Insights into McDermott team-building philosophy

[HappyDays]

59 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

You think he is a cheater and Beane working for Carolina passed information to him.

I guess it is what you would have done in that position but I do not think Beane would have provided it or Coach McD asked for it.

 

McDermott was in the building. He probably knew the draft board. Of course he would have used that knowledge to his benefit. Teams tend to have a good sense of what other teams will do in the draft anyways, it's not cheating.

 

Edited May 20, 2022 by HappyDays

[hondo in seattle]

Shaw66, I just want to say Thank You.!

 

I personally love discussions about team-building and I think you gave a great summary of the Jackson book.

 

When people want to fire a coach about in-game decisions, I cringe a little.  The stuff you talked about is far more important.  

[Mikie2times]

2 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

If you think that they made that trade with Josh Allen specifically in mind, that is fine but imo, highly unlikely. Unlike at least one person in this thread, I do not demand or even expect others to have to agree with me.

The good news is that Josh is a HOF talent and i enjoy watching him grow and excel.  Perhaps there will be a day when I look at Bills Management as a paradigm of football excellence. I'm just not there yet, ya know?  

I watched a video, need to locate it, where Beane said they had Baker and Allen as the targets. When Cleveland made the decision they did it became an easy decision. At which point it was not at all lucky how we got positioned to take Allen. It was a rather deliberate and creative attempt at getting in position for one of two guys. I still think Baker can do something with his career. He was hurt most of last season and he certainly screams late bloomer emotionally. We know what Josh has done. Some elements of luck are always involved in these things, but we have always been directly linked to Allen. I think we always had a +1 in addition to Josh, but Josh seems to be involved in every configuration ever discussed. As for for the +1 it appears Rosen was never in the mix, while the other two could have been. If that is true, addition by subtraction by our scout team. 

[Mikie2times]

To answer the OP's original question, I think SM studies other coaches. It doesn't matter the sport. I'm all but certain he has read the same book on Phil Jackson. I do not think he is some elite gifted X and O guy or some master motivator. I think he is disciplined, fair, and consistent with players which is what most NFL teams need a leader of a team and he try's to learn as much as he can from people who are successful. 

[Shaw66]

25 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

Shaw66, I just want to say Thank You.!

 

I personally love discussions about team-building and I think you gave a great summary of the Jackson book.

 

When people want to fire a coach about in-game decisions, I cringe a little.  The stuff you talked about is far more important.  

Thanks for the compliment.  

 

I'm with, both about team building and about in-game decisions.   I mean, you want to be good at the in-game decisions, and I have no doubt that McDermott studies that like everything else.  He gets graded on it, I'm sure, and he works to get better.  Still, people are always going to criticize one decision or another. 

 

But those decisions, and there are a lot of them, are three hours of a sixty- or seventy-hour week, where he's supervising a dozen assistant coaches, reviewing, revising, and approving game plans, and doing who knows what else.   The better he does that job, the fewer in-game decisions he has to make.   

 

People here talk about how incredible Josh is, and he is.   Year after year, I'm thinking in his own way, McDermott is just as incredible.  

[hondo in seattle]

14 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Thanks for the compliment.  

 

I'm with, both about team building and about in-game decisions.   I mean, you want to be good at the in-game decisions, and I have no doubt that McDermott studies that like everything else.  He gets graded on it, I'm sure, and he works to get better.  Still, people are always going to criticize one decision or another. 

 

But those decisions, and there are a lot of them, are three hours of a sixty- or seventy-hour week, where he's supervising a dozen assistant coaches, reviewing, revising, and approving game plans, and doing who knows what else.   The better he does that job, the fewer in-game decisions he has to make.   

 

People here talk about how incredible Josh is, and he is.   Year after year, I'm thinking in his own way, McDermott is just as incredible.  

 

I couldn't agree more.  

 

I keep hearing how talented this roster is.  And I gotta admit, I'm in awe of some of the plays Josh makes.  It's a wonderful thing to have your best player at the most important position.  There's no doubt this makes McD's job a little easier.  

 

But I also believe McDermott and his staff have made this roster look better than what it actually is.   We don't have a lot of star players.  But the level of teamwork, camaraderie, esprit de corps and shared commitment that McDermott has generated is awesome.  Guys like Poyer and Hyde come here and thrive because McD and his staff truly have a talent for getting guys to become 'the best version of themselves.'   That comes from McD's culture and his Phil Jackson-like approach to coaching. 

[Doc Brown]

5 hours ago, Magox said:

 

Ok, then by that logic the Chiefs lucked into drafting Mahomes.  You can make that argument for just about every single QB ever drafted except for any chose as the #1 overall selection.

 

The Bills purposely traded back so that they would have draft capital for 2018, this was not luck this was by design.  They traded up to #7 because they wanted one of the top QB's in that draft class, and by all accounts Josh Allen was someone that they were in love with since 2017.

 

This was by design.

I know it was by design as the ‘18 qb rookie class was looked as loaded even a year out.   They weren’t specifically already targeting Allen at the time though.

 

You’re right that Beane had to move to 7 in 2018 to grab Allen.  The Cardinals would’ve took him.  Beane did a fantastic job in a series of moves to even acquire the capital to jump up to 7.  The Cordy Glenn move especially.  They didn’t do themselves any favors by overachieving in 2017 but all ended well. Not giving up next year’s first was icing on the cake as we wouldn’t have Oliver.  I’m just pointing out that we were lucky in the incompetence of the Browns, Jets, Giants, and Broncos that draft.

 

 

 

 

 

[Shaw66]

1 minute ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

I couldn't agree more.  

 

I keep hearing how talented this roster is.  And I gotta admit, I'm in awe of some of the plays Josh makes.  It's a wonderful thing to have your best player at the most important position.  There's no doubt this makes McD's job a little easier.  

 

But I also believe McDermott and his staff have made this roster look better than what it actually is.   We don't have a lot of star players.  But the level of teamwork, camaraderie, esprit de corps and shared commitment that McDermott has generated is awesome.  Guys like Poyer and Hyde come here and thrive because McD and his staff truly have a talent for getting guys to become 'the best version of themselves.'   That comes from McD's culture and his Phil Jackson-like approach to coaching. 

Well, you'll get in trouble saying Allen makes McD's job a "little" easier!  I'll say!  

 

But I agree with the rest.  I was in a discussion with someone a few months ago about Poyer and Hyde.  I think they are very good players, but I agree with you - a good chunk of their success is because of the scheme and coaching.  They get credit for their talent, for sure, but where they really deserve the credit is for buying into what McDermott and Frazier want them to do.   And I'm sure if you could sit down with them, they'd tell you that the coaching is what has allowed them to become such an effective tandem.   What Frazier and McDermott have done with the two of them shows itself every play, every game, and that's worth so much more than this or that in-game decision. 

[folz]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Jackson coached the Bulls to 3 rings beginning  a year after he got there.

 

Ultimate success has to start under McD soon...

 

Let's put some context into your post...

 

Jackson took over a team that had just been to the Eastern Conference Finals (losing to a great Detroit team 4 games to 2). He had arguably the best player in NBA history already in place (and with 5 years already in the league...MJ was already a vet). The roster also consisted of Pippin, Horace Grant, Bill Cartwright, and John Paxson. They had a solid roster that was two games away from the NBA Finals before he took over. And Jackson had already been with the team for 2-3 years as an assistant, so he already knew the players and organization well. Not to mention that with basketball, you are dealing with like 15-16 players, not 53-90 every year. He had to tweak the culture, not create it from scratch...the Bulls were already winning before he took over.

 

Now let's look at McDermott. He stepped into a franchise that was in shambles, new owners who were still learning on the job, a 17-year playoff drought, A GM about to be fired, a weak roster with only maybe a handful of high-end players, a salary cap mess, no QB, and a culture of losing. And as said before, there are a hell of a lot more moving parts when you are talking about a football team as opposed to a basketball team.

 

To think the same results should happen in the same amount of time given those circumstances seems quite unfair.

 

 

I have a hard time understanding Bills fans who have McDermott on some sort of hot seat or time clock for winning a Super Bowl. It is as if they think the team would have been in this position regardless of him and since he can't win the "Big One" (of course everyone "can't win the big one" until they do...hi Andy Reid) that we need to find a coach who can. They seem to forget that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING that led us to now being Super Bowl contenders (and why we love this current team and its personality so much) is because of Sean McDermott. His relationship with the Pegulas, taking that horrible 2017 roster to the playoffs, hiring Brandon Beane and their relationship, the type of players brought in, the development of those players, the culture, the family atmosphere, the pride, the DNA, the process...we are only where we are now because of McDermott, why on God's green Earth should we even contemplate moving on from him at any point in the near future?

 

 

Great discussion thread Shaw66! I have noticed over the years how much McDermott has taken from studying Bill Belichick too (among others). And there's how he sat down with the 90s players when he first got here to see why they were successful. I think it is great that he is always looking for ways to improve his team and his leadership, etc. And just because he is studying something (someone upthread made fun of one thing he read into), doesn't mean he becomes an acolyte of that alone. As any smart person does, he builds his own philosophy by picking and choosing things from other coaches, leaders, mentors that work and feel right for him. As a leader, you can't preach a growth mindset, unless you practice it yourself. And you can see with each off-season how Sean and Brandon address areas where they believe they and the team need to grow.

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

8 minutes ago, folz said:

 

Let's put some context into your post...

 

Jackson took over a team that had just been to the Eastern Conference Finals (losing to a great Detroit team 4 games to 2). He had arguably the best player in NBA history already in place (and with 5 years already in the league...MJ was already a vet). The roster also consisted of Pippin, Horace Grant, Bill Cartwright, and John Paxson. They had a solid roster that was two games away from the NBA Finals before he took over. And Jackson had already been with the team for 2-3 years as an assistant, so he already knew the players and organization well. Not to mention that with basketball, you are dealing with like 15-16 players, not 53-90 every year. He had to tweak the culture, not create it from scratch...the Bulls were already winning before he took over.

 

Now let's look at McDermott. He stepped into a franchise that was in shambles, new owners who were still learning on the job, a 17-year playoff drought, A GM about to be fired, a weak roster with only maybe a handful of high-end players, a salary cap mess, no QB, and a culture of losing. And as said before, there are a hell of a lot more moving parts when you are talking about a football team as opposed to a basketball team.

 

To think the same results should happen in the same amount of time given those circumstances seems quite unfair.

 

 

I have a hard time understanding Bills fans who have McDermott on some sort of hot seat or time clock for winning a Super Bowl. It is as if they think the team would have been in this position regardless of him and since he can't win the "Big One" (of course everyone "can't win the big one" until they do...hi Andy Reid) that we need to find a coach who can. They seem to forget that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING that led us to now being Super Bowl contenders (and why we love this current team and its personality so much) is because of Sean McDermott. His relationship with the Pegulas, taking that horrible 2017 roster to the playoffs, hiring Brandon Beane and their relationship, the type of players brought in, the development of those players, the culture, the family atmosphere, the pride, the DNA, the process...we are only where we are now because of McDermott, why on God's green Earth should we even contemplate moving on from him at any point in the near future?

 

 

Great discussion thread Shaw66! I have noticed over the years how much McDermott has taken from studying Bill Belichick too (among others). And there's how he sat down with the 90s players when he first got here to see why they were successful. I think it is great that he is always looking for ways to improve his team and his leadership, etc. And just because he is studying something (someone upthread made fun of one thing he read into), doesn't mean he becomes an acolyte of that alone. As any smart person does, he builds his own philosophy by picking and choosing things from other coaches, leaders, mentors that work and feel right for him. As a leader, you can't preach a growth mindset, unless you practice it yourself. And you can see with each off-season how Sean and Brandon address areas where they believe they and the team need to grow.

 

 

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
 

 

[Thurman#1]

15 hours 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.  

 

 

Great post, Shaw. Maybe the best on here all year.

 

Thanks.

[Thurman#1]

10 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

No. Are you blind? KC made the trade with us to get Mahomes. That was a skillful move, not luck. We passed on a Super Bowl winning QB and were lucky to get Josh after doing something so stupid. 

If you can't see this there is no reason to talk any further.

 

 

Nonsense.

 

Yes, it was a skillful move by KC to trade up to get Mahomes.

 

Equally, it was a skillful move by Beane to trade up to get Allen.

 

And there's no guarantee that Mahomes without Reid becomes what he is today.

 

McDermott has made it very clear that with putting all his systems in place that first year, he simply didn't have time to fully go through the process of a deep enough dive into the QBs that year. And while he would never come out and say this part of it, he didn't have enough faith in the GM he was stuck with - the guy who bought into EJ Manuel - to let him make the decision.

 

 

[Thurman#1]

9 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

I don't agree that McDermott ran that draft solo. I'm 95% confident Beane was unofficially involved. It's been pointed out that many of the players we drafted that year had pre-draft meetings with Carolina. And I think we traded up once or twice specifically to get in front of them to take players they had visited with. It's the only narrative that makes sense. 

 

 

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.

[Bill from NYC]

12 hours ago, KzooMike said:

I watched a video, need to locate it, where Beane said they had Baker and Allen as the targets. When Cleveland made the decision they did it became an easy decision. At which point it was not at all lucky how we got positioned to take Allen. It was a rather deliberate and creative attempt at getting in position for one of two guys. 

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 appreciate the dialogue with you but I think that I will duck out of this thread, whereas I seem to have struck too many nerves. In the decades I have been on this board I have seen Bills Fans defend virtually every move that I have detested, including starting Alex Van Pelt and drafting Donte Whitner but ya know, why not? It IS after all a Bills Board. 

I am sorry to those that I offended with my stance. We will all feel better when Josh takes us to a Super Bowl. 

5 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

Equally, it was a skillful move by Beane to trade up to get Allen.

 

I was not clear enough about the above.

My point was after trading away from one HOF QB, Beane was lucky to get aother one in the following year and yes, trading up for Allen was a brilliant move, one which I applauded while many complained.

Edited May 20, 2022 by Bill from NYC

[Magox]

13 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

If you think that they made that trade with Josh Allen specifically in mind, that is fine but imo, highly unlikely. Unlike at least one person in this thread, I do not demand or even expect others to have to agree with me.

The good news is that Josh is a HOF talent and i enjoy watching him grow and excel.  Perhaps there will be a day when I look at Bills Management as a paradigm of football excellence. I'm just not there yet, ya know?  

 

I think they made that trade thinking that the 18 draft class was going to give them a better shot at landing their franchise QB than the pick they traded to KC.    Do I think Josh was who they had in mind the whole time?   Not necessarily, but from all accounts Josh was someone they liked a lot back in 2017.

 

They knew they were trading all these players and picks for draft capital for the QB draft class in 2018.  I just don't view it as luck that they made all these decisions, including the trade to KC and Sammy and ultimately were able to maneuver themselves from a pick in the 20's all the way to 7 and end up getting their guy.  That to me says there was a purpose and they executed that purpose.

10 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I know it was by design as the ‘18 qb rookie class was looked as loaded even a year out.   They weren’t specifically already targeting Allen at the time though.

 

You’re right that Beane had to move to 7 in 2018 to grab Allen.  The Cardinals would’ve took him.  Beane did a fantastic job in a series of moves to even acquire the capital to jump up to 7.  The Cordy Glenn move especially.  They didn’t do themselves any favors by overachieving in 2017 but all ended well. Not giving up next year’s first was icing on the cake as we wouldn’t have Oliver.  I’m just pointing out that we were lucky in the incompetence of the Browns, Jets, Giants, and Broncos that draft.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, but in reality pretty much every franchise QB that is selected by a team, you could apply this sort of logic and say the majority of teams had some luck in that other teams didn't select them first.

[GunnerBill]

35 minutes 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 appreciate the dialogue with you but I think that I will duck out of this thread, whereas I seem to have struck too many nerves. In the decades I have been on this board I have seen Bills Fans defend virtually every move that I have detested, including starting Alex Van Pelt and drafting Donte Whitner but ya know, why not? It IS after all a Bills Board. 

I am sorry to those that I offended with my stance. We will all feel better when Josh takes us to a Super Bowl. 

I was not clear enough about the above.

My point was after trading away from one HOF QB, Beanne was lucky to get aother one in the following year and yes, trading up for Allen was a brilliant move, one which I applauded while many complained.

 

I don't think they knew they were getting Allen at that stage. They did know they were punting on what was generally regarded as a lesser QB class (not by me I liked the 17 class) for what was regarded a better QB class (2018). 

 

I do agree with the premise that you still get lucky cos if you pass on a guy who turns out great and the best guy you can get the next year is good but not great then you are in trouble. So they were lucky, but it wasn't blind luck. It was a risky strategy call that played out for them.

[Sharky7337]

The title is misleading.

[Magox]

2 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 appreciate the dialogue with you but I think that I will duck out of this thread, whereas I seem to have struck too many nerves. In the decades I have been on this board I have seen Bills Fans defend virtually every move that I have detested, including starting Alex Van Pelt and drafting Donte Whitner but ya know, why not? It IS after all a Bills Board. 

I am sorry to those that I offended with my stance. We will all feel better when Josh takes us to a Super Bowl. 

I was not clear enough about the above.

My point was after trading away from one HOF QB, Beanne was lucky to get aother one in the following year and yes, trading up for Allen was a brilliant move, one which I applauded while many complained.

 

Didn't see this post until after my last response.   

[Shaw66]

38 minutes ago, Sharky7337 said:

The title is misleading.

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

[GunnerBill]

15 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

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

 

They are certainly the drafts that turned things around. Arguments have been made for 1 v the other but I think taken as a combination (and with the 2017 and 2019 free agency groups that produced Hyde, Poyer, Morse, Beasley and Brown) they were the turnaround.