“It’ll take us years to contend”

[Ring 6]

Continuity is a built in advantage for teams with established coaching staffs and good organizations. It was a big advantage for us for close to 2 decades until it finally ran its course. It's been that way for KC and the Eagles the last 10 years and hopefully will be that way again for us in the coming decade. Teams that have to change their HC's every 3-5 years take a step back every time they make a change that they have to overcome.

The culture and message Mike Vrabel has brought to the Pats has been well received, but the true test will come 3-4 years from now to see if that same message doesn't go stale. It took almost 20 years for Bill's voice to be tuned out and that is a remarkable result. But what Mike has going on now is remarkable in that there seems to be a universal by in so fast, though a 10 game win streak will get the staff a LOT of credibility. It will be interesting to see if they will keep that same level of by in when they have a period of sustained adversity. That's the true test of a team's by in.

Winning creates culture more than culture creates winning.
Teams that lack talent also have players with great attitudes and a coach who understands how to lead and brings in a positive culture (almost always) but losing dries that up quickly.

Great point about continuity. Good teams who change coaches seem to go backward also, with a few exceptions but those exceptions are often an internal promotion.

 

[Ring 6]

Is anyone ever "where they need to be" to be a dynasty? Even in the middle of a run, we hear ad nauseum about a team's shortcomings. Look at the 2014-2018 Pats dynasty as a prime example.

What you strive for is to be a serious contender for an extended period. To be at the big dance with the best odds possible. Right now that's exactly where the team is positioned and headed towards. So I'd argue they're exactly where they need to be.

I think 11-2 is exactly where we need to be.

 

[Thelonious]

That's not good enough. Clearly some posters want to stand over you and wave their willy at you. That's what this thread's for AFAICT.

Perhaps these paragons have already done so, but the object was of such a magnitude that I did not notice the insult.

 

[LightSkinSmurf]

Even if Maye became an above average starter, we’re probably still in playoff contention. There were many that insisted the playoffs weren’t even on the table.

I think there is a big gap between above average and MVP. I don't think anyone thought maye would be THIS good THIS fast if they are being honest. Maye being an MVP QB changes literally everything.

 

[TheRainMaker]

The good thing about this season is that players will now want to come to NE who has a **** ton of cap space. Look for significant trades and FA signings to happen.

 

[dliverey44]

EXCELLENT POINT: while we praise them (Vrabes etc) for all the guys they found and brought in; we should remember they WANTED SOME DIFFERENT GUYS…. We were just lucky that those other offers ( for guys who got injured, have down seasons or whatever. ) were turned down.
So next year, if NE is in fact a prime destination; we better hope they tighten up that FA analysis so they don’t rely on luck.

This is what is so impressive to me is that they had plans B, C, and D. In FA is seems very unlikely to 100% of the time get the guys you want, so the fact they were able to pivot was quite impressive to me.

 

[Real fan 02]

I’m gobsmacked at having a draft that resulted in five rookies earning starting positions.

After all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about our mediocre past draft results that is such a welcome change!

Patriots’ rookie class, revisited heading into the bye week

From Will Campbell and TreVeyon Henderson to the UDFAs, a look at how the Patriots’ rookies have performed so far.

www.patspulpit.com

 

[Real fan 02]

I don’t think the depth is as bad as common belief would have it.

We just saw an example in the last game, with the entire left side of the OL being backups.

I think there are certainly opportunities for improvement, but I don’t think the situation is as dire as some would make it seem.

It’s pretty clear at this point in the season that we are serious contenders this year. There’s no real reason for that to change just because the calendar rolls over. It could change because other teams make moves in the future but we’ll be moving too.

So there’s likely only reason to say the new dynasty hasn’t been established is because we need to demonstrate sustained success. It’s been formed, just as of now has not yet endured.

Agreed. I'd also say regarding this season if Lowe can continue to be solid and play well.. considering Campbell's injury was a significant MCL tear.. do we bring Campbell back this season or let him make a full recovery wich will likely be beyond the season/postseason?

But I'm definitely excited about next season. I'd expect to see Chaisson resign and some serious edge rushers signed in FA/Trade.

 

[Bill Lee]

The good thing about this season is that players will now want to come to NE who has a **** ton of cap space. Look for significant trades and FA signings to happen.

We all know where this will go: someone (probably from the Cult of Verticality) will ***** to the high heavens if their binky FA isn't signed. There will be no rationalization whatsoever. For bonus points, they will accuse the owner of being cheap the year after he brought in an entirely new coaching staff at the same time as still paying Mayo, and after also spending more than anyone else ($364M) to bring in 19 free agents, including the most expensive defensive FA.

2025 NFL Free Agent Spending by Team

Listing NFL team free agent spending.

www.spotrac.com

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/_/year/2025/status/signed/team/ne

 

[n1997y]

Winning creates culture more than culture creates winning.

I’m going to have to disagree.

I need look no farther than the 2025 New England Patriots for a team that was not winning before their present culture was created. The culture was created before their season started, in training camp, by things like their head coach diving into a scrum and emerging with a bloody face. That culture carried through a discouraging start to the season, losing 2 of the first 3 games before hitting their stride with an epic winning streak. Those wins did not create the team culture, if anything some were created by the team culture.

Teams that lack talent also have players with great attitudes and a coach who understands how to lead and brings in a positive culture (almost always) but losing dries that up quickly.

I think what you just said is true, but there’s nothing about winning in what you said. What you said is that losing destroys culture. I’ll agree with you on that. How much losing it takes depends on the strength of the culture. Thankfully for the 2025 Patriots their culture coming out of training camp was strong enough to endure a 1-2 start to the season and survive until they turned things around.

Great point about continuity. Good teams who change coaches seem to go backward also, with a few exceptions but those exceptions are often an internal promotion.

Agreed, and a great point. Culture reflects the coach. It starts with the head coach, his personality and philosophy, manifested in his choice of assistants and players. We’re lucky, we got a good one this time. But whenever a head coach leaves, good or bad, his successor brings in his own system and his own people and that inevitably changes the culture.

As you said, there are a few exceptions where the ingrained culture of the organization shapes the new coach more than the new coach changes the organization. I’d say that’s because there is a power greater than the head coach involved: the owner. Organizations with an ownership more actively involved, like the Krafts, have more resilience in their team culture. Another example might be the Cowboys. Who sets their team culture? OTOH I think of teams where I’m not even sure I could name the ownership and they are mostly teams with insipid cultures and equally insipid winning traditions. I know that’s a broad brush but none of them seem to provide any valuable evidence for arguing whether the chicken or the egg, or culture or winning, was first.

Great topic for discussion. Truth is probably that it’s some of both.

 

[Wozzy]

I’m going to have to disagree.

I need look no farther than the 2025 New England Patriots for a team that was not winning before their present culture was created. The culture was created before their season started, in training camp, by things like their head coach diving into a scrum and emerging with a bloody face. That culture carried through a discouraging start to the season, losing 2 of the first 3 games before hitting their stride with an epic winning streak. Those wins did not create the team culture, if anything some were created by the team culture.

I think what you just said is true, but there’s nothing about winning in what you said. What you said is that losing destroys culture. I’ll agree with you on that. How much losing it takes depends on the strength of the culture. Thankfully for the 2025 Patriots their culture coming out of training camp was strong enough to endure a 1-2 start to the season and survive until they turned things around.

Agreed, and a great point. Culture reflects the coach. It starts with the head coach, his personality and philosophy, manifested in his choice of assistants and players. We’re lucky, we got a good one this time. But whenever a head coach leaves, good or bad, his successor brings in his own system and his own people and that inevitably changes the culture.

As you said, there are a few exceptions where the ingrained culture of the organization shapes the new coach more than the new coach changes the organization. I’d say that’s because there is a power greater than the head coach involved: the owner. Organizations with an ownership more actively involved, like the Krafts, have more resilience in their team culture. Another example might be the Cowboys. Who sets their team culture? OTOH I think of teams where I’m not even sure I could name the ownership and they are mostly teams with insipid cultures and equally insipid winning traditions. I know that’s a broad brush but none of them seem to provide any valuable evidence for arguing whether the chicken or the egg, or culture or winning, was first.

Great topic for discussion. Truth is probably that it’s some of both.

Agreed… Vrabel brought or created the culture.

 

[n1997y]

Agreed. I'd also say regarding this season if Lowe can continue to be solid and play well.. considering Campbell's injury was a significant MCL tear.. do we bring Campbell back this season or let him make a full recovery wich will likely be beyond the season/postseason?

But I'm definitely excited about next season. I'd expect to see Chaisson resign and some serious edge rushers signed in FA/Trade.

Assuming we get the bye, which seems likely enough, evaluate Campbell the week of the wild card games to decide if he’ll be ready to go for the divisional round, and practice accordingly. Repeat for each of the remaining games. If he’s 100% or very close play him, if he’s not he won’t be an upgrade so keep resting his short arms. lol.

 

[PatsFan2]

The good thing about this season is that players will now want to come to NE who has a **** ton of cap space. Look for significant trades and FA signings to happen.

 

[Ring 6]

I’m going to have to disagree.

I need look no farther than the 2025 New England Patriots for a team that was not winning before their present culture was created. The culture was created before their season started, in training camp, by things like their head coach diving into a scrum and emerging with a bloody face. That culture carried through a discouraging start to the season, losing 2 of the first 3 games before hitting their stride with an epic winning streak. Those wins did not create the team culture, if anything some were created by the team culture.

I think what you just said is true, but there’s nothing about winning in what you said. What you said is that losing destroys culture. I’ll agree with you on that. How much losing it takes depends on the strength of the culture. Thankfully for the 2025 Patriots their culture coming out of training camp was strong enough to endure a 1-2 start to the season and survive until they turned things around.

Agreed, and a great point. Culture reflects the coach. It starts with the head coach, his personality and philosophy, manifested in his choice of assistants and players. We’re lucky, we got a good one this time. But whenever a head coach leaves, good or bad, his successor brings in his own system and his own people and that inevitably changes the culture.

As you said, there are a few exceptions where the ingrained culture of the organization shapes the new coach more than the new coach changes the organization. I’d say that’s because there is a power greater than the head coach involved: the owner. Organizations with an ownership more actively involved, like the Krafts, have more resilience in their team culture. Another example might be the Cowboys. Who sets their team culture? OTOH I think of teams where I’m not even sure I could name the ownership and they are mostly teams with insipid cultures and equally insipid winning traditions. I know that’s a broad brush but none of them seem to provide any valuable evidence for arguing whether the chicken or the egg, or culture or winning, was first.

Great topic for discussion. Truth is probably that it’s some of both.

The same culture that wins in one situation loses in another.

It’s really kind of silly to me to think that Mike Vrabels attitude and demeanor causes the patriots to be 11-2 but Aaron Glenn’s causes the Jets to be 3-9 or Pete Carroll’s approach and demeanor is the trash n he win at USC and Seattle but is the reason the Raiders can’t win.
Every new coach brings a culture that players buy into. It’s one of the requirements to get hired. But if you don’t bring good coaching and have good players, suddenly you brought the wrong culture.

Players were raving about Mayo. Then they learned he sucked at his job and the GM did a crappy job building the roster and suddenly the culture needed changing.
You hear positive stories about winning teams and negative stories about losing teams. They all started with someone introducing a positive culture.

You are selling the players short by saying the culture is what’s winning, like it’s smoke and mirrors. If we were 3-9 no one would be talking about the great culture Vrabel brought here.

 

[n1997y]

You are selling the players short by saying the culture is what’s winning, like it’s smoke and mirrors. If we were 3-9 no one would be talking about the great culture Vrabel brought here.

That’s not what I’m saying.

The players are the essential ingredients. A winning culture has them working together, so the whole is more than just the sum of the parts.

OTOH a culture that sets them against each other, playing selfishly, assigning blame and pointing fingers, will erode performance and undermine winning. That’s why I’d never want to see Rodgers on the roster of a team that I like.

 

[Ring 6]

That’s not what I’m saying.

The players are the essential ingredients. A winning culture has them working together, so the whole is more than just the sum of the parts.

OTOH a culture that sets them against each other, playing selfishly, assigning blame and pointing fingers, will erode performance and undermine winning. That’s why I’d never want to see Rodgers on the roster of a team that I like.

It’s a chicken or egg thing.

Do you really thing there is a coach who brings in a culture that sets them against each other, encourages them to play selfishly, agree with finger pointing a blame throwing?
Every “culture” starts out positive and failure causes it to turn negative.
Vrabel isn’t a Svengali. He brought in good coaches and players. THAT made his message successful. The message didn’t make the players and coaches successful.
And ultimately they feed off each other.

The exact same message is the failure to create a culture of your players suck.

 

[n1997y]

It’s a chicken or egg thing.

Do you really thing there is a coach who brings in a culture that sets them against each other, encourages them to play selfishly, agree with finger pointing a blame throwing?
Every “culture” starts out positive and failure causes it to turn negative.
Vrabel isn’t a Svengali. He brought in good coaches and players. THAT made his message successful. The message didn’t make the players and coaches successful.
And ultimately they feed off each other.

The exact same message is the failure to create a culture of your players suck.

I think there are coaches who do not bring in a strong culture, or who do not act effectively to protect a positive culture.

I have to look no farther than last year to find what looks like an example of that.

 

[Ring 6]

I think there are coaches who do not bring in a strong culture, or who do not act effectively to protect a positive culture.

I have to look no farther than last year to find what looks like an example of that.

They loved Mayo and all the players bought in at first. Once they started losing it all fell apart.

 

[captain stone]

Yes!

I think a good example was his choice to have Tavai lead the locker room breakdown after the MNF game. From the few words Tavai spoke before breaking them down it was clear what the support during his absence for personal business meant to him. I’m sure it meant as much to his teammates, just as I’m sure that’s why Vrabel had him lead that particular locker room ritual.

It’s the little things. That are really big.

Did he make sure everyone was in their proper place before he began the break-down?

 

[captain stone]

If we had this easy of a schedule last year, might we still have Jerod as HC? That's a scary thought to ponder.

We /did/ have this easy of a schedule last year.

Yep, and MayoNays still managed to **** it up.

The schedule frankly has been fairly kind to us since 2021 with its Fraud 7-game winning streak.