Insights into McDermott team-building philosophy

[Shaw66]

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.  

[Big Turk]

I know part of it is having every player stand up and tell his story to his teammates so they get a deeper understanding of who he is as an individual and where he came from.

[PromoTheRobot]

Watch how the Sabres are getting built. Same formula. High character players top to bottom. Play to their strengths instead of fitting into systems. Mistakes are learning moments.

[Paup 1995MVP]

9 minutes ago, 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.  

I think you are overstating all that team building feel good stuff.  The Chicago Bulls were dominant because they had the best player to ever play professional basketball.  He had an insatiable appetite to be the best player he could be.  And to win.  Sure he got other players involved like Paxson and Kerr.  But they won championships because they had Jordan and Pippen.  Michael wasn't some cuddly guy who loved his teammates.  He tolerated them, as long as they brought their best every nite.  And more then that come playoff time.  Sports were much different then.  A guy like Ben Simmons would have been laughed out of the league, after he got his ass kicked.  Sports were played by grown men.  Who were supposed to act like grown men.  It was a microcosm of society of how people in general acted, until the world fell into the apocalypse of ridiculousness that has become our current society.  Phil Jackson did a good job keeping everyone somewhat together.  But he did not reinvent the wheel.  He had one amazing player, one really good player and some solid complimentary parts.  

 

As for McDermott, he is a football coach.  I do not think he is a revolutionary.  He has a great QB.  And a lot of other very good players.  He treats his players fairly.  All that matters is wins and losses.  He needs to lead us to the Super Bowl.  With the talent on our roster, he should be able to get that done.  That's my two cents.  Take it for what its worth.  

[freddyjj]

23 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

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.  

One never wins alone and God help us if we let you lose alone

[Shaw66]

11 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

I know part of it is having every player stand up and tell his story to his teammates so they get a deeper understanding of who he is as an individual and where he came from.

Exactly.  When McDermott started doing that his first season, and players said it was powerful, I didn't get exactly.  It seemed a little flaky to me.   But having read Jackson's approach (and Jackson was flaky to the max), I understand it differently.  When McDermott did it, it wasn't so that everyone could take a quiz and list three things that were important to each of his teammates.  It wasn't artificial togetherness.   It was something McDermott did to begin to build relationships, relationships that he needs the players to have and to make deeper.  

 

When we hear about how tight Allen and Diggs are, it sounds very much like what happened with Jordan and Pippin.   And it isn't just about the relationship between two guys.  What was really important on the Bulls, and what's really important on the Bills, is that the REST of the players see how tight the two stars are, they see how the #2 star is willing to support the #1 star and how the #2 star doesn't compete with the #1 star.   Everyone else sees how that cooperation and support make #1 and #2 better, and they also see #1 and #2 trying to help everyone else get better, too.  

 

It's just amazing to me how naturally all of this comes to Allen.  Think about the news last year that Allen has a unique handshake with every player on the team.   It just kind of happened.   Imagine how powerful that is, being a completely average pro football player, fighting for his job every season, and here is this total stud superstar connecting with him through a handshake.   That's exactly the environment that McDermott set out to build, and in the draft Beane and McDermott found exactly the right guy.   They found their Michael Jordan, but better.  Jackson describes being practically afraid to talk to Jordan when he told him he needed Jordan to score less.  Allen's ego is big, but it's under control.   Allen's approachable.  

5 minutes ago, Paup 1995MVP said:

I think you are overstating all that team building feel good stuff. 

Read Jackson's book.  He says you're wrong about this.  

 

Jordan won two scoring titles before Jackson took over, and Pippin was already there, but they had no success in the playoffs.  Everything changed when Jackson took over, and the reason it changed was that Jordan began to treat his teammates differently.  He still was a fiercely competitive guy who wasn't afraid to challenge his teammates, but his perspective on how to win changed.  

[Alphadawg7]

7 minutes ago, 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. 

 

First, interesting and good post.  Enjoyed the read.

 

7 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

 

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.  

 

I think these 2 paragraphs really connect with how our offense is run.  While there is certainly a play called, one thing we know is that our WR's have a lot of freedom in where they go in their routes based on what the defender does.  And that is a testament to just how good Allen is, but also the rapport and connection these guys have.  Additionally, we also know Allen improvises frequently to escape pressure, and all our receivers know what they need to do to get Allen a clean target.  Diggs, Cole, etc have all talked about the freedom they have here as players on the field.  

 

7 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

 

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.  

 

This is a big part of our culture here, and our players love and embrace it as much as anyone.  Josh Allen for example came in this way, this kid has been all about greeting new players, connecting with them, getting to know them.  We have seen it every year he has been here.  And when you have a coach and culture that breeds that type environment, its almost impossible for the other players not to buy into it as well.  This team, IMHO, might be the most connected and close group of guys I have ever seen step onto a football field at any level.  

 

7 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

 

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. 

 

This is very McD above here.  Another reason why I fault McD a lot less about the alleged blown kick call in those 13 seconds.  He has installed a culture like this above and gives the call to his coordinator and that coordinator is now responsible to getting the players in the right position.  Our ST Coach failed at his job and Bass kicked it out of the end zone.  While the "buck stops at the top" philosophy is something I get, I still don't think McD really shoulders that because there was no reason in that moment to change what had gotten us to that point or to not continue to trust your staff.  That being said, I am certain it was a teachable moment for McD where there will be adjusted protocols now to assure this never happens again though.  

 

7 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

 

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. 

 

I think this is both what Beane and McD look for.  They are very big on "their" guys, what they look for.  And they definitely gravitate to guys with the right attitude, competitive streaks, fire, and more importantly a desire to be great.  

 

7 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

 

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. 

 

Reminds a bit of when Diggs came in who had a certain image about his time in Minny and how he pushed to get out of there.  Between the competitive nature and fun personalities between Diggs and Tre, and Josh Allens fierce competitiveness they just found that instant chemistry and connection.  Diggs I think felt more like he was truly amongst his peers in how he approaches the game and had guys to push him and guys he could help push.  I think about comments made by Trubisky too after arriving here and just having his mind blown and talking about how he felt he was never "developed" in Chicago or seen the kind of coaching and support from teammates as he did here.  

 

McD created this environment, and the players quickly connect to it.  Which is why I absolutely love McD's motto of "Come here to be the best version of yourself".  

 

7 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

 

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.  

 

You can see all this too in our locker room when we get glimpses into there after games, wins or losses.  One game that comes to mind is in Dallas when Cole Beasley ate the Cowboys lunch and as soon as he got into that locker room his teammates went nuts for him.  These are the kind of team moments that build something unbreakable.  

 

7 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

 

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.  

 

Allen is literally the perfect person to lead McD's locker room and team.  This kid couldn't be wired any better, he is the ultimate pro, ultimate leader, ultimate class act, ultimate field general on the field, and absolutely the ultimate and fiercest competitor on that field every week and has no ego to go with it.  Everything about him is also authentic, fun, and sincere.

 

7 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

 

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.  

 

I read that book, but back when it came out few years before McD ever came to Buffalo.  So thanks for the recap and connection, I totally can see a lot of the principles of Jacksons coaching style in McD.  

 

That being said, there is a lot about McD that is also different too.  He is definitely more into fine details, fundamentals, and discipline.  Jackson was a little more free styling in some of those areas.  But, Basketball is a much simpler game from a coaching stand point too, so it can afford a coach to have a little less focus there (when you have elite players like he had in Chicago and LA).  In Basketball, if you have say 3 great to elite players on your team, then thats 60% of your players on the floor.  Then add in the freedom of the Triangle Offense, and its not hard to see why he can be more relaxed in those areas where as in football, those things are substantially more important and necessary.  

 

But when it comes to player interaction, culture, and those kinds of philosophies I can see a lot of similarities.  Its why Phil was always a players coach and I think if you ask any player in that locker room they would emphatically say McD is a players coach too.  

 

I love this team and can't wait for them to hoist the well deserved and inevitable SB trophy.  

[Jauronimo]

8 minutes ago, Paup 1995MVP said:

I think you are overstating all that team building feel good stuff.  The Chicago Bulls were dominant because they had the best player to ever play professional basketball.  He had an insatiable appetite to be the best player he could be.  And to win.  Sure he got other players involved like Paxson and Kerr.  But they won championships because they had Jordan and Pippen.  Michael wasn't some cuddly guy who loved his teammates.  He tolerated them, as long as they brought their best every nite.  And more then that come playoff time.  Sports were much different then.  A guy like Ben Simmons would have been laughed out of the league, after he got his ass kicked.  Sports were played by grown men.  Who were supposed to act like grown men.  It was a microcosm of society of how people in general acted, until the world fell into the apocalypse of ridiculousness that has become our current society.  Phil Jackson did a good job keeping everyone somewhat together.  But he did not reinvent the wheel.  He had one amazing player, one really good player and some solid complimentary parts.  

 

As for McDermott, he is a football coach.  I do not think he is a revolutionary.  He has a great QB.  And a lot of other very good players.  He treats his players fairly.  All that matters is wins and losses.  He needs to lead us to the Super Bowl.  With the talent on our roster, he should be able to get that done.  That's my two cents.  Take it for what its worth.  

And the air isn't as sweet as it used to be and the sun never shines anymore.

[Bill from NYC]

I thank you for this well thought post and respect the work that you put into it. I do not however think that it applies all that much to McDermott.

 

The Bills are winning because the lucked into Josh Allen (a HOF talent imo) after trading away the pick for Mahomes, at which time they moved from 10 to 27 with a very small return. To do so, they left the following players on board to draft a cornerback:

Patrick Mahomes
Deshaun Watson
Marshon Lattimore
Marlon Humphrey
TJ Watt

This was utter stupidity, although it is hard to guage how much of the blame falls on McDermott.  Please don't misunderstand this post. I think that McDermott is a good coach.  Now, he did not invent this term "process" of which he speaks, but he did at least co-opt it from a truly great coach. 

I guess my point is that although I am satisfied with McDermott, if he didn't luck into Allen ths team would more than likely still suck, and he would have probably been fired by now, good coach or not. 

 

Obviously the above is jmo and I repeat my compliments on your post.

[Shaw66]

17 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

 

That being said, there is a lot about McD that is also different too.  He is definitely more into fine details, fundamentals, and discipline.  Jackson was a little more free styling in some of those areas.  But, Basketball is a much simpler game from a coaching stand point too, so it can afford a coach to have a little less focus there (when you have elite players like he had in Chicago and LA).  In Basketball, if you have say 3 great to elite players on your team, then thats 60% of your players on the floor.  Then add in the freedom of the Triangle Offense, and its not hard to see why he can be more relaxed in those areas where as in football, those things are substantially more important and necessary.  

 

But when it comes to player interaction, culture, and those kinds of philosophies I can see a lot of similarities.  Its why Phil was always a players coach and I think if you ask any player in that locker room they would emphatically say McD is a players coach too.  

 

I love this team and can't wait for them to hoist the well deserved and inevitable SB trophy.  

Thanks for all the comments.  I just quoted the part I want to talk about. 

 

Oh, yeah, there are plenty of differences.  As you say, the nature of the game is different - football requires that any coach install much more discipline and routine than basketball.  Basketball flows better, and as such can be much more player-driven on the floor.  

 

And Jackson was a counter culture guy, through and through.  McDermott is straight-laced and faith-based.   But they're both searching for answers and both willing to share the credit.  They both want to get better every day, and they want to help the people around them get better, too.  

 

McDermott seems always to be studying.  I would bet he's read this book, and I wouldn't be surprised if he sought out Jackson at some time to talk about this stuff.  

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Bill from NYC said:

I thank you for this well thought post and respect the work that you put into it. I do not however think that it applies all that much to McDermott.

 

The Bills are winning because the lucked into Josh Allen (a HOF talent imo) after trading away the pick for Mahomes, at which time they moved from 10 to 27 with a very small return. To do so, they left the following players on board to draft a cornerback:

Patrick Mahomes
Deshaun Watson
Marshon Lattimore
Marlon Humphrey
TJ Watt

This was utter stupidity, although it is hard to guage how much of the blame falls on McDermott.  Please don't misunderstand this post. I think that McDermott is a good coach.  Now, he did not invent this term "process" of which he speaks, but he did at least co-opt it from a truly great coach. 

I guess my point is that although I am satisfied with McDermott, if he didn't luck into Allen ths team would more than likely still suck, and he would have probably been fired by now, good coach or not. 

 

Obviously the above is jmo and I repeat my compliments on your post.

 

But two of the players you point out that they "left on the board" are corners who are not as good as Tre (though very good players in their own right). 

 

That draft was 100% McDermott's call. So if you want to blame then blame away. It is the best draft of my fandom, though I take the point that if they had struck out at QB in 2018 that likely wouldn't have mattered. 

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But two of the players you point out that they "left on the board" are corners who are not as good as Tre (though very good players in their own right). 

 

That draft was 100% McDermott's call. So if you want to blame then blame away. It is the best draft of my fandom, though I take the point that if they had struck out at QB in 2018 that likely wouldn't have mattered. 

The best draft is the one that got Allen, who is largely responsible for this team's successes both past and future.

[Warcodered]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But two of the players you point out that they "left on the board" are corners who are not as good as Tre (though very good players in their own right). 

 

That draft was 100% McDermott's call. So if you want to blame then blame away. It is the best draft of my fandom, though I take the point that if they had struck out at QB in 2018 that likely wouldn't have mattered. 

In that draft they got Tre White, Dion Dawkins, and Matt Milano.

[Shaw66]

4 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

I thank you for this well thought post and respect the work that you put into it. I do not however think that it applies all that much to McDermott.

 

The Bills are winning because the lucked into Josh Allen (a HOF talent imo) after trading away the pick for Mahomes, at which time they moved from 10 to 27 with a very small return. To do so, they left the following players on board to draft a cornerback:

Patrick Mahomes
Deshaun Watson
Marshon Lattimore
Marlon Humphrey
TJ Watt

This was utter stupidity, although it is hard to guage how much of the blame falls on McDermott.  Please don't misunderstand this post. I think that McDermott is a good coach.  Now, he did not invent this term "process" of which he speaks, but he did at least co-opt it from a truly great coach. 

I guess my point is that although I am satisfied with McDermott, if he didn't luck into Allen ths team would more than likely still suck, and he would have probably been fired by now, good coach or not. 

 

Obviously the above is jmo and I repeat my compliments on your post.

I've long since given up second-guessing the Mahomes trade, and I don't completely agree with you, but that isn't the point. 

 

Your primary point is absolutely true.  Jackson and McDermott can coach all day, every day from here to eternity, but if they don't have Jordan and Kobe and Shaq and Allen, they may do a nice job but they aren't recognized for their greatness.  (And McDermott hasn't won anything yet.)   The real point is that there are coaches who have had superstars and haven't won championships, or won multiple championships.  The real point is what the coaches can do not with the superstars, but with the ordinary journeyman players who are playing with the superstars.   That's what Belichick did, that's what Jackson did, and that's what McDermott is trying to do. 

 

The best example is the Golden State Warriors.  The quality of their team play, driven by a superstar and two other excellent players, is exceptional.  Coached by Mark Jackson, they were good players and a team that wasn't going anywhere.  Steve Kerr made them one of the great teams in the history of the league, and I think he did the same things Jackson did and the same things McDermott is doing..  

[LeGOATski]

Yeah, I think McD has read all the leadership books known to man.

[GunnerBill]

26 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

The best draft is the one that got Allen, who is largely responsible for this team's successes both past and future.

 

Allen is definitely the single best pick. 

[Alphadawg7]

57 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

I thank you for this well thought post and respect the work that you put into it. I do not however think that it applies all that much to McDermott.

 

The Bills are winning because the lucked into Josh Allen (a HOF talent imo) after trading away the pick for Mahomes, at which time they moved from 10 to 27 with a very small return. To do so, they left the following players on board to draft a cornerback:

Patrick Mahomes
Deshaun Watson
Marshon Lattimore
Marlon Humphrey
TJ Watt

This was utter stupidity, although it is hard to guage how much of the blame falls on McDermott.  Please don't misunderstand this post. I think that McDermott is a good coach.  Now, he did not invent this term "process" of which he speaks, but he did at least co-opt it from a truly great coach. 

I guess my point is that although I am satisfied with McDermott, if he didn't luck into Allen ths team would more than likely still suck, and he would have probably been fired by now, good coach or not. 

 

Obviously the above is jmo and I repeat my compliments on your post.

 

Here we go...more hindsight is 20/20 non sense again.  This is so easy and utterly lazy for a fan to say now that we have seen what those other players have become.  What is even more ridiculous is that none of those guys would have even reached the 10th pick if people knew then what they would be today.  So, this is just a pointless post.  

 

To be honest, it just oozes desperation to hold on to a negative view point in the most desperate of ways.  Not to mention Tre is absolutely in the same company as these guys at his position, and honestly better than a couple of them.  Furthermore, I would take the combo of Tre White and Josh Allen over any of those players, and I would take Josh Allen alone over any of those players.  

 

BUT...the MOST egregious and utterly absurd thing you said is we "lucked" into Josh Allen.  If you say that, then that means KC "lucked" into Mahomes too.  Mahomes was graded anywhere from first to second round even though he was expected to go first round.  KC saw greatness and made a move to get him.  Josh Allen was expected to go in the first, but most people had Rosen going before him once Allen didn't go number 1 to Cleveland.  And as we know, a lot of people lost their minds, especially around here.  

 

I dont understand people like you.  Any great move we make...we lucked into it.  Another team makes the same move, they are geniuses.  Our FO has found elite players, pro bowlers, very good players, and very good role players in every draft and all over the draft to the point we have the CONSENSUS best roster in the entire NFL right now.  If you want to hold on to this wet blanket mentality and call it all "luck", then all I can say is go outside and find some sunshine because the doom and gloom is played out and long gone.  

Edited May 19, 2022 by Alphadawg7

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Here we go...more hindsight is 20/20 non sense.  This is so easy and utterly lazy for a fan to say now that we have seen what those other players had become.  What is even more ridiculous is that NONE of those guys would have even reached the 10th pick if people knew then what they would be today.  So, this is an utterly pointless post.  This just oozes desperation to hold on to a negative view point in the most desperate of ways.  Not to mention Tre is absolutely in the same company as these guys at his position, and honestly better than a couple of them.

 

And sorry, not only is it pointless. but its wrong.  I would take the combo of Tre White and Josh Allen over any of those players, and I would take Josh Allen alone over any of those players.  

 

BUT...the MOST egregious and utterly absurd thing you said is we "lucked" into Josh Allen.  If you say that, then that means KC "lucked" into Mahomes too.  Mahomes was graded anywhere from first to second round even though he was expected to go first round.  KC saw greatness and made a move to get him.  Josh Allen was graded to go in the top 10 despite being raw, and Bills saw greatness and moved up to get him.  

 

I dont understand people like you.  Any great move we make...we lucked into it.  Another team makes the same move, they are geniuses.  Your act, as well as others like you, is getting tired dude.  Our FO has found elite players, pro bowlers, very good players, and very good role players in every draft and all over the draft to the point we have the CONSENSUS best roster in the entire NFL right now.  If you want to hold on to this wet blanket mentality and call it all "luck", then all I can say is go outside and find some sunshine because the doom and gloom is played out and long gone.  

I didn’t take it as luck so much as it worked out better than anyone could have reasonably foretold. In that sense it was a lucky pick.

12 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Allen is definitely the single best pick. 

I think by any objective analysis 2018 is the best draft.

[Alphadawg7]

10 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Allen is definitely the single best pick. 

 

Not really fair to say though given he is maybe the best player in the NFL right now and was taken 7th overall.  For me, hitting big on guys like Milano, Davis, etc late are just as good of picks as hitting on a first rounder.  

 

But yes, importance and value wise to the franchise, Allen is the best and most important pick.  But we saw guys like Brees, Stafford, Rivers, Rodgers, Ryan, etc be prolific passers and struggle to make the playoffs or struggle to get to the big dance.  Why, because as important as those QB's are, its still vitally important they build a team around them.  

 

This is why its always said, "teams" are build in the middle of the draft.  And that is something our FO has been very good at and why we have the best roster in the NFL right now in many peoples eyes.  

[First Round Bust]

I don' t doubt McDermott has read-up on, attended seminars or incorporated ideas and best practices from others...

 

In his own right...McD is a highly intelligent and motivated individual...his wrestling championships in the state of PA (a big wrestling state) takes a lot dedication and determination.

I met one of high school friends last fall, we talked wrestling (we had that in common) who called McD the most motivated individual he has ever met, but had a sense of humor and liked to pull well-planned practical jokes.

 

Getting into William Mary is another significant achievement, esp for an out-of-state student, plus he walked-on and made the team...playing-practicing sports while going to a demanding program like that is next to amazing...my son went there and he told stories about kids freaking-out over getting their first non-A grades of their entire lives there.

 

Coaching tree - he developed under some really good ones:

 

Played for Jimmy Laycock who coached at W&M  (played along with Mike Tomlin) 

Eleven of Laycock's assistants became head coaches in the NCAA or NFL, including Dan Quinn and Brian Daboll.  Laycock coached for 38 years, retiring with the third-longest continuous head coaching tenure in NCAA Division I football history.  He also played qb at W&M as was coached by Marv Levy and Lou Holtz.

 

12 years with the Eagles under Andy Reid and Jim Johnson - one super bowl appearance - you know Reid's story but Johnson had 40 year coaching career overall, and was Eagles  DC for 9 years, Andy Reid called and paid him the best.  (Johnson played one year for the Bills in 1963-64)...McDermott took over in 2009 and was fired by Reid in 2012.

 

5 years as Carolina DC under Ron Rivera - second Super Bowl appearance in 2015 and  second runner up to their Defensive Coordinator of the Year award in 2015.[

As the Panthers' defensive coordinator, McDermott led the team to finishes in the top ten in overall defense from 2012–2015.

 

When the Bills plane lands at the airport from  a road game, most go home, McD goes to his office at the stadium and reviews and prepares for the review and preparation the next day.