Michael Lombardi - Fascinating Interview Today

[vorpma]

 

 

 

Sure, hard work matters.

 

But you can hustle, work and outprepare and if you're headed the wrong way, if you're using a bad method, it just won't matter. I agree that hard work may have been an issue with Ryan, but a bigger issue is that he didn't set expectations for the players about controlling themselves and being responsible, he didn't run a smart program and he didn't face up to the fact that it was going to take time to switch defenses. Oh, and he was with a GM who he had conflicts with, a GM who in Ryan's first two years got him zero first round draft picks who could play for him and only one second-rounder. Nearly any coach is going to have a problem with that handicap, but I don't think Ryan was going to be good no matter what.

 

In any case, culture is for real. Ask Pete Carroll. Carroll sucked in his first two head coaching opportunities. He says when his career turned around is when he felt that he was just running around like a chicken with his head cut off and responding to what was going on around him. So he sat down and wrote a mission statement on how he wanted to run his Seattle program, something he'd never done before. And voila. Makes his assistant coaches write their own missions statements too. Culture matters, bigtime.

 

I love that Bill Walsh story Lombardi tells in this. Lombardi's running around at 1:00 a.m. on draft night and Walsh says "What are you doing, what's the problem?"

 

Lombardi says, "Well, the Falcons did this, the Falcons did that."

 

And Walsh says, "Hey, Michael, look. Let me explain something real quick to you. We're only competing against eight teams in this league. When the Redskins do something, or the Giants do something, you let me know. But don't worry about those other teams we're not competing against. They might win once in a while. But they're rarely gonna win."

 

Exactly. Plenty of teams are working their butts off on hamster wheels to nowhere. Only a few teams matter and we need to become one of those teams.

Great post

 

 

I have to disagree with this. You don't have to define your terms for them to mean something. You're right that it's not easy to define, but failed cultures exist. It's hard to say exactly how to destroy or save a culture, but that doesn't mean cultures don't have a huge impact on success or failure. Teams that get it right can find many ways to do it, but they do do it.

 

In Bill Walsh's book he talks a ton about changing the culture, right from spelling out the clothes the players had to wear on road trips. And there was actually an assistant coach who didn't believe any of this meant squat and who then contacted ownership and complained that Walsh was spending too much time on details that meant nothing.

 

But ownership was on board with Walsh, which is key. They told Walsh what the assistant had done and Walsh simply fired him and moved on with evidence management was behind him.

 

Good things happened.

[White Linen]

OK we'll go with your theory that they're just REALLY REALLY lucky? Yeah right!

 

By the way you can substitute 'work smarter' if the phrase 'work harder' bugs you that much.

 

Trying to lead you to the water - so it's not about you making me feel better. The answer is they have a budding superstar QB.

 

What I'm trying to say is you're incorrect.

Edited July 1, 2017 by Triple Threat

[cba fan]

What the article fails to articulate is the meaning of "failed culture" and "successful culture". This is like making a claim but not backing it up. Everyone knows that these teams are bad, but there is no clear articulation of why they are bad. A "failed culture" is a cop out IMHO.

 

The margin between wins and losses in the NFL is razor thin. Detail oriented coaches like Belliched have figured out the nitty gritty details and work on it. In the end, it is those minute details that changes course. The Falcons were up by 20 points in the 2nd half of a Super Bowl, but the team on the opposite sideline still believed in themselves and chipped away.

 

There are too many things than "failed culture" that determine the success of a franchise.

The minute detail in Bellychcks genius is Tom Brady.

[jr1]

this guy sucked in CLE I don't know why people like him so much

[Hapless Bills Fan]

What the article fails to articulate is the meaning of "failed culture" and "successful culture". This is like making a claim but not backing it up. Everyone knows that these teams are bad, but there is no clear articulation of why they are bad. A "failed culture" is a cop out IMHO.

 

Good points. Another valid point would be that he totally glosses over the Ram's successes in the late 90s/early 2000s. He says "no coach could succeed" with the losing culture, then fails to explain why Vermeil and Martz did succeed - in the NFL, it's just far too glib to dismiss a string of 4-5 successful competitive seasons as an "aberration", or to put it another way - if it's an aberration, then most of the NFL teams that have had success and won superbowls are "aberrations". So it's worth looking at why that aberration occured. Just maybe having Kurt Warner then Marc Bulgar on the team had something to do with it? Since neither were top draftees, and both were on the team for a year before emerging, perhaps recognizing sleeper talent and developing a QB played a role? Maybe other talent, such as Orlando Pace, Marshall Faulk, Isaac Bruce, Kevin Carter, D'Marco Farr, and London Fletcher played a role?

 

To me, the Rams story is a lot like the Bills - they had a period where they had a top notch talent evaluator and people manager as coach. Vermeil took the reins as coach/GM in 1997. Two years later, they won a Superbowl, whereupon Vermeil retired, Charley Armey took over as GM, and the talent pool slowly dried up and went dry.

 

There may be other points, and I'm not saying that Frontiere and Shaw were all that and a bag of chips, but to just slam them and gloss over the success the Rams did have as an "aberration", tags this as a relatively shallow hatchet job.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

funny how there always seems to be an All Pro QB with great coaches & successful cultures.

 

So what about QBs with poor coaches and unsuccessful cultures? How will you ever know if they are All Pro QBs?

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

this guy sucked in CLE I don't know why people like him so much

...didn't Detroit fire him as OC?..............

[WIDE LEFT]

I generally like what Lombardi says about all aspects of the NFL but I agree with some of the criticisms specific to this article. He does not do a good job in defining what constitutes a successful culture.

 

So the Bills had a very successful culture until Kelly retired. Then it's unsuccessful? Lombardi's beloved Patriots did NOT have a successful culture until they stumbled across the lottery ticket that is Tom Brady. Let's see how successful their culture is when Brady is gone. Lombardi needs to point to a successful culture that excels WITHOUT a franchise QB. He does not point to one here.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I generally like what Lombardi says about all aspects of the NFL but I agree with some of the criticisms specific to this article. He does not do a good job in defining what constitutes a successful culture.

 

So the Bills had a very successful culture until Kelly retired. Then it's unsuccessful? Lombardi's beloved Patriots did NOT have a successful culture until they stumbled across the lottery ticket that is Tom Brady. Let's see how successful their culture is when Brady is gone. Lombardi needs to point to a successful culture that excels WITHOUT a franchise QB. He does not point to one here.

 

IMHO the Bills were on track for an "unsuccessful culture" before Kelly retired. I would trace back to 1993 when Bill Polian was fired as GM and replaced with John Butler, and the talent pool began to dry up.

But they had enough talent remaining to win and were able to replace Levy with a good coach in Phillips. It wasn't until after 1999 when the Bills blew up the rest of the SB team that things really went downhill.

 

Is "culture" important, yes. Talent evaluation, talent acquisition, coaching, and hard work are also important and not necessarily the same thing.

 

I think the Pats will still win for a while without Brady, just as the Bills had several successful seasons after Brady retired. Whether they continue to win will depend upon how successful they are overall with talent evaluation and acquisition.

[OJ's Glove]

Lombardi's beloved Patriots did NOT have a successful culture until they stumbled across the lottery ticket that is Tom Brady. Let's see how successful their culture is when Brady is gone. Lombardi needs to point to a successful culture that excels WITHOUT a franchise QB. He does not point to one here.

 

Well, yes and no. Part of the Pats successful culture started in 94 when they got stable ownership. They were the worst team in the league in 92. But they got a great coach in Parcells and a franchise QB, which backs up your point. Even when Carroll replaced Parcells, Pete never had a losing season in NE, but the team was slowly getting worse and Kraft needed to make a tough decision to jettison Pete and hire BB when everyone was telling him what a mistake it was. Of course Brady is a big reason why they're THIS great. Otherworldly great. But Bill being there is a perfect storm because he's excellent at in-game strategy, roster management and knowing who to pay and who to let go. The HC, FO and owner are a part of the culture.

 

Do you know how often GB fans complain that their HOF franchise QB has only won the SB once because the "culture" around him (coaching staff and FO) haven't done enough to make the team around him good enough? Especially the defense? Yeah, you need the QB, but if the team structure is underwhelming it definitely affects how the team performs.

 

The idea that BB "failed" in Cleveland is a bit of a canard. He took over a really bad team and had them in the playoffs in three years. They cratered the next year after Modell announced the move.

The perception exists that he failed because he benched Kosar which angered fans, alienated the Cleveland sports media, and became collateral damage when the city turned against the team when Modell announced he was skipping town.

Edited July 2, 2017 by OJ's Glove

[stuvian]

there's an element of bitterness to this article that makes me believe Lombardi's settling a score with someone

[PromoTheRobot]

Have you ever noticed how no one who leaves the Patriots is good? They are awesome while in New England, and Belichick gets praise heaped on him for finding those gems. Then they get traded or cut and, poof, they aren't so good anymore. Why is that?

[NoSaint]

The minute detail in Bellychcks genius is Tom Brady.

It's also being the guy that goes for it on 4th and 1 on his own side of the field. Sometimes it misses and we all make fun of it for a week, but over time it wins him more games than it loses.

[SoCal Deek]

 

Trying to lead you to the water - so it's not about you making me feel better. The answer is they have a budding superstar QB.

 

What I'm trying to say is you're incorrect.

We probably agree more than you think. My point is that a lot of that 'superstar' talent comes from hard work. There's plenty of 'talented' people in every business who simply font put on the hours on the practice field or office. The NFL has been littered with them over the years. I submit that it's one of the major reasons why the Draft is such a crap shoot. They can measure just about everything but that.

[BarleyNY]

there's an element of bitterness to this article that makes me believe Lombardi's settling a score with someone

That'd be par for the course for him.

[OJ's Glove]

Have you ever noticed how no one who leaves the Patriots is good? They are awesome while in New England, and Belichick gets praise heaped on him for finding those gems. Then they get traded or cut and, poof, they aren't so good anymore. Why is that?

 

Belichick is always on the lookout for a certain type of player, with an idea in mind of exactly how that player will be used. His ideas aren't always the same as other coaching staffs. Of course Brady makes receivers like Hogan look better than they'd look in a place like Buffalo, but it works for other players too. Belichick had certain ideas about how to use a guy like Mike Vrabel, ways that the Steelers either didn't notice or care about.

 

Sometimes he's wrong (Scott Chandler, for example), but he's right more often than most coaches.

 

When BB decides to trade or cut someone, it's because he feels the player is either on the downside, or he thinks the player isn't as integral to his overall success as outside observers do, and he figures it's better to let someone else over pay for that guy. Doesn't fall in love with anybody. See Chandler Jones and Jamie Collins. Jones is good but too expensive, and the Pats just won the SB without him. Collins is talented but is now stuck on the Browns, who aren't going to get as much out of him as better teams would.

[Shaw66]

I didn't read the article but skimmed through the posts. Interesting thread with a lot of quality posts.

 

Most of you are right, but I think everyone is missing the bigger point, which is true across the culture, not just in football. Yes, winning is about culture. It's about details. It's about talent on the field. It's about Xs and Os. It's about consistency. It's about teamwork. It's about family. But the bigger point is this: It's about ALL of that and more. It's complicated.

 

Look under the hood of your car. It isn't like the old days. Your car is efficient, reliable, doesn't break down, doesn't rust, gets better mileage than ever. You can't look at your car today and say it's a good car because of the carburetor, or the distributor, or the frame, or whatever. Your car is a good car because it's complicated. It has systems that do all kinds of things, and most of us have no idea how they work. No single element of the car makes it good; consistent excellence, engineering, planning and manufacturing makes it that way.

 

As much as we like to think we understand pro football, we don't. We don't because it's complicated. These past few months are a perfect example. McDermott has been doing a lot of things that look like the right things. They are a part, a small part, of all of the things that have to be done to create a winning organization. His attention to detail is nice. His upbeat, positive motivational style seems nice. His methodical approach seems nice. Do his assistants know what they're doing? None of us knows. Do the assistants believe in McDermott? Who knows. Will the players buy in? Who knows. Is it the right talent? Are these coaches good at Xs and Os, from season to season, from game to game and from play to play? Who knows?

 

It takes a lot to be excellent, whether you're building cell phones or football teams.

Belichick is always on the lookout for a certain type of player, with an idea in mind of exactly how that player will be used. His ideas aren't always the same as other coaching staffs. Of course Brady makes receivers like Hogan look better than they'd look in a place like Buffalo, but it works for other players too. Belichick had certain ideas about how to use a guy like Mike Vrabel, ways that the Steelers either didn't notice or care about.

 

Sometimes he's wrong (Scott Chandler, for example), but he's right more often than most coaches.

 

When BB decides to trade or cut someone, it's because he feels the player is either on the downside, or he thinks the player isn't as integral to his overall success as outside observers do, and he figures it's better to let someone else over pay for that guy. Doesn't fall in love with anybody. See Chandler Jones and Jamie Collins. Jones is good but too expensive, and the Pats just won the SB without him. Collins is talented but is now stuck on the Browns, who aren't going to get as much out of him as better teams would.

I'm as big a Belichick booster as anyone, but let's not overstate it. Belichick IS very good at knowing what he needs at positions on his team, but he's the same as most coaches in terms of finding the talent. He doesn't miss on a few players; he misses on a lot. They draft lots of guys who never fit in, and the sign free agents who don't fit in.

 

The Pats are successful, so there's a lot of coverage of them, and the coverage often focuses on the new talent they've acquired. But that happens because they were successful the year before and a lot of the guys who were there the year before are gone, so the media focuses on the replacements. So our FOCUS is on those new role players.

 

Every team does the same thing. Every season the Bills have guys who show up and fit into important roles, guys like Gillislee and Brown and Alexander and Incognito.

 

Belichick doesn't have better talent than anyone else. He simply insists on all of his players knowing their jobs and doing their jobs. He doesn't keep guys who don't do that.

[OJ's Glove]

I'm as big a Belichick booster as anyone, but let's not overstate it. Belichick IS very good at knowing what he needs at positions on his team, but he's the same as most coaches in terms of finding the talent. He doesn't miss on a few players; he misses on a lot. They draft lots of guys who never fit in, and the sign free agents who don't fit in.

 

 

Sure, but the next logical question would be: Does he miss less often than other coaches and GM's? I don't know the answer. I suspect that's one reason why he usually likes to stockpile picks (this year being an exception). He know the draft is a crapshoot - he's just trying to increase his odds.

 

Belichick doesn't have better talent than anyone else. He simply insists on all of his players knowing their jobs and doing their jobs. He doesn't keep guys who don't do that.

 

 

Yeah, that's part of it. Having Brady also makes it easier to let a guy go who isn't with the program. Even if his replacement isn't as talented, he might be cheaper and fit the team philosophy better, and they'll continue to win with #12 anyway. The most dysfunctional team they ever had was still 10-6. Gives you a lot of flexibility when you don't have the media and fans demanding you change something immediately or get fired.

 

Although, BB was like that even without Brady. Not falling in love with fan favorites or reputation players, I mean. He eventually (correctly) replaced Kosar with Testaverde, even though many Cleveland fans wanted him dead for that. He did it anyway, reaction be damned.

[Malazan]

I often like to take financial advice from people who win the lottery

[stuvian]

I didn't read the article but skimmed through the posts. Interesting thread with a lot of quality posts.

 

Most of you are right, but I think everyone is missing the bigger point, which is true across the culture, not just in football. Yes, winning is about culture. It's about details. It's about talent on the field. It's about Xs and Os. It's about consistency. It's about teamwork. It's about family. But the bigger point is this: It's about ALL of that and more. It's complicated.

 

Look under the hood of your car. It isn't like the old days. Your car is efficient, reliable, doesn't break down, doesn't rust, gets better mileage than ever. You can't look at your car today and say it's a good car because of the carburetor, or the distributor, or the frame, or whatever. Your car is a good car because it's complicated. It has systems that do all kinds of things, and most of us have no idea how they work. No single element of the car makes it good; consistent excellence, engineering, planning and manufacturing makes it that way.

 

As much as we like to think we understand pro football, we don't. We don't because it's complicated. These past few months are a perfect example. McDermott has been doing a lot of things that look like the right things. They are a part, a small part, of all of the things that have to be done to create a winning organization. His attention to detail is nice. His upbeat, positive motivational style seems nice. His methodical approach seems nice. Do his assistants know what they're doing? None of us knows. Do the assistants believe in McDermott? Who knows. Will the players buy in? Who knows. Is it the right talent? Are these coaches good at Xs and Os, from season to season, from game to game and from play to play? Who knows?

 

It takes a lot to be excellent, whether you're building cell phones or football teams.

 

I'm as big a Belichick booster as anyone, but let's not overstate it. Belichick IS very good at knowing what he needs at positions on his team, but he's the same as most coaches in terms of finding the talent. He doesn't miss on a few players; he misses on a lot. They draft lots of guys who never fit in, and the sign free agents who don't fit in.

 

The Pats are successful, so there's a lot of coverage of them, and the coverage often focuses on the new talent they've acquired. But that happens because they were successful the year before and a lot of the guys who were there the year before are gone, so the media focuses on the replacements. So our FOCUS is on those new role players.

 

Every team does the same thing. Every season the Bills have guys who show up and fit into important roles, guys like Gillislee and Brown and Alexander and Incognito.

 

Belichick doesn't have better talent than anyone else. He simply insists on all of his players knowing their jobs and doing their jobs. He doesn't keep guys who don't do that.

I've always wondered about the death of Ron Brace. He was the natural heir apparent to Vince Wilfork