Reiss's chat: what it means to have good locker room chemistry

[Patspsycho]

Chat with Mike Reiss:

Chat: Chat with Mike Reiss - SportsNation - ESPN Boston

On the subject of what it means to have good locker room chemistry:

I'm a big believer in the locker room chemistry, Bmad. And then my feelings are reinforced when I hear David Patten say this about the 2001 team: "It was just the camaraderie, the family. Many times, especially over the past year when I didn't have the opportunity to play and was going around speaking to various groups of kids and companies, one thing I reflected on and remember vividly was the family atmosphere. We would get out of practice at 3:30, 4 o'clock. You would have an afternoon meeting for about 30 minutes to an hour, but we would spend two to three hours just hanging out in the locker room. I'm absolutely convinced that's what gave us the edge on Sundays. They didn't say we were the best; we didn't have the most talent. But the one thing you couldn't argue with was the fact that we had one of the best teams. I think that was because we genuinely enjoyed being around each other. That's what I remember most."

 

[Ring 6]

Chat with Mike Reiss:

Chat: Chat with Mike Reiss - SportsNation - ESPN Boston

On the subject of what it means to have good locker room chemistry:

I think there is a chicken and egg dynamic here.
When you win, you stick around longer, everyone is in a better mood, and you remember it as winning because you had chemistry when in fact you probably had chemistry because you won.
The reverse happens with losing.
The 'kumbaya' philosophy hasn't worked very well for coaches, but players defend and support it even as they lose and the Herman Edwards' of the world get fired.

I think a lot of this stuff is overated. Frankly I think the only things that arent overated in judging teams are:
1) The teams with the fewest (or least severe) liabilities is the best team and the one that typically wins, not the one with the best half dozen stars, and
2) Teams that win in the postseason are teams that play their best at the most critical point in the game (which is heavily determined by #1)

 

[JMarr]

Chat with Mike Reiss:

Chat: Chat with Mike Reiss - SportsNation - ESPN Boston

On the subject of what it means to have good locker room chemistry:

I think BB is trying to put together that kind of a team again, but probably it will never be as good as what Patten describes. That team wasn't used to success and had no real superstars. Most everyone was buying what BB was selling and those who didn't were marginalized or booted.

I don't know to what extent AD (and others) poisoned the lockerroom, but it only takes a couple, especially when you have a young team.

Also, you can't underestimate the respect that Crennel and Weiss commanded, allowing players to just do their jobs as they were told to and then relax after putting in a hard day.

 

[Fencer]

Saying it's about the regular season winning is oversimplified. Last year's team won in the regular season about as much as the 2001 team did.

But the difference between either and an 8-8 team wasn't much, in terms of win count.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I think there is a chicken and egg dynamic here.
When you win, you stick around longer, everyone is in a better mood, and you remember it as winning because you had chemistry when in fact you probably had chemistry because you won.
The reverse happens with losing.
The 'kumbaya' philosophy hasn't worked very well for coaches, but players defend and support it even as they lose and the Herman Edwards' of the world get fired.

I think a lot of this stuff is overated. Frankly I think the only things that arent overated in judging teams are:
1) The teams with the fewest (or least severe) liabilities is the best team and the one that typically wins, not the one with the best half dozen stars, and
2) Teams that win in the postseason are teams that play their best at the most critical point in the game (which is heavily determined by #1)

I agree with your premise as a rule, HOWEVER in the context of the 2001 team they were 5-11 the previous season, started 0-2 and did not have a big gap of Ws vs Ls untill late in the season in December, yet as Patten said the team had closeness that he at least feels enabled some of those incredible Ws.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree with your premise as a rule, HOWEVER in the context of the 2001 team they were 5-11 the previous season, started 0-2 and did not have a big gap of Ws vs Ls untill late in the season in December, yet as Patten said the team had closeness that he at least feels enabled some of those incredible Ws.

But I just don't buy that you win more because you are friends.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I think there is a chicken and egg dynamic here.
When you win, you stick around longer, everyone is in a better mood, and you remember it as winning because you had chemistry when in fact you probably had chemistry because you won.
The reverse happens with losing.
The 'kumbaya' philosophy hasn't worked very well for coaches, but players defend and support it even as they lose and the Herman Edwards' of the world get fired.

I think a lot of this stuff is overated. Frankly I think the only things that arent overated in judging teams are:
1) The teams with the fewest (or least severe) liabilities is the best team and the one that typically wins, not the one with the best half dozen stars, and
2) Teams that win in the postseason are teams that play their best at the most critical point in the game (which is heavily determined by #1)

Got to disagree with your chicken and egg timeline though since that 2001 team Patten is tallking about was a .500 team ten games into that season. And the 2003 team was rebounding from a disheartening 9-7 post superbowl season.

They say that your core earns it's keep when the going gets tough. Those are the guys who pull the rest of the team through those difficult times. Brady, Rodney, Tedy were the most vocal and significant of those guys. But that 2001 team had a bunch of blue collar hard working overachievers who were open to the message. We always managed to maintain enough of them, the football matters guys, to pull us through (including rebounding from the occasional disappointing or devastating season) until last season when the last of the long established core leaders on defense departed. The locker room wasn't able to overcome the combination of a few veteran bad apples it had acquired over time who were not all in on how you win, and the immaturity inherent infielding a young defense in transition, coupled with injuries on offense that just resulted in an inconsistent team that never found it's stride.

They also say that core guys are born of adversity, so maybe last year had to happen to give birth to that next generation, from without and within. I think it will impact the way players still here conduct themselves going forward, and I think Wilfork seeing the need to step up on the heels of his extension shows that, and I think it will impact the emphasis this FO pays again places on character and intangibles when selecting additions to the roster this season. We need an infusion of talent, but we also need football players first and foremost. Talent alone never seems to win it.

 

[Ring 6]

Got to disagree with your chicken and egg timeline though since that 2001 team Patten is tallking about was a .500 team ten games into that season. And the 2003 team was rebounding from a disheartening 9-7 post superbowl season.

They say that your core earns it's keep when the going gets tough. Those are the guys who pull the rest of the team through those difficult times. Brady, Rodney, Tedy were the most vocal and significant of those guys. But that 2001 team had a bunch of blue collar hard working overachievers who were open to the message. We always managed to maintain enough of them, the football matters guys, to pull us through (including rebounding from the occasional disappointing or devastating season) until last season when the last of the long established core leaders on defense departed. The locker room wasn't able to overcome the combination of a few veteran bad apples it had acquired over time who were not all in on how you win, and the immaturity inherent infielding a young defense in transition, coupled with injuries on offense that just resulted in an inconsistent team that never found it's stride.

They also say that core guys are born of adversity, so maybe last year had to happen to give birth to that next generation, from without and within. I think it will impact the way players still here conduct themselves going forward, and I think Wilfork seeing the need to step up on the heels of his extension shows that, and I think it will impact the emphasis this FO pays again places on character and intangibles when selecting additions to the roster this season. We need an infusion of talent, but we also need football players first and foremost. Talent alone never seems to win it.

Then why didnt they win in 2002? The lockerroom attitude should have been great.
I'm not trying to split an atom here, I'm saying the idea that teams become champions because they like each other is unrealistic. The mood of a locker room is based upon confidence and success. Many teams like hanging out with each other but dont win.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Then why didnt they win in 2002? The lockerroom attitude should have been great.
I'm not trying to split an atom here, I'm saying the idea that teams become champions because they like each other is unrealistic. The mood of a locker room is based upon confidence and success. Many teams like hanging out with each other but dont win.

Because the shock of winning in 2001 coupled with their actual lack of talent plus their core leader dogging it and deciding it was suddenly more important to get your props than to make plays bit them in the ass. They were able to rebound from that however because they had enough of the core left who wanted more, like Brady and Bruschi, and they added the ultimate core player in Rodney who was so sick of playing for a loser he wouldn't tolerate landing on another one...

It's not really friendship, either, so much as cameraderie born of common purpose and goals. You've heard of addition by subtraction - one of the things that happened with the Giants in 2007. Once rid of Tiki's discontent via early retirement and Shockey's ego via broken leg, Strahan and Eli were able to pull a young team together toward a common purpose. It didn't last long because Strahan promptly retired and their win exposed a lot of other burgeoning egos. But it wasn't talent so much as will to win that landed them that Lombardi.

Talent doesn't often want to pay the price of grinding out enough wins to be champions. You almost always need an unheralded supporting cast around them that is made up of guys still willing to pay almost any price to win. Sadly you tend to lose some of those guys too if you win enough... Gradually that happened here, along with the heart and soul guys you won't ever lose except to retirement aging out.

They need to rebuild the core because it sets the tone and builds cameraderie. Coaches can't do that. It has to come from within the players. That's the committment Tom was talking about last season, committment to each other as teamates whereby you honor each others efforts by matching or exceeding them. When teams come together like that they win provided they have just enough talent to. It wasn't Brady's dimple that won his teamates over, it was his effort and determination to succeed. As a team they fed off it, even though many of them were closer to Drew for lots of reasons...

 

[Rob0729]

I think this team could re-adopt the "Us against the world" mentality. There will be a lot of people in the media who will be really down on them and their chances. Hopefully, there are enough leaders who can help turn this into a rallying cry.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Because the shock of winning in 2001 coupled with their actual lack of talent plus their core leader dogging it and deciding it was suddenly more important to get your props than to make plays bit them in the ass. They were able to rebound from that however because they had enough of the core left who wanted more, like Brady and Bruschi, and they added the ultimate core player in Rodney who was so sick of playing for a loser he wouldn't tolerate landing on another one...

It's not really friendship, either, so much as cameraderie born of common purpose and goals. You've heard of addition by subtraction - one of the things that happened with the Giants in 2007. Once rid of Tiki's discontent via early retirement and Shockey's ego via broken leg, Strahan and Eli were able to pull a young team together toward a common purpose. It didn't last long because Strahan promptly retired and their win exposed a lot of other burgeoning egos. But it wasn't talent so much as will to win that landed them that Lombardi.

Talent doesn't often want to pay the price of grinding out enough wins to be champions. You almost always need an unheralded supporting cast around them that is made up of guys still willing to pay almost any price to win. Sadly you tend to lose some of those guys too if you win enough... Gradually that happened here, along with the heart and soul guys you won't ever lose except to retirement aging out.

They need to rebuild the core because it sets the tone and builds cameraderie. Coaches can't do that. It has to come from within the players. That's the committment Tom was talking about last season, committment to each other as teamates whereby you honor each others efforts by matching or exceeding them. When teams come together like that they win provided they have just enough talent to. It wasn't Brady's dimple that won his teamates over, it was his effort and determination to succeed. As a team they fed off it, even though many of them were closer to Drew for lots of reasons...

Well said, Mo. Although I challenge the notion that the 2001 team lacked talent. They team was certainly lacking in a few areas but you still don't win SBs with marginal talent. History has proven out that the Pats had top-level talent on that 2001 team.

 

[Ring 6]

Because the shock of winning in 2001 coupled with their actual lack of talent plus their core leader dogging it and deciding it was suddenly more important to get your props than to make plays bit them in the ass. They were able to rebound from that however because they had enough of the core left who wanted more, like Brady and Bruschi, and they added the ultimate core player in Rodney who was so sick of playing for a loser he wouldn't tolerate landing on another one...

It's not really friendship, either, so much as cameraderie born of common purpose and goals. You've heard of addition by subtraction - one of the things that happened with the Giants in 2007. Once rid of Tiki's discontent via early retirement and Shockey's ego via broken leg, Strahan and Eli were able to pull a young team together toward a common purpose. It didn't last long because Strahan promptly retired and their win exposed a lot of other burgeoning egos. But it wasn't talent so much as will to win that landed them that Lombardi.

Talent doesn't often want to pay the price of grinding out enough wins to be champions. You almost always need an unheralded supporting cast around them that is made up of guys still willing to pay almost any price to win. Sadly you tend to lose some of those guys too if you win enough... Gradually that happened here, along with the heart and soul guys you won't ever lose except to retirement aging out.

They need to rebuild the core because it sets the tone and builds cameraderie. Coaches can't do that. It has to come from within the players. That's the committment Tom was talking about last season, committment to each other as teamates whereby you honor each others efforts by matching or exceeding them. When teams come together like that they win provided they have just enough talent to. It wasn't Brady's dimple that won his teamates over, it was his effort and determination to succeed. As a team they fed off it, even though many of them were closer to Drew for lots of reasons...

I think we are talking about 2 different things.
I'm talking abuot the concept that the Patriots won in 2001 because the players got along and liked hanging out together. I strenuously disagree that it has a cause and effect relationship.

 

[Nonentity]

They also say that core guys are born of adversity, so maybe last year had to happen to give birth to that next generation, from without and within. I think it will impact the way players still here conduct themselves going forward, and I think Wilfork seeing the need to step up on the heels of his extension shows that, and I think it will impact the emphasis this FO pays again places on character and intangibles when selecting additions to the roster this season. We need an infusion of talent, but we also need football players first and foremost. Talent alone never seems to win it.

I think this is key.


All off-season, we've been hearing unexpected players come out and say that they now realise that they need to be more vocal. That it's up to them to be the leaders now. Maybe the transition just doesn't happen overnight. Maybe you need a bad year otherwise the good years just won't happen again. Maybe the repeated questioning about locker room chemistry and team leadership has made some of the quieter veterans realise that it's up to them now, that no-one's there to do it for them.

Vince Wilfork. Ty Warren. Dan Koppen, today.


The Patriots are not dead and buried because the locker room isn't dead and buried. We still have the players and we still have the people. This is what you get in return for drafting high-character players: a sense of duty, the understanding that you can't simply choose to be a leader, because sometimes leadership is simply thrust upon you. And there's only one response to that challenge - man up, or go home.