‘The culture starts with Sean’: How the coach’s voracious learning habits are rubbing off on the Bills (Athletic article)

[Drunken Pygmy Goat]

11 hours ago, mushypeaches said:

 

Well said Hondo, this is exactly the point I was trying to make.  I like the effort that McDermott is putting into all the points that you've cited.  But I'd really like it if he was more focused on some of these other intangible topics, like game theory, strategic aggressiveness, etc. 

 

We've been woefully unprepared (totally unrelated to talent) for way too many games in the first 2 years. 

We've had too many vanilla game plans, with not enough strategic adjustments.

I think McDermott (and staff) are way too REACTIVE, and not PROACTIVE enough with game plans and play calls

 

These are the traits I want in a coach - someone who will push the envelope and force the opponent to beat them, instead of hoping that you don't get beaten.  Big difference

 

 

I'll chime in...

 

Not contradicting your points and opinion, because I think we all would agree in principle, BUT...

 

Regarding this article specifically (which I do not have a subscription to, but based on the quoted parts, you get the theme), I categorize this article as more of an "inside the life of McDermott" piece, as opposed to simply a "fluff/offseason filler" piece. @Logic had a good post on page one, with some good points. This doesn't seem like something that you'd read on your typical, free media outlets. It focuses on a main topic that you generally don't get insight on all too often in sports, at least not these days anyways. It's more of a classic journalistic piece IMO, one that took more time and effort in order to gain the unknown information necessary to make it intriguing. In this case, it's not necessarily just about McDermott, but about his readings, how it influences his actions every day, and how it has translated to a progression for him as a coach, a leader of men, and as a person.

 

I can understand how it can be percieved as being fluffy, because it's not your typical modern day "skeptical/critical" article that leaves you with an uncertain, questioning overtone. It's just filled with factual insight about a man, that leaves you with an optimistic feeling from a leadership standpoint, even if it doesn't pertain to Xs and Os optimism or in-game decision making (which are just as important). 

 

In this article (again, I only was able to read the quotes in the OP), there's no mention of McDermott's game theories or strategic adjustments, or other topics you mentioned that are relative. But not providing insight on those topics (in an article that seems to intentionally avoid them) doesn't mean they aren't important issues to him. And to be honest, this doesnt seem like the kind of staff that would give that kind of insight to the public anyways. Strategically, they seem very tight to the vest in all aspects. We just don't know how focused McDermott is on things like strategies and game theories, because they're not talked about in detail by this staff, and I'm guessing that's intentional. In a league where every little advantage counts, why give away unnecessary information? 

 

But, the article does mention the the level of importance and emphasis of McDermott to improve every day, and as head coach, I think it's safe to assume that the topics you want to hear about or see improvement in are treated the same way by him and the staff.

 

When he was first hired, Bills fans knew that a culture change was needed in the building and locker room. One of the first things we all learned about McDermott was just how important "culture" is to him. It started with team meetings where players would stand up in front of everyone and talk about personal matters, mainly irrelevant to Xs and Os...a team, personal relationship building practice. We were all told at first that McD would be the "anti-Rex", which was exactly what was needed at the time. We just had to assume that was true, and see how it unfolds. As time has passed, and the more we learn about our coach, we are seeing him become more and more "anti-Rex" by the day, and while he may not see it in those words specifically as us fans may, that seems to be one of his main goals (aside from winning). He wants to improve every day.

 

As a leader of men, actions speak louder than words, and McDermott practices what he preaches. The Bills facility was severely lacking in the positivity department in 2016. There were media leaks, allegations, etc. It was a mess, filled with overpaid players. Today, it exudes positivity, because the actions of McDermott every day have fully resonated. The players know the business aspect, but they also know that this man cares, in more ways than one. The vibes, standards, and practices in the building are much different today, and in a market that isn't flashy and warm weathered, that matters a lot when it comes to attracting and keeping players, and those things are continuing to improve as well. 

 

Of course, Xs and Os matters when it comes to being a good enough coach to win big. So does talent. But in order to be more aggressive and proactive as a coach, I think you first need a roster that can better facilitate that, and the Bills really didn't have that so much in the first two years. There were good players on the team, but not enough. Not at the most important position especially, and not much depth. This roster isnt quite "there" just yet IMO, but it's getting pretty close. With another year of adding talent and development of younger players, as well as the staff, this team should be ready to seriously compete. McDermott was a rookie head coach, and even though he had a good amount of experience in the NFL, he was and is still learning on the job as the main man. There seemed to be a time consuming plan in place with him as a coach, somewhat irrespective of the roster around him (there's obviously been a time consuming plan with that as well). It's year three now, and those things you critiqued in your post should become more and more focal points for him and the staff, now that he's got the culture foundation part pretty well situated, along with a better roster to help facilitate a different strategic, proactive approach to games. But those things will only be seen, rather than talked about in detail by them. 

 

IMO, the only comparison to Jauron is the idea that, from a fan perspective, McDermott may seem a bit boring. Other than that, I don't see the comparision. There may have been a few stinkers in the last two years, but I wouldn't say that talent didn't play a role at all. The Bills were completely outmacthed against those teams rosters IMO. Part of it probably is the strategic aspect, though, maybe even a bit due to preparation. But I think some of those concerns will start to alleviate now that things are becoming much more settled. Stinkers aside, the Bills under McDermott made the playoffs in his rookie-coach "tank" year, and won 6 games in his rookie-QB and poor-offensive-line year (with Anderson starting games as well). We'll just have to wait and see where his leadership qualities take him as a coach, as well as his progressions (or lack thereof) strategically. 

Edited May 30, 2019 by Drunken Pygmy Goat

[BADOLBILZ]

7 hours ago, Chemical said:

 

Nah. You’re more negative that anyone. You started this thread by trying to call out another poster. 

 

 

EXACTLY.

 

It's the worst kind of negativity.    Directed at the fanbase.........who has nothing to do with the losing.

 

eebs is trying to pick up the torch for Promo who used to have 20 of these posts per day all offseason until constantly looking clueless dampened his spirit down to just the occasional fan blame post.

 

 

[RememberTheRockpile]

7 hours ago, Forward Progress said:

 

I watch until the bitter end every time. 

 

 

Fans that turn off the game at half time are fans that missed this game.

 

 

[eball]

9 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

EXACTLY.

 

It's the worst kind of negativity.    Directed at the fanbase.........who has nothing to do with the losing.

 

eebs is trying to pick up the torch for Promo who used to have 20 of these posts per day all offseason until constantly looking clueless dampened his spirit down to just the occasional fan blame post.

 

 

 

 that’s a load of crap and you know it. I respect all fans with opinions; I make fun of those who add nothing but negativity or who think they know it all. You fall into the latter category, sport. Cheers!

[GunnerBill]

I never turn off at HT. There were a couple of games last year - Packers and Colts where I was with family / friends - and games were out of hand in the 3rd so I kind of moved focus onto the conversation around me but kept the game on in the corner. There were too many out of hand games last year though and a couple the year before. But pretty much all of them followed a pattern - the Bills unable to move the ball on offense the D sticking at it initially but eventually collapsing under the weight. 

[stony]

6 hours ago, RememberTheRockpile said:

 

Fans that turn off the game at half time are fans that missed this game.

 

 

It was blacked out locally. 

[eball]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

I never turn off at HT. There were a couple of games last year - Packers and Colts where I was with family / friends - and games were out of hand in the 3rd so I kind of moved focus onto the conversation around me but kept the game on in the corner. There were too many out of hand games last year though and a couple the year before. But pretty much all of them followed a pattern - the Bills unable to move the ball on offense the D sticking at it initially but eventually collapsing under the weight. 

 

Yup.  There's been a lot of complaining about "too many blowouts" over the first two seasons of McD's tenure but almost all of the blame falls upon an inability to generate offense.  The one exception to this that stands out to me is the Saints game in 2017 -- that one was ugly on both offense and defense from the get-go.  While McD's decision to start Peterman the following week was obviously a bad one, you can understand why he wanted to make a complete change after the debacle against New Orleans.

 

Like you, I just can't turn a game off.  I think part of a team's character is shown in how they "play out the string" even if they are clearly not going to win.

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, eball said:

 

Yup.  There's been a lot of complaining about "too many blowouts" over the first two seasons of McD's tenure but almost all of the blame falls upon an inability to generate offense.  The one exception to this that stands out to me is the Saints game in 2017 -- that one was ugly on both offense and defense from the get-go.  While McD's decision to start Peterman the following week was obviously a bad one, you can understand why he wanted to make a complete change after the debacle against New Orleans.

 

Like you, I just can't turn a game off.  I think part of a team's character is shown in how they "play out the string" even if they are clearly not going to win.

 

I turned a game off at Arizona once - I think it might have been Chan's last season. They moved into field goal range inside 20 seconds to go after a long run that we missed at least 3 tackles on. I turned the game off in disgust expecting them to make the kick, stormed off to bed in a huff, decided the check my fantasy scores before I went to sleep and was confused as to why the Bills game was showing as still ongoing. Carrington had blocked the FG and the Bills ended up winning with a FG of their own in OT. Lesson learned.

[eball]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I turned a game off at Arizona once - I think it might have been Chan's last season. They moved into field goal range inside 20 seconds to go after a long run that we missed at least 3 tackles on. I turned the game off in disgust expecting them to make the kick, stormed off to bed in a huff, decided the check my fantasy scores before I went to sleep and was confused as to why the Bills game was showing as still ongoing. Carrington had blocked the FG and the Bills ended up winning with a FG of their own in OT. Lesson learned.

 

And I mean, really -- we only get 16 of these things a year that we wait the other 36 weeks for...

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, eball said:

 

And I mean, really -- we only get 16 of these things a year that we wait the other 36 weeks for...

 

Indeed. Although I am hoping for at least 17 of them this year... but I am up at 3am UK time watching pre-season games.... so I'm loathed to turn the real thing off.

[ROCBillsBeliever]

20 hours ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

Baby Steps ....  He'll get there.  

 

Who? McD or Got Flaw?

 

Asking for a friend...

Edited May 30, 2019 by ROCBillsBeliever

[SoTier]

20 hours ago, matter2003 said:

 

The fact they made the playoffs and have as many wins as they have gotten with a roster that was stripped bare the first year and then had a ridiculously bad offense in year 2 is pretty amazing to me.

 

I am unsure how people look at the two rosters he had and think anyone else would have done better with them. I think he will be a coach of the year candidate within the next 2 years.

 

Since McDermott was instrumental in determining the makeup of those two rosters, I'm not giving him a pass because he's demonstrated his preference for "process" over talent ... and yeah, I think numerous coaches could have gotten more wins from 2018 roster simply by sending Nathan Peterman packing before the start of the season ... his pick 6 in the last minute of the fourth quarter in Texans' game, which was tied at the time, lost the Bills all chance to win that game.

 

19 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Do you honestly think he's not also focused on those things?  Come on now.

 

If McDermott is, he hasn't demonstrated it much over two years.   His teams have been too often unprepared and his game time coaching has been mediocre at best -- and the numerous blow-outs over two seasons underscore that.

 

16 hours ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Its wild that this doesn't get mentioned more.  I have to believe the Pegulas are on board with this plan. I say this in all sincerity: people saying there is any scenario this staff gets fired after next year, regardless of the outcome, just haven't been paying attention. 

 

Football is football, and the season is short. A lot of strong opinions for a guy that doesn't watch that much Bills football. 

 

As for your first point, with Pegula as the owner, you're probably right.   After all, he had to actually spend time  considering whether he should fire Phil Housley after the horrendous collapse of the Sabres at the end of the season. 

 

Football is football, and there are numerous other games to watch while the Bills are getting their butts handed to them as regularly as the Bills have during McDermott's tenure. 

Edited May 30, 2019 by SoTier

[GunnerBill]

17 hours ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Its wild that this doesn't get mentioned more.  I have to believe the Pegulas are on board with this plan. I say this in all sincerity: people saying there is any scenario this staff gets fired after next year, regardless of the outcome, just haven't been paying attention. 

 

You think if they go 4-12 they are safe? If Josh is healthy and the Bills win fewer games than in 2018 against this schedule then they are both in trouble for their jobs. I don't think or expect it to happen. But to say there is no scenario in which they get fired is just plain wrong in my opinion.

[GunnerBill]

30 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Since McDermott was instrumental in determining the makeup of those two rosters, I'm not giving him a pass because he's demonstrated his preference for "process" over talent ... and yeah, I think numerous coaches could have gotten more wins from 2018 roster simply by sending Nathan Peterman packing before the start of the season ... his pick 6 in the last minute of the fourth quarter in Texans' game, which was tied at the time, lost the Bills all chance to win that game.

 

 

He was and as I have said many times before it wasn't the only way to go about the job when he was hired. I was reasonably supportive of the idea of a tear down and being perfectly honest that is probably how I'd have gone about it too. But it was a choice. The roster he inherited was a .500 roster over the previous years and while they were not awash with money they were not in cap hell either and they could have saved quite a lot by not picking up Tyrod's option and drafting a Quarterback at #10 in 2017.... there were two pretty good ones still on the board as I recall.

 

That said they must have presented the tear down plan to the Pegulas and got their agreement before they went that way. The test is now for 2019 and 2020. Does this begin to look like a competitor? If it does it is hard to argue with the tear down approach they took. If it doesn't then it is perfectly reasonable to argue they should have gone the other way and done a reload and try to make a run with the basis they inherited.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

36 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

You think if they go 4-12 they are safe? If Josh is healthy and the Bills win fewer games than in 2018 against this schedule then they are both in trouble for their jobs. I don't think or expect it to happen. But to say there is no scenario in which they get fired is just plain wrong in my opinion.

 

I think you are confusing what you think will or should happen, with what the Pegulas are likely to do.  Should they be in trouble? Maybe, but that's not my point.  It is pretty clear the Pegulas want to see this thing through, one way or another.  They seem braced for growing pains, otherwise the staff wouldn't have been comfortable rebuilding the way they did. 

[GunnerBill]

14 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

I think you are confusing what you think will or should happen, with what the Pegulas are likely to do.  Should they be in trouble? Maybe, but that's not my point.  It is pretty clear the Pegulas want to see this thing through, one way or another.  They seem braced for growing pains, otherwise the staff wouldn't have been comfortable rebuilding the way they did. 

 

No I am not. I honestly think if they win fewer games than last year (excepting in the case of serious injury to Allen) the Pegulas will probably fire them. They signed up to the Tim Murray plan as well presumably but when the tank had been done and the rebuild fell flat Tim was sent packing.

 

Again, I don't believe the Bills will win 4 or 5 games this year. I think their floor is probably 7-9 and their ceiling might be as many as 11 wins. But if they win 4 games there will be regime change. I am in little doubt. The Pegulas have been trigger happy with both franchises since they got here.

[JohnC]

32 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

He was and as I have said many times before it wasn't the only way to go about the job when he was hired. I was reasonably supportive of the idea of a tear down and being perfectly honest that is probably how I'd have gone about it too. But it was a choice. The roster he inherited was a .500 roster over the previous years and while they were not awash with money they were not in cap hell either and they could have saved quite a lot by not picking up Tyrod's option and drafting a Quarterback at #10 in 2017.... there were two pretty good ones still on the board as I recall.

 

That said they must have presented the tear down plan to the Pegulas and got their agreement before they went that way. The test is now for 2019 and 2020. Does this begin to look like a competitor? If it does it is hard to argue with the tear down approach they took. If it doesn't then it is perfectly reasonable to argue they should have gone the other way and done a reload and try to make a run with the basis they inherited.

I have argued that one of the primary reasons why the Pegulas hired McDermott is based  on the plan that he presented to them to major rebuild the team and organization. He convinced them that his plan was the best  pathway to success . His approach was the antithesis of the Whaley approach that was seen as an incremental approach that led to being average.. McDermott wanted to not only redo the roster but also restructure the cap. And that's exactly what he has done so far. 

 

I'm not questioning his  blueprint to managing the team. He seems to be smartly implementing his plan. The only question I have is under his blueprint would it been more advisable to draft Mahomes or Watson in his first year? I'm more than happy with Josh Allen as our franchise qb. But would it have been simpler to acquire the franchise qb the year before? And would that have accelerated the process of rebuilding because picks wouldn't have had to be dealt in order to draft a qb a year later? 

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm a McBeane fan. Under this regime this franchise is being run in a much more analytical and modern fashion. There is a coherency and rationality to how this franchise is currently being run compared to how the prior regimes operated. 

[GunnerBill]

Just now, JohnC said:

I have argued that one of the primary reasons why the Pegulas hired McDermott is based  on the plan that he presented to them to major rebuild the team and organization. He convinced them that his plan was the best  pathway to success . His approach was the antithesis of the Whaley approach that was seen as an incremental approach that led to being average.. McDermott wanted to not only redo the roster but also restructure the cap. And that's exactly what he has done so far. 

 

I'm not questioning his  blueprint to managing the team. He seems to be smartly implementing his plan. The only question I have is under his blueprint would it been more advisable to draft Mahomes or Watson in his first year? I'm more than happy with Josh Allen as our franchise qb. But would it have been simpler to acquire the franchise qb the year before? And would that have accelerated the process of rebuilding because picks wouldn't have had to be dealt in order to draft a qb a year later? 

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm a McBeane fan. Under this regime this franchise is being run in a much more analytical and modern fashion. There is a coherency and rationality to how this franchise is currently being run compared to how the prior regimes operated. 

 

I am a fan too. McDermott was the guy I wanted even before Rex was fired. And you might well be right that Pegula was attracted to the tear down because he felt he had tried the incremental approach "the Whaley plan" albeit with a clown show at the HC position. But it was still a choice to go that way and I just think it is important people (even those like you and I who support it) recognise it was a choice. Because it leads to us starting the discussion from a more honest baseline. The people who try and portray it like it was the only way to go I think back themselves into a corner before they start.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

10 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

No I am not. I honestly think if they win fewer games than last year (excepting in the case of serious injury to Allen) the Pegulas will probably fire them. They signed up to the Tim Murray plan as well presumably but when the tank had been done and the rebuild fell flat Tim was sent packing.

 

Again, I don't believe the Bills will win 4 or 5 games this year. I think their floor is probably 7-9 and their ceiling might be as many as 11 wins. But if they win 4 games there will be regime change. I am in little doubt. The Pegulas have been trigger happy with both franchises since they got here.

 

Well, I suppose neither of us wants to find out who is right on this.  There is a 99% chance they are back next year, and just as good a chance they win more than 4 or 5 games next year.  I guess the whole thing is just academic. 

[JohnC]

7 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

No I am not. I honestly think if they win fewer games than last year (excepting in the case of serious injury to Allen) the Pegulas will probably fire them. They signed up to the Tim Murray plan as well presumably but when the tank had been done and the rebuild fell flat Tim was sent packing.

 

Again, I don't believe the Bills will win 4 or 5 games this year. I think their floor is probably 7-9 and their ceiling might be as many as 11 wins. But if they win 4 games there will be regime change. I am in little doubt. The Pegulas have been trigger happy with both franchises since they got here.

I respectfully but strenuously disagree with your judgment that Pegulas would not be afraid to resort to using the much calloused trigger finger if this season turns out to be disappointing. I think that he has learned his lesson that churning coaches and staff is an act of futility. My impression is that with both franchises there was a learning curve for the new owners. And they learned that injudiciously spending money was not a solution to injudicious hiring. I think with both franchises they put more thought into the hiring of staff and allowing them the time and space to do their jobs.