy couldn’t get it done.  He cemented that rep on the Colts.  He was a mediocrity—far more so than Gruden was(he was too).

 

McVay impact?  That team was created by Les Sneed.  Bringing in Miller and Stafford got McVay his (one and only)  ring.  

[RocCityRoller]

On 5/20/2022 at 8:14 PM, Shaw66 said:

I'll take the Patriots.   Go to the playoffs for 20 years running, get to the Super Bowl half the time.  Once you get to the Super Bowl, it's 50-50.   Patriots didn't chase talent.  Once in a while they signed or traded for a Randy Moss, but generally they built a winning culture with a great QB and good, but not great, role playing football players.  

 

The Rams are the flavor of the month.   See how they look a year or two from now. 

 

Hey Shaw, appreciate the reply, but I don't agree with you. I do generally understand and have historically agreed with the build through the draft philosophy. Use low priced rookie contracts to offset the QB contract when you find one, and if I am not mistaken Buffalo is in the last year of that 'window'.

 

Everyone is looking at the Pats, and would like that 20 year model of consistency, but that required the best QB-Head Coach combo in history to pull off. Brady did often take less than market value for that to happen. The next closest example I can think of is the 49ers from the 1980's to 1990s and that spanned 2 excellent QBs (Montana and Young) and 2 excellent HC (Walsh and Seifert). Those teams were not shy about bringing in superstars regardless of picks/ cap (ie. D Sanders). Even the pre-free agency dynasties like the Raiders/ Cowboys/ Steelers could only maintain a similar pace for a decade.

 

Rams prior to McVay and from 2017-2018  did a lot of building through the draft, saw they are in a window after their 2018 SB loss, and have gone for it since 2019. In 2019 the Rams made the Ramsey trade for  a bunch of picks and have been 'all in' since.

 

2017 - 11-5 NFCW Champ, Lost WC

2018 - 13-3 NFCW Champ, Lost SB - realize they are in the window

2019 - 9-7 3rd DNQ (Ramsey)

2020 - 10-6 2nd NFCW, Lost Divisional

2021 - 12-5 1st NFCW, Won Super Bowl - all in (Stafford/ OBJ/ Von Miller)

2022 - ? Lost Von Miller and OBJ, replaced with Bobby Wagner and Allen Robinson

 

The Rams have hit on a bunch of mid level picks which helps, but that is a strength that Bean and Company have. One could argue that Milano/ T Johnson and Gabe Davis have been bigger play makers than Edmunds/ Oliver/ Epenesa. If Buffalo was landing play makers outside of the QB with those 1st and 2nd round picks then yes this would be an easier position to defend, but they aren't. What young studs did Buffalo draft while the Rams were getting playmakers like Ramsey/ OBJ/ Von Miller with their picks?

 

The Rams acknowledge that even when you have the guy you think is the QB, you still need other play makers on the team. Their philosophy since 2019 has been to get the known play maker and draft potential later in the draft. I think it is a wise strategy when you are in the low QB contract window.

 

One of Beane's best moves as a GM was a 'Rams like' move trading away picks, including a 1st for Diggs. I would have liked to see one or two more moves like that a year or so ago, especially after the AFC Championship game loss, and make a more concentrated push for a SB win over that 2-3 yr span, than be competitive for a long time.

 

With voidable years/ salary to bonus moves etc teams can move in and out of cap danger pretty easily right now. Look at the Saints, who went all in a while back. They were $60M over the cap at the start of FA and are now $12M under after losing very few players.

 

As it stands the Bills with the more cautious path have $5.6 M cap space (OTC) or $5.05M (Spotrac).

The Rams are $5.3M (OTC) or $4.6M (Spotrac) and have a Lombardy to show for it.

 

A difference of opinion. I hope it pays off for Buffalo. The slight overpay for Von Miller now is an admission to me, that they missed on a trade for him/ Kalil Mack/ Chandler Jones etc a few years ago that could have made a difference the past two play off pushes. As it stands Buffalo will be doing some pretty significant retooling soon. It will be interesting to see what approach they take.