To Win is to Fail?

[Kontradiction]

What I see in this thread is that you have a bunch of posters who still have no idea what culture is and how it is the absolute key to building sustainable success. It is not cap space, draft picks or anything else that breeds success. It is culture.

The same way that nobody should put too much thought into results when evaluating performance but only the process and its execution. The results will come from the quality of execution.

You can't have a culture of excellence if you are not willing to approach each decision, every single practice snap and game with a commitment to greatness and winning attitude. And this goes for every member of the organisation from the secretaries to the PA announcers (who Bill Walsh famously fired because he was not up to his standard of performance).

It should not matter at all if Flores goes 0-16 or 5-11 as long as the quality of his work shines through and his decision making is sound. Eventually the results will come as a consequence of execution. Just look at the Bills and what they did with their highest first round pick being a #7 (Josh Allen).

I have a healthy amount of respect for what it takes to build a culture. So do NFL teams. It’s a huge part of OTAs, MC, and TC every single year. A massive function of any HR department is onboarding and instilling the culture of the organization. This win was good for Flores, not so good for the Dolphins as a whole. It gets them nowhere this season, will not make a difference to the 2020 team in the grand scheme, and only removes names from their draft board. As a Pats fan, anyone should absolutely be for them continuing to win this season.

 

[Clonamery]

This thread now has potential.

 

[primetime]

A massive function of any HR department is onboarding and instilling the culture of the organization.

*protecting the bosses

 

[The Brandon Five]

Tua Win is Tua Fail

 

[TB_Helmet]

I have to add that they can't be in a very unique position. It's either one-of-a-kind or it's not. When I see "very unique," it's a tip that it's not unique at all. It really means "very rare position" or "approaching a unique position."

Perhaps taking your quote out of context, but thank you -- as a grammar nerd (who holds his fire on here on a daily basis), the phrase "very unique" bothers me. "Unique" is a binary term. Something is either unique or it is not.

One thing cannot be "more unique" than another so there shouldn't be a difference between "Unique" and "Very Unique". It's like saying "A little bit pregnant". All or nothing toots.

 

[MainePatsFan26]

I’m not sure why you inserted race into this as an impediment to the longevity of being a HC in the NFL? Got any data?

This article is from earlier this year, but speaks to the problem: Column: Where have all the NFL's black coaches gone?. In a league with two-thirds black players, the low representation among coaches is a real problem.

I didn't have to insert race into the conversation. However, there is an uncomfortable truth with how people talk about players and coaches: black players get described more often as great athletes whereas we hear about the "smarts" and "focus" of white players more often. With coaches, those like Tomlin get talked up as great with the players but rather dumb with football iq. My point is that Flores may be feeling the need to show people that he can coach a smart AND passionate game.

Race is hardly central to the conversation. But it is a reality when it comes to how fans and ownership approach coaching hires, firings, and contract renewals.

 

[TB_Helmet]

You defeated your own argument here.



Not sure if serious here. The examples you’ve given actually prove that culture doesn’t carry over from one year to the next and constantly has to be reinstalled year after year after year. I’ll turn the question to you, then. If you don’t think that’s the case, then how are you explaining the difference in New England’s culture from 2008 to 2009 to 2010?



Except it doesn’t because every year is different. This disproves the counter argument that winning now services the culture of the 2020 team. That can’t possibly be the case if you buy what BB is saying. So what utility is there in winning now? The time to do that was at the start of the year. Instead, they went full tank, the ticket sales followed suit, and in came Fitz.

I actually think the question about 'does culture carry over across seasons' is really interesting despite this thread going off the rails.

I think it's more complicated then pointing at consecutive years and saying that the culture changed, so therefore it doesn't carry over. I definitely agree that things were very different in 2009 (documented in "A football life' among other places) but culture can be disrupted by a few players deciding they don't want to partake. That's why the Pats are so quick to jettison talent when it threatens the team mindset (Jamie Collins, maybe Moss in '10, etc.)

But certainly if there is a good culture in 2007, then members of the organization from that year that are still there in 2010 will make it much easier to bring that back. They remember the daily habits that contributed to that success. As someone else said, it's not just the players but also the trainers, grounds crew, etc. So in that sense the culture carries over even though it took a year off.

From the Dolphins standpoint, if they're tanking on the field through play selection etc., then they're being taught to lose. Flores is learning to lose in this critical year for his development as a coach, any players that are good enough to still be on the team in, say, 2021 are learning to lose, etc. There is definitely a carry-over effect. The extent to which that will hurt them years later is up for debate, maybe it's negligible, but it's there.

As I said before, I would never want the Patriots to intentionally lose on the field to get a better draft pick. I'd be fine with them trading talent for picks if it made sense after Brady retires, but other than that, I want them to try to win every game even if they suffer in draft position and miss the playoffs.

 

[Kontradiction]

I actually think the question about 'does culture carry over across seasons' is really interesting despite this thread going off the rails.

I think it's more complicated then pointing at consecutive years and saying that the culture changed, so therefore it doesn't carry over. I definitely agree that things were very different in 2009 (documented in "A football life' among other places) but culture can be disrupted by a few players deciding they don't want to partake. That's why the Pats are so quick to jettison talent when it threatens the team mindset (Jamie Collins, maybe Moss in '10, etc.)

But certainly if there is a good culture in 2007, then members of the organization from that year that are still there in 2010 will make it much easier to bring that back. They remember the daily habits that contributed to that success. As someone else said, it's not just the players but also the trainers, grounds crew, etc. So in that sense the culture carries over even though it took a year off.

From the Dolphins standpoint, if they're tanking on the field through play selection etc., then they're being taught to lose. Flores is learning to lose in this critical year for his development as a coach, any players that are good enough to still be on the team in, say, 2021 are learning to lose, etc. There is definitely a carry-over effect. The extent to which that will hurt them years later is up for debate, maybe it's negligible, but it's there.

As I said before, I would never want the Patriots to intentionally lose on the field to get a better draft pick. I'd be fine with them trading talent for picks if it made sense after Brady retires, but other than that, I want them to try to win every game even if they suffer in draft position and miss the playoffs.

The point is that culture needs to be established over and over again. Every season. The Patriots are the best in the business at doing this and part of the premise of “we’re on to (insert year here)” is based on establishing that culture. It’s a new year, new squad, new faces, new challenges. Sure, there will be some carryover from the established vets. I don’t disagree with that. What I’m saying is that using that as a counter argument to the stance of winning carrying more cons than pros for the Dolphins at this point isn’t really valid. Flores already established his culture by trimming the fat and he did himself some good on a professional level by getting moving from 0 to 1 wins. Winning more at this point doesn’t carry a whole lot of pros. They aren’t making the playoffs. The season is over. All they’re doing is removing names that could have otherwise been available on their board come April. But they needed to do something since their ticket sales were tanking as well.

 

[Clonamery]

This article is from earlier this year, but speaks to the problem: Column: Where have all the NFL's black coaches gone?. In a league with two-thirds black players, the low representation among coaches is a real problem.

I didn't have to insert race into the conversation. However, there is an uncomfortable truth with how people talk about players and coaches: black players get described more often as great athletes whereas we hear about the "smarts" and "focus" of white players more often. With coaches, those like Tomlin get talked up as great with the players but rather dumb with football iq. My point is that Flores may be feeling the need to show people that he can coach a smart AND passionate game.

Race is hardly central to the conversation. But it is a reality when it comes to how fans and ownership approach coaching hires, firings, and contract renewals.

What’s the data on black head coaches and their longevity? Not whether they are hired in the first place. I get that. What are the stats-records-winning pct’s? Does being black (once hired) give you more time because of the lack (numbers) of black HCs league wide or less time and can it even be quantified if you’re asking about one specific HCs mindset (not Mike Tomlin’s headset in Gillette Stadium)?

 

[MainePatsFan26]

What’s the data on black head coaches and their longevity? Not whether they are hired in the first place. I get that. What are the stats-records-winning pct’s? Does being black (once hired) give you more time because of the lack (numbers) of black HCs league wide or less time and can it even be quantified if you’re asking about one specific HCs mindset (not Mike Tomlin’s headset in Gillette Stadium)?

I'll try to find some data on this. A quick search only yielded NBA black coaches having shorter stints on average. In the end, you are probably on to something with potentially having more time as a black coach because of the low numbers and media scrutiny. The length of coaching tenures by Tomlin, Dungy, and Lewis must affect the stats to a significant degree.

 

[TB_Helmet]

The point is that culture needs to be established over and over again. Every season. The Patriots are the best in the business at doing this and part of the premise of “we’re on to (insert year here)” is based on establishing that culture. It’s a new year, new squad, new faces, new challenges. Sure, there will be some carryover from the established vets. I don’t disagree with that. What I’m saying is that using that as a counter argument to the stance of winning carrying more cons than pros for the Dolphins at this point isn’t really valid. Flores already established his culture by trimming the fat and he did himself some good on a professional level by getting moving from 0 to 1 wins. Winning more at this point doesn’t carry a whole lot of pros. They aren’t making the playoffs. The season is over. All they’re doing is removing names that could have otherwise been available on their board come April. But they needed to do something since their ticket sales were tanking as well.

Yeah, agreed it needs to be 'established' (or perhaps you could say "re-integrated" or "re-emphasized") each year, and even each month and each week.

From the Dolphins standpoint though, do you really see no value in winning games in that it gives coaches and players experience in winning? I think every game that Flores wins is a learning experience for him. He sees what works from a coaching standpoint and what doesn't. If he makes decisions to intentionally lose, all he learns is how to lose a game (and there are many more ways to lose than there are to win, so that's not really useful). Same thing for the rest of the coaches and other players.

The framework of the discussion is important though; are you suggesting that the Dolphins intentionally throw games (by knowingly bad play calling or instructing players not to do what it takes to win) or are you just saying that the front office should be putting players on IR or making other transactions to put a worse product out on the field. There's a HUGE difference between those two things.

 

[TB_Helmet]

I'll try to find some data on this. A quick search only yielded NBA black coaches having shorter stints on average. In the end, you are probably on to something with potentially having more time as a black coach because of the low numbers and media scrutiny. The length of coaching tenures by Tomlin, Dungy, and Lewis must affect the stats to a significant degree.

If you use the median length of employment that should remove the effects of those outliers. It's also a tough comparison given that there are other factors to consider, maybe some front offices, for some reason, are more likely to hire black coaches, but they are also more likely to fire any coach regardless of race at a faster rate. I'd be interested to see any data you dig up.

 

[Clonamery]

I'll try to find some data on this. A quick search only yielded NBA black coaches having shorter stints on average. In the end, you are probably on to something with potentially having more time as a black coach because of the low numbers and media scrutiny. The length of coaching tenures by Tomlin, Dungy, and Lewis must affect the stats to a significant degree.

I was thinking of Todd Bowles and Lovie Smith as well. I don’t think it will be easy to make an assessment on so few numbers with any degree of certainty.

 

[Triumph]

This article is from earlier this year, but speaks to the problem: Column: Where have all the NFL's black coaches gone?. In a league with two-thirds black players, the low representation among coaches is a real problem.

I didn't have to insert race into the conversation. However, there is an uncomfortable truth with how people talk about players and coaches: black players get described more often as great athletes whereas we hear about the "smarts" and "focus" of white players more often. With coaches, those like Tomlin get talked up as great with the players but rather dumb with football iq. My point is that Flores may be feeling the need to show people that he can coach a smart AND passionate game.

Race is hardly central to the conversation. But it is a reality when it comes to how fans and ownership approach coaching hires, firings, and contract renewals.

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.

 

[Kontradiction]

Yeah, agreed it needs to be 'established' (or perhaps you could say "re-integrated" or "re-emphasized") each year, and even each month and each week.

From the Dolphins standpoint though, do you really see no value in winning games in that it gives coaches and players experience in winning? I think every game that Flores wins is a learning experience for him. He sees what works from a coaching standpoint and what doesn't. If he makes decisions to intentionally lose, all he learns is how to lose a game (and there are many more ways to lose than there are to win, so that's not really useful). Same thing for the rest of the coaches and other players.

The framework of the discussion is important though; are you suggesting that the Dolphins intentionally throw games (by knowingly bad play calling or instructing players not to do what it takes to win) or are you just saying that the front office should be putting players on IR or making other transactions to put a worse product out on the field. There's a HUGE difference between those two things.

The latter. And specifically stick with Rosen (under the guise of “developing him” even though he’s trash) instead of Fitz.

 

[Deus Irae]

This article is from earlier this year, but speaks to the problem: Column: Where have all the NFL's black coaches gone?. In a league with two-thirds black players, the low representation among coaches is a real problem.

I didn't have to insert race into the conversation. However, there is an uncomfortable truth with how people talk about players and coaches: black players get described more often as great athletes whereas we hear about the "smarts" and "focus" of white players more often. With coaches, those like Tomlin get talked up as great with the players but rather dumb with football iq. My point is that Flores may be feeling the need to show people that he can coach a smart AND passionate game.

Race is hardly central to the conversation. But it is a reality when it comes to how fans and ownership approach coaching hires, firings, and contract renewals.

Almost nothing in the world is less important than diversity. Almost nothing in the world is cried about more than diversity.

The best is the best, regardless of its diversity, or lack thereof. The moment you start caring about descriptions rather than results or potential, you've lost the plot.

And, in response to your example of Tomlin, I'll simply counter with ...... Reid.

 

[TB_Helmet]

The latter. And specifically stick with Rosen (under the guise of “developing him” even though he’s trash) instead of Fitz.

Agree with that. Going back to my point you could even say it helps Flores's coaching development to start Rosen, given that he's going to have to develop another rookie QB in the near future. This gives Flores some 'reps' (which he wouldn't necessarily get by trying to teach a veteran like Fitzpatrick).

Also if Rosen showed any promise whatsoever they could probably trade him for a decent pick.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

You defeated your own argument here.

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.

Not sure if serious here. The examples you’ve given actually prove that culture doesn’t carry over from one year to the next and constantly has to be reinstalled year after year after year.

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.

I’ll turn the question to you, then. If you don’t think that’s the case, then how are you explaining the difference in New England’s culture from 2008 to 2009 to 2010?

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

Except it doesn’t because every year is different. This disproves the counter argument that winning now services the culture of the 2020 team.

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.

That can’t possibly be the case if you buy what BB is saying.

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.

So what utility is there in winning now? The time to do that was at the start of the year. Instead, they went full tank, the ticket sales followed suit, and in came Fitz.

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.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

This thread now has potential.

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.

 

[Ring 6]

Almost nothing in the world is less important than diversity. Almost nothing in the world is cried about more than diversity.

The best is the best, regardless of its diversity, or lack thereof. The moment you start caring about descriptions rather than results or potential, you've lost the plot.

And, in response to your example of Tomlin, I'll simply counter with ...... Reid.

Agreed, with one exception. Pushing diversity is a good thing when there is a roadblock preventing the best person from getting the job. There was a time not that long ago that being a minority in and of itself precluded you from being considered the best.