To Win is to Fail?

[Ring 6]

This was about the "what you get in the draft" side of the ledger. Basically I specified that the draft is better thought of as an exercise in quantity with apparent quality of draft position playing a part around the edges. I don't know how you've framed the argument to date, but mainly I see the "tank for Tua" angle. I don't care what some draftnik thinks Tua is worth. I don't even follow college ball. Point is, even if he's blue chip, he's potential dog crap and not worth tanking for. If anything, getting a haul of picks is the better outcome, unless of course they're SERIOUSLY questionable, like 7th round or something.

I don't know how that contradicts an earlier argument I made. I think you might be looking for a binary, like "all draft capital is bad". All I am saying is that draft position within a round is overrated, especially to "get your man" at number 1 or 2 vs. getting someone at no. 10.



You can't "reinstall" what does not exist. Who would "reinstall" it?

When you are talking about culture, top-down is more a driver than trenches-up. Coaches, owner, and TFB. Any veteran locker room mafia. Those are the drivers. Not some guy off the street with Ray Lewis school of garage empowerment bona fides. Every guy who buys in and wants to bring someone with them, in line with the organization's values, counts as a driver of culture, but the culture is "reinstalled" each year with many of the same values from the top.

Name me a New England team that preached "Get really high with every win and mourn every loss like the loss of a loved one." Believe it or not, in so many words, many NFL franchises embraced those messages. ("Winning's not everything, it's the only thing." "Losing is like death.")

New England's culture says, you're never as good as you look when you're blowing someone out or as bad as you look in your worst game.

Now tell me when, in the last 20 years, we've preached the alternative. We haven't. There's a reason. And that is driven top-down.

You're taking the outcome -- how a team goes about things, its one-year character -- and confusing it with culture.

Each year's team has its own character. Culture is an ongoing phenomenon.



Specify the differences you mean, 08-09-10.



What is "This" in the sentence above? You mean that different years are different years?

By the way, I would not formulate it as "winning now services the culture of the 2020 team." More like, making the "deal with the devil" now is a statement you can't take back, that your team irremediably stinks and the perceived need to move on from the bozo brigade takes precedence over the natural urge to compete.

It's a statement that the present roster, by and large, is packed with hopeless cases. Nothing in scheme can help it. They cannot try harder and win. They cannot practice harder and win. They cannot study the playbook and win. They cannot get in better physical condition and win. Or, if they can, they are by and large unwilling to do what they are able to.

Are you going to turn over 53 guys, or are you planning for most of them to pin their hopes on the new 22 year old and maybe his 5 all-american buddies from your excellent draft?

You know, because they're a whole different species capable of winning?

I accept that a team can be so bad that knocking over the board could conceivably be the best play, but it's a high bar of suckage. If you think about it, even the JEST tend not to suck so bad that they get anywhere by drafting higher.



Either I don't know what BB is saying, or you have confused valid statements such as "each team has its own character" and "every year is a different team" for the invalid statement "The team's culture is basically 1-year day trading."

Is there anything else from the world of BB quotes and thoughts I'm missing? Because "every year is different" to me means you're not going to be TFB's flying circus in 2008 (sic) even without the injury... just because you were in 2007. You don't go to the playoffs because you did last year, you don't go to the SB because you did last year.

Now, what do you do with the paradoxical result of going to 4 out of the last 5 Super Bowls, and having the single most concentrated run of winning evah?

To me, preaching that nothing is a given and that each team has its own character is one part of the secret sauce that results in amazingly consistent positive results. "It's not a given" is a powerful realization when the name of the game is earning what is not given.

If there were no culture that survived across years, to invoke another paradox, wouldn't some years be marked by insistence that every year is the same and we are entitled to good results?

But they're not. The predicate that every year is different and success does not carry over is part of the Patriots' (multi-year) culture.

The extent to which the Pats believe, in a given year, that they really are on the razor's edge between winning and losing -- that's the one-year climate.



Now we're back to the team(s) that really have to ponder this choice.

If it works - to the tune of vaulting the team to at least 1-year success - for that kind of team, tanking might be, I dunno, okay. Maybe. But I don't think so. (see next point.)

If it doesn't work, you've just made it immeasurably worse. Everybody who's part of that equation just went from "man I play for a crap team right now" to "aw jeez, it's chronic." They've learned one more way to lose/one more level of losing. They've more or less become losers -- they're on a team so bad it loses on purpose with the idea that it'll win later, when it doesn't have to rely on clowns like you to do it, and lucky you, you're along for the ride (for any returning vets).

And then they lose some more. And by the way, you can't escape for a reason... maybe you really don't have many options out there on the market, or maybe, you're trapped in a permasuck zone because of your contract. Time to buy some recreational substances, pay your off season green fees, and avoid contact so you have a better shot at a productive future.

You pull the "tank for _____" trick, and you'd better be ready to pull the team back from a good hearty nut punch because that's what you're bringing. Eat your wheaties and stock up on all-heart & dying-jock movies with motivational lessons or something, coach, yer gonna need it.

The only way I can say it is not that "winning now adds to next year's culture," it's more like you have a contract with your guys... we're in this together, figuring out how to win, and the 1 thing we won't do is internalize the lesson "you're losers."

Tanking for ____ is basically erasing that deal. I don't know how it plays with professionals and I might just be thinking very emotionally/"motivationally," but it is still a game. After learning the lesson of "Don't try, we win when we lose" how far is it to, "Don't try, we're probably not there yet and I could get hurt" or whatever?

You might be smarter about football than me. I'd hazard to say I know just a little (& a little is a famously dangerous quantity) about "culture" in organizations. Not even enough to claim to be any kind of expert. But to me, tanking just. feels. wrong.

Culture matters. Anyone who has played sports understands this. Flores walks into Miami and creates his culture good or bad. Recognizing the team is undermanned and scrapping and clawing for every win sets a tone. Telling the team we are going to play the qb that stinks and trying to lose sets a time as well.
At least half of these players will be back next year. Going through a season of giving up will certainly carry over and being a coach that is demanding of the best from his players does too.
Belichick has the ideal opportunity to tank in 2000 and did not. Because he was building a culture. Belichick witnessed an obvious tank job in Indy and his comments left no doubt that this would never happen in New England.
People misapplying his comments about a team changing from year to year (because half the team changes) doesn’t say the culture changes. The message and the culture gave no changed since day 1.

 

[Clonamery]

This was about the "what you get in the draft" side of the ledger. Basically I specified that the draft is better thought of as an exercise in quantity with apparent quality of draft position playing a part around the edges. I don't know how you've framed the argument to date, but mainly I see the "tank for Tua" angle. I don't care what some draftnik thinks Tua is worth. I don't even follow college ball. Point is, even if he's blue chip, he's potential dog crap and not worth tanking for. If anything, getting a haul of picks is the better outcome, unless of course they're SERIOUSLY questionable, like 7th round or something.

I don't know how that contradicts an earlier argument I made. I think you might be looking for a binary, like "all draft capital is bad". All I am saying is that draft position within a round is overrated, especially to "get your man" at number 1 or 2 vs. getting someone at no. 10.



You can't "reinstall" what does not exist. Who would "reinstall" it?

When you are talking about culture, top-down is more a driver than trenches-up. Coaches, owner, and TFB. Any veteran locker room mafia. Those are the drivers. Not some guy off the street with Ray Lewis school of garage empowerment bona fides. Every guy who buys in and wants to bring someone with them, in line with the organization's values, counts as a driver of culture, but the culture is "reinstalled" each year with many of the same values from the top.

Name me a New England team that preached "Get really high with every win and mourn every loss like the loss of a loved one." Believe it or not, in so many words, many NFL franchises embraced those messages. ("Winning's not everything, it's the only thing." "Losing is like death.")

New England's culture says, you're never as good as you look when you're blowing someone out or as bad as you look in your worst game.

Now tell me when, in the last 20 years, we've preached the alternative. We haven't. There's a reason. And that is driven top-down.

You're taking the outcome -- how a team goes about things, its one-year character -- and confusing it with culture.

Each year's team has its own character. Culture is an ongoing phenomenon.



Specify the differences you mean, 08-09-10.



What is "This" in the sentence above? You mean that different years are different years?

By the way, I would not formulate it as "winning now services the culture of the 2020 team." More like, making the "deal with the devil" now is a statement you can't take back, that your team irremediably stinks and the perceived need to move on from the bozo brigade takes precedence over the natural urge to compete.

It's a statement that the present roster, by and large, is packed with hopeless cases. Nothing in scheme can help it. They cannot try harder and win. They cannot practice harder and win. They cannot study the playbook and win. They cannot get in better physical condition and win. Or, if they can, they are by and large unwilling to do what they are able to.

Are you going to turn over 53 guys, or are you planning for most of them to pin their hopes on the new 22 year old and maybe his 5 all-american buddies from your excellent draft?

You know, because they're a whole different species capable of winning?

I accept that a team can be so bad that knocking over the board could conceivably be the best play, but it's a high bar of suckage. If you think about it, even the JEST tend not to suck so bad that they get anywhere by drafting higher.



Either I don't know what BB is saying, or you have confused valid statements such as "each team has its own character" and "every year is a different team" for the invalid statement "The team's culture is basically 1-year day trading."

Is there anything else from the world of BB quotes and thoughts I'm missing? Because "every year is different" to me means you're not going to be TFB's flying circus in 2008 (sic) even without the injury... just because you were in 2007. You don't go to the playoffs because you did last year, you don't go to the SB because you did last year.

Now, what do you do with the paradoxical result of going to 4 out of the last 5 Super Bowls, and having the single most concentrated run of winning evah?

To me, preaching that nothing is a given and that each team has its own character is one part of the secret sauce that results in amazingly consistent positive results. "It's not a given" is a powerful realization when the name of the game is earning what is not given.

If there were no culture that survived across years, to invoke another paradox, wouldn't some years be marked by insistence that every year is the same and we are entitled to good results?

But they're not. The predicate that every year is different and success does not carry over is part of the Patriots' (multi-year) culture.

The extent to which the Pats believe, in a given year, that they really are on the razor's edge between winning and losing -- that's the one-year climate.



Now we're back to the team(s) that really have to ponder this choice.

If it works - to the tune of vaulting the team to at least 1-year success - for that kind of team, tanking might be, I dunno, okay. Maybe. But I don't think so. (see next point.)

If it doesn't work, you've just made it immeasurably worse. Everybody who's part of that equation just went from "man I play for a crap team right now" to "aw jeez, it's chronic." They've learned one more way to lose/one more level of losing. They've more or less become losers -- they're on a team so bad it loses on purpose with the idea that it'll win later, when it doesn't have to rely on clowns like you to do it, and lucky you, you're along for the ride (for any returning vets).

And then they lose some more. And by the way, you can't escape for a reason... maybe you really don't have many options out there on the market, or maybe, you're trapped in a permasuck zone because of your contract. Time to buy some recreational substances, pay your off season green fees, and avoid contact so you have a better shot at a productive future.

You pull the "tank for _____" trick, and you'd better be ready to pull the team back from a good hearty nut punch because that's what you're bringing. Eat your wheaties and stock up on all-heart & dying-jock movies with motivational lessons or something, coach, yer gonna need it.

The only way I can say it is not that "winning now adds to next year's culture," it's more like you have a contract with your guys... we're in this together, figuring out how to win, and the 1 thing we won't do is internalize the lesson "you're losers."

Tanking for ____ is basically erasing that deal. I don't know how it plays with professionals and I might just be thinking very emotionally/"motivationally," but it is still a game. After learning the lesson of "Don't try, we win when we lose" how far is it to, "Don't try, we're probably not there yet and I could get hurt" or whatever?

You might be smarter about football than me. I'd hazard to say I know just a little (& a little is a famously dangerous quantity) about "culture" in organizations. Not even enough to claim to be any kind of expert. But to me, tanking just. feels. wrong.

Could I get the Cliff notes for this post? My paper is due tomorrow.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Could I get the Cliff notes for this post? My paper is due tomorrow.

Well yeah actually the cliff notes are a Dostoyevski novel, about 1/2 the length

 

[Clonamery]

I disagree and am going to tank the argument because I could get a better one by saving my logical capital for the next thread.

Encyclopedia PatsFanInVa.

 

[MainePatsFan26]

Hiring by skin color is racist.

The best person for the job. Period.

If a person is a great athlete then thats what he or she is. They are not qualified to be the CEO of General Motors. Mike Jordan is a great basketball player. Larry Bird is a great basketball player. I would not want advice from either of them on topics other than basketball.

So you're suggesting that nepotism in coaching has nothing to do with why the hiring demographics are the way they are? It is very difficult for a brilliant black student of the game to join the coaching ranks when the league has an established pecking order.

I'm happy to see Bill hiring Mayo. Players can become great coaches with mentorship. I agree that Jordan and Bird don't show any skills related to being a CEO of General Motors. I would trust Jordan as much as Bird to be the coach of a team, however, and that's what I'm pointing out.

I never said to hire anyone because of skin color. I just want teams to select, as you say, the best person for the job.

As far as I can tell, we're in complete agreement.

 

[Kontradiction]

Could I get the Cliff notes for this post? My paper is due tomorrow.

Yeah, I feel like I need an appendix so I can reference the page and line number where I can find my answers. PFiVA, what’s the matter with you? You know I’m not reading all that.

 

[Kontradiction]

Culture matters.

Literally nobody has argued otherwise. You’re arguing with yourself here.

Anyone who has played sports understands this. Flores walks into Miami and creates his culture good or bad. Recognizing the team is undermanned and scrapping and clawing for every win sets a tone. Telling the team we are going to play the qb that stinks and trying to lose sets a time as well.
At least half of these players will be back next year. Going through a season of giving up will certainly carry over and being a coach that is demanding of the best from his players does too.

He created a culture already. He shipped out the bad apples. Culture needs to be established constantly. Anyone who has any sort of responsibility in their day to days understands this. For the average office person, it’s OTJT, conferences, orientation, etc. For football players, it’s their first days back after the offseason. I’m going to let you in on a little secret - football isn’t life for these guys. It is, clearly, for you, but it isn’t for them. They take roughly half the year away from the game. Furthermore, the team will have around 14 rookies (not counting the guys they sign as UDFAs and including 3 first round picks unless they trade out), FA signings, and will lose some of the guys that didn’t impress on tape. It will be a whole... new... football... team. Hence the “every season is different” ideology being tossed out.

The new guys won’t give a **** that they won 2-3 games last year. The guys that were on the 2019 squad and were held over will care, but you’re massively overblowing how much. In the end, the culture needs to be re-established every single offseason. There are very good reasons for that.

Belichick has the ideal opportunity to tank in 2000 and did not. Because he was building a culture. Belichick witnessed an obvious tank job in Indy and his comments left no doubt that this would never happen in New England.

Literally nobody has argued otherwise. You’re arguing with yourself here.

People misapplying his comments about a team changing from year to year (because half the team changes) doesn’t say the culture changes. The message and the culture gave no changed since day 1.

The comments aren’t misapplied at all. You just don’t like how they fit when applied to a rival team because you’ve never learned to think critically and take emotion out of your analysis. This makes many of your posts historically ridiculous and it’s why your name, again, has become a verb on here. You should ask yourself why you hate the idea of a division rival tanking so much if it’s such a dumb thing to do. One would think you’d be all for it. Hmm... I wonder why that is?

 

[captain stone]

There is nothing wrong with, at the beginning of a new regime, ridding your team of players you have determined are not part of your long-term or even near-term future, substituting them with rookies & with trusted veterans familiar with your way of doing things, telling them to give it all they have, game-planning to the best of your ability...and still lose. You have then begun to establish your culture while at the same time improved your draft position.

By the following season, you should now be ready to attempt to go at least 4-4 at home while winning at least 2 road games...maximizing draft position should not become as high a priority, especially as long as you feel comfortable at QB.

By season 3, competing for at least a WC spot should be the goal, no excuses.

 

[Ring 6]

Literally nobody has argued otherwise. You’re arguing with yourself here.



He created a culture already. He shipped out the bad apples. Culture needs to be established constantly. Anyone who has any sort of responsibility in their day to days understands this. For the average office person, it’s OTJT, conferences, orientation, etc. For football players, it’s their first days back after the offseason. I’m going to let you in on a little secret - football isn’t life for these guys. It is, clearly, for you, but it isn’t for them. They take roughly half the year away from the game. Furthermore, the team will have around 14 rookies (not counting the guys they sign as UDFAs and including 3 first round picks unless they trade out), FA signings, and will lose some of the guys that didn’t impress on tape. It will be a whole... new... football... team. Hence the “every season is different” ideology being tossed out.

The new guys won’t give a **** that they won 2-3 games last year. The guys that were on the 2019 squad and were held over will care, but you’re massively overblowing how much. In the end, the culture needs to be re-established every single offseason. There are very good reasons for that.



Literally nobody has argued otherwise. You’re arguing with yourself here.



The comments aren’t misapplied at all. You just don’t like how they fit when applied to a rival team because you’ve never learned to think critically and take emotion out of your analysis. This makes many of your posts historically ridiculous and it’s why your name, again, has become a verb on here. You should ask yourself why you hate the idea of a division rival tanking so much if it’s such a dumb thing to do. One would think you’d be all for it. Hmm... I wonder why that is?

We disagree.

 

[Clonamery]

We disagree.

Who's "we?" You and AndyJohnson?

 

[Ring 6]

Who's "we?" You and AndyJohnson?

Me and the poster I disagree with.

 

[jimnance]

Who's "we?" You and AndyJohnson?

So arguing with himself?

 

[Kontradiction]

Who's "we?" You and AndyJohnson?

 

[TB_Helmet]

Who's "we?" You and AndyJohnson?

Funny how Andy Johnson 100 is currently in the twitter feed on the right of the page!

 

[IcyPatriot]

So arguing with himself?

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Is this one of those the ceiling is the roof type moments?

 

[captain stone]

What was the question again?

 

[MainePatsFan26]

Could I get the Cliff notes for this post? My paper is due tomorrow.

Yeah, I feel like I need an appendix so I can reference the page and line number where I can find my answers. PFiVA, what’s the matter with you? You know I’m not reading all that.

I thought about law school back in the day. Tomes like that post, while well thought out, made me hesitant.

Isn't there a meme of a cat that can basically explain a position on tanking?

 

[shmessy]

Thought of this thread yesterday as I watched Tua’s season ended by injury.

.