Michael Lombardi - Fascinating Interview Today

[Thurman#1]

 

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.

 

 

I thought he addressed that very clearly.

 

He's not saying that once you have a failed culture you are trapped there forever and can never ever turn things around. In fact he says the opposite, that culture can be changed.

 

So he didn't need to address the Rams from 15 years ago. It's clear he understood that they had a successful culture for awhile but now they don't.

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.

 

 

Yes, they had a successful culture specifically in the Super Bowl era. But things started to go downhill before Kelly retired. Basically, when they had Polian they were kicking butt. Then they lost him.

 

And again, yeah, teams do gain and lose successful cultures. It doesn't happen in a month or so, though, it takes time and a tremendous amount of energy directed extremely well (or poorly if the change is for the worse) to heal a culture.

 

If Lombardi wanted to talk about a team that excels without a franchise QB, he could have talked about the Steelers. They didn't win a title till they got Roethlisberger, but under Cowher with QBs like Slash and O'Donnell they were terrors, an extremely successful organization.

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?

 

 

It happens a lot, but so does the opposite.

 

Wilfork was still excellent for a couple of years in Texas till he got too old. Terry Glenn was excellent elsewhere. Mankins was excellent in TB, though the rest of the team wasn't very good. Chandler Jones had 11 sacks and four forced fumbles last year in Arizona and was generally very good. Jamie Collins was very good for Cleveland, though he was not surrounded by a great roster.

 

In any case, you're right that Belichick finds guys who fits his system very well indeed and those guys sometimes don't do well elsewhere.

 

I may not like their culture but you can't argue that it's not successful.

Edited July 4, 2017 by Thurman#1

[dave mcbride]

I thought he addressed that very clearly.

 

He's not saying that once you have a failed culture you are trapped there forever and can never ever turn things around. In fact he says the opposite, that culture can be changed.

 

So he didn't need to address the Rams from 15 years ago. It's clear he understood that they had a successful culture for awhile but now they don't.

 

 

 

Yes, they had a successful culture specifically in the Super Bowl era. But things started to go downhill before Kelly retired. Basically, when they had Polian they were kicking butt. Then they lost him.

 

And again, yeah, teams do gain and lose successful cultures. It doesn't happen in a month or so, though, it takes time and a tremendous amount of energy directed extremely well (or poorly if the change is for the worse) to heal a culture.

 

If Lombardi wanted to talk about a team that excels without a franchise QB, he could have talked about the Steelers. They didn't win a title till they got Roethlisberger, but under Cowher with QBs like Slash and O'Donnell they were terrors, an extremely successful organization.

 

 

 

It happens a lot, but so does the opposite.

 

Wilfork was still excellent for a couple of years in Texas till he got too old. Terry Glenn was excellent elsewhere. Mankins was excellent in TB, though the rest of the team wasn't very good. Chandler Jones had 11 sacks and four forced fumbles last year in Arizona and was generally very good. Jamie Collins was very good for Cleveland, though he was not surrounded by a great roster.

 

In any case, you're right that Belichick finds guys who fits his system very well indeed and those guys sometimes don't do well elsewhere.

 

I may not like their culture but you can't argue that it's not successful.

Excellent post re the ex-Pats. Richard Seymour played pretty well for a terrible Raiders team too (2 pro bowl selections), and Lawyer Milloy had a bunch of good seasons (including for the Bills!). Edited July 4, 2017 by dave mcbride

[ndirish1978]

I dunno why people get so hostile about culture changes. Culture is real. I'd venture a guess that most of us have been in situations where one group of similarly talented people managed to accomplish something that another group could not. Often, it comes down to people having a better attitude, being supportive of those around us, selfless teamwork or just having the cojones to pull a win out of a loss. Sometimes a mediocre teammate can really up their game when supported and valued. A single person can mess with group dynamics, that's why it's so important to identify and get those people out of the building asap when coming in to a new situation. Figuring out which people are mediocre teammates that can up their game and which are pulling down the people around them can be hard.

 

That said, yes you need talent.