Insights into McDermott team-building philosophy

[BillsVet]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[HappyDays]

6 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Hap, your post above makes total sense.

 

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

 

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

 

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

[GunnerBill]

7 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

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

 

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

Edited May 20, 2022 by GunnerBill

[HappyDays]

11 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

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

 

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

[HappyDays]

4 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

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

 

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

[Sharky7337]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Edited May 20, 2022 by Sharky7337

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, Sharky7337 said:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

I'd love to be in their heads!

 

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

[blacklabel]

Good stuff as always, Shaw. 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[folz]

14 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[GoBills808]

16 minutes ago, folz said:

 

 

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

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

[eball]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[GunnerBill]

28 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

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

 

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

[Shaw66]

42 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Shaw66 said:

 

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

 

 

 

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

[GoBills808]

14 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

[Shaw66]

14 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[GoBills808]

28 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

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

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

[Shaw66]

24 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

[Saxum]

3 hours ago, eball said:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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