So how is it working out for McDermott. We were a top 10 defense after being closer to the mid twenties when he took over. Seems the players and assistant coaches like what he did. I suspect it will be the same with Shula. His assistants and the players are behind him which is all the credibility he needs. If fans don't like him, or he gets criticized in the media, who really cares. as long as the staff and players are with him, the rest will work itself out when we move the ball and score.
The fact that the team was fairly successful on defense could be attributed to Rivera's involvement--he has a good history. I am just one who does not llike micromanagement, if that is what happened. If I am hired to do a job, I would hate it if the boss said, "Well, I will be looking over his shoulder and getting involved in the decisions." Sure, you may do it, but there is no reason to say that to the press. The fact that the team did well could be a point to argue, but to what degree was Rivera involved? His game management suggests maybe that he was not as focused on the big picture as he should have been--just speculating, but my point is this: After that comment, how do we know what was McD's and what was Rivera's? Again, I have no idea if any of this is the case, but I am concerned about the inner workngs of a team. Confidence and the abilty to make decisions is critical. I do not see Rivera as an overbearing Hitler, so I could be misinterpreting his statements. I simply question why he made them.
The credibilty I am referring to has nothing to do with the fans--it has to do with the players.
I agree that something worked. I hope it is sustainable. I also think, after what happened in Philly, that the comment about McD could have been taken out of context or could have been supportive. Basically, "I am not leaving you out there on an island...I will be with you."