Odell Beckham to the Browns (Bills checked in on him prior to the trade)

[Magox]

1 hour ago, TheBeane said:

 

That culture also falls apart pretty quickly if the wins do not materialize.  

 

Everything is judged on a relative basis, of course just about every team attempts to instill a culture of success and on the surface many of the teams are doing similar activities to attempt to achieve that goal, the difference is that the organizations that do it right, usually have a few common traits.   Detailed organization, structure and execution.

 

There are a number of examples such as:  That you may have a coach that conducts practices that will work on concepts A, B and C and you may have another coach that touches on those same concepts but end up having totally different results with similar levels of talent.  One of the main differences between coach A and coach B could be proper preparation, how efficiently they conduct their practices with time management concepts, how they structure their practices etc. 

 

Or if we are talking about from a GM point of view, organization is key.  Who do they surround themselves with, how they go about their scouting, what metrics do they use to judge talent, what sort of structure do they have in place to conduct their activities.  The varied nuances between similar on the surface structured organizations are endless.  Every team has scouting departments, the implication that the poster above made was that " They all have scouting departments, structure"  etc etc. Therefore, since they all do this, this is not the important factor.    I have been part of a powerhouse  program in youth sports and a well-to-do organization that were doing very well  years before I became a part of it, while I was there and many years afterwards.   They didn't just get from Point A to Point B by just "winning".   There was a process in how these things unfolded.  There are large differences between these programs and organizations that continue to endure success and the ones that don't.     

 

The other notion that was thrown out there was "talent" was the determining factor.   I agree that talent is hugely important but again, this is where this line of thinking fails.  Bringing in "talent" consistently for years on end doesn't just happen.  Sure, every talent and scouting department will be able to bring in good talent, but the best organizations that have the best processes and culture in place are the ones that do it consistently.  This doesn't just Happen.  You never get from Point A to Point B consistently by luck.  The ones that do it the most often are the ones that have the best processes in place.  This is not logically disputable. 

 

For me, it's as clear as day and maybe that is because I have been fortunate to be a part of them and I'm grateful for that because I have been able to apply some of those concepts into other things that I'm currently doing.     

 

"Culture" I know is an abstract concept, it's not as easily able to detect or gauge as other linear beliefs or theories.  This is why some people have a hard time believing that "culture" and process matter.     The difference always lies in the structure, details and nuances of how things are approached.  It's within those differences that separate the ones that are consistently at the top 1/4 of their peers and the rest.

[TheBeane]

2 hours ago, Magox said:

 

Everything is judged on a relative basis, of course just about every team attempts to instill a culture of success and on the surface many of the teams are doing similar activities to attempt to achieve that goal, the difference is that the organizations that do it right, usually have a few common traits.   Detailed organization, structure and execution.

 

There are a number of examples such as:  That you may have a coach that conducts practices that will work on concepts A, B and C and you may have another coach that touches on those same concepts but end up having totally different results with similar levels of talent.  One of the main differences between coach A and coach B could be proper preparation, how efficiently they conduct their practices with time management concepts, how they structure their practices etc. 

 

Or if we are talking about from a GM point of view, organization is key.  Who do they surround themselves with, how they go about their scouting, what metrics do they use to judge talent, what sort of structure do they have in place to conduct their activities.  The varied nuances between similar on the surface structured organizations are endless.  Every team has scouting departments, the implication that the poster above made was that " They all have scouting departments, structure"  etc etc. Therefore, since they all do this, this is not the important factor.    I have been part of a powerhouse  program in youth sports and a well-to-do organization that were doing very well  years before I became a part of it, while I was there and many years afterwards.   They didn't just get from Point A to Point B by just "winning".   There was a process in how these things unfolded.  There are large differences between these programs and organizations that continue to endure success and the ones that don't.     

 

The other notion that was thrown out there was "talent" was the determining factor.   I agree that talent is hugely important but again, this is where this line of thinking fails.  Bringing in "talent" consistently for years on end doesn't just happen.  Sure, every talent and scouting department will be able to bring in good talent, but the best organizations that have the best processes and culture in place are the ones that do it consistently.  This doesn't just Happen.  You never get from Point A to Point B consistently by luck.  The ones that do it the most often are the ones that have the best processes in place.  This is not logically disputable. 

 

For me, it's as clear as day and maybe that is because I have been fortunate to be a part of them and I'm grateful for that because I have been able to apply some of those concepts into other things that I'm currently doing.     

 

"Culture" I know is an abstract concept, it's not as easily able to detect or gauge as other linear beliefs or theories.  This is why some people have a hard time believing that "culture" and process matter.     The difference always lies in the structure, details and nuances of how things are approached.  It's within those differences that separate the ones that are consistently at the top 1/4 of their peers and the rest.

 

I agree with most of what you are saying, but a lot of it will be determinate on winning though.  You can have the best structure in place with the best leaders, but if at the end of the day you still lose, you'll probably be fine.  However, then you lose again, and again, and again.  People, especially high level athletes, start to tune out that leadership if the results aren't panning out.  So yes, you are correct on many points, but the best structures will fall apart if the results continue to be failure.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

7 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

I don't think they will "suck".... just think they aren't good enough offensively to be a playoff team. 

 

Ill gladly eat the plate if I'm wrong.

 

No you won't.

 

No one ever does.

 

 

[C.Biscuit97]

1 minute ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

No you won't.

 

No one ever does.

 

 

Eating a plate is a little over the top. Start with horse ? like they do in philly.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Eating a plate is a little over the top. Start with horse ? like they do in philly.

 

That was gross.

 

Also, that was a good insight into your average Eagles fan.

 

[ndirish1978]

5 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Bellichick and Carroll are the 2 best HC's out there, don't get me wrong.  They are probably the only ones who have actually developed a true culture--after they enjoyed rapid success on their current teams.

 

But both of them had whatever culture they had before they arrived in Seattle and NE, respectively.  Neither had success...until they picked their QBs.

 

THIS is called a backpedal and pivot. "Sure there was a culture in place, but like I've been saying all along (you haven't), the QBs needed to be in place." What a load. You know what happens when you get a QB and no culture,? You get Derek Carr, who probably was on his way to being a franchise QB before Gruden and his clown car pulled into town.

[Mr. WEO]

47 minutes ago, ndirish1978 said:

 

THIS is called a backpedal and pivot. "Sure there was a culture in place, but like I've been saying all along (you haven't), the QBs needed to be in place." What a load. You know what happens when you get a QB and no culture,? You get Derek Carr, who probably was on his way to being a franchise QB before Gruden and his clown car pulled into town.

 

It's no pivot.  These teams starting winning immediately after their franchise QB started playing.  It wasn't some mystical culture.  Pretty simple.

 

Carr was a flash in the pan bum before Gruen showed up.  No idea what you're talking about with that one.

 

QB and no culture IS Green Bay, as I pointed out.  Steelers too.

[GaryPinC]

On 8/22/2019 at 11:56 AM, Mr. WEO said:

 

Bellichick and Carroll are the 2 best HC's out there, don't get me wrong.  They are probably the only ones who have actually developed a true culture--after they enjoyed rapid success on their current teams.

 

But both of them had whatever culture they had before they arrived in Seattle and NE, respectively.  Neither had success...until they picked their QBs.

 

BB was rolling into NE and immediately was 5-11.  Next year Brady is the starter and they never looked back.  He certainly has a well known style and he's a genius.  But there was no "Patriot Way" before he won a SB.

 

Carroll was managing a back to back 7-9 team until his (very intelligent) decision to draft and immediately start Russ Wilson changed everything for that team.  Without that decision, there's no reason to believe that that team would have enjoyed the success they have since because of some Pete Carroll culture.

 

Steelers?  Their HC is a doofus whose culture includes tripping opponents from the sideline and whose lack of adult leadership led to the chaos that was last season.  Yet despite his "culture", the Steelers kept winning prior to the melt down.

 

Packers?  You couldn't have picked a worse example to demonstrate your point.  The keeper  of the sacred  "Packers Culture", since before Rodgers got there has been a guy recently outed (by Rodgers, no less!) as a incredibly lazy dumbass who the QB regularly ignored by the end.  Yet, despite this dysfunctional relationship (excuse me...culture), they kept racking up divisional wins and even a SB win.  GM Thompson was too busy trying to show everyone "how to do it" (including several awful drafts before they demoted him to consultant) was clueless to the disastrous relationship between his slow adult HC and his pouty/cranky QB. 

Amazing.  Let's back up a minute and consider culture.  Team culture comes from many areas.  The owners, GM, front office, coaches, players, and finally the fans.  Each of these may have a positive, negative or neutral influence on the culture.

 

It's undeniable your front office has to bring in talent, especially a quarterback, and your coaches have to use it effectively over years for sustained success.  But how much the owners, GM, front office, coaches, and players put the success of the team first, as a group, will determine long term success.

 

What about the Ravens winning superbowls with Dilfer and Flacco?  No elite QB's there, just elite defenses because of their hard-nosed team culture.

 

New England:  Cassel, Garappolo, and Brissett.  The other quarterbacks who went in for Brady.  How'd they do?   How'd they do when they left New England?  That's a winning culture.

 

Seattle:  Legion of Boom, Carrol wasn't just about his quarterback

 

Pittsburgh and the Pack:  if you deny the culture these teams have or have had until recently, it's probably pointless to discuss with you.

 

Let's instead look at our Bills:  What culture did Ralph instill while he owned the team?  Only lucked out having one good GM and managed to run him out of town.  Or hiring Buddy Nix to be GM?   Constantly interfering with the front office, mostly bad judgement in hiring coaches, GM's.  Conservative with spending if the team was not winning.  That's a culture setter commiserate with the team's lack of success.  Most good GM's knew they didn't want a boss like that.

 

That's a huge cultural hit, much like the Cleveland Browns have enjoyed before Haslem hired Dorsey and stepped out of the way.  When did the culture in Cleveland finally change?  With Dorsey and the day Haslem finally let him fire Hue Jackson.  Plus, Greggo was rightly given the boot after the season because that would be some bad culture to retain.  Greggo did preside over the success of the Browns last year.

 

Back to the Bills super bowl years.  Good front office, Levy.  Bickering Bills.  They worked it out in the locker room, the culture improved and away they went.  Kelly had already been in place since 1986, yes?      12-4 in 88, 9-7 in 89 bicker, bicker.   The players united the locker room and set the culture by 1990.  Hello super bowls.  What say you to this prime example of team culture being important?

 

[Mr. WEO]

13 hours ago, GaryPinC said:

Amazing.  Let's back up a minute and consider culture.  Team culture comes from many areas.  The owners, GM, front office, coaches, players, and finally the fans.  Each of these may have a positive, negative or neutral influence on the culture.

 

It's undeniable your front office has to bring in talent, especially a quarterback, and your coaches have to use it effectively over years for sustained success.  But how much the owners, GM, front office, coaches, and players put the success of the team first, as a group, will determine long term success.

 

What about the Ravens winning superbowls with Dilfer and Flacco?  No elite QB's there, just elite defenses because of their hard-nosed team culture.

 

New England:  Cassel, Garappolo, and Brissett.  The other quarterbacks who went in for Brady.  How'd they do?   How'd they do when they left New England?  That's a winning culture.

 

Seattle:  Legion of Boom, Carrol wasn't just about his quarterback

 

Pittsburgh and the Pack:  if you deny the culture these teams have or have had until recently, it's probably pointless to discuss with you.

 

Let's instead look at our Bills:  What culture did Ralph instill while he owned the team?  Only lucked out having one good GM and managed to run him out of town.  Or hiring Buddy Nix to be GM?   Constantly interfering with the front office, mostly bad judgement in hiring coaches, GM's.  Conservative with spending if the team was not winning.  That's a culture setter commiserate with the team's lack of success.  Most good GM's knew they didn't want a boss like that.

 

That's a huge cultural hit, much like the Cleveland Browns have enjoyed before Haslem hired Dorsey and stepped out of the way.  When did the culture in Cleveland finally change?  With Dorsey and the day Haslem finally let him fire Hue Jackson.  Plus, Greggo was rightly given the boot after the season because that would be some bad culture to retain.  Greggo did preside over the success of the Browns last year.

 

Back to the Bills super bowl years.  Good front office, Levy.  Bickering Bills.  They worked it out in the locker room, the culture improved and away they went.  Kelly had already been in place since 1986, yes?      12-4 in 88, 9-7 in 89 bicker, bicker.   The players united the locker room and set the culture by 1990.  Hello super bowls.  What say you to this prime example of team culture being important?

 

 

You are confusing good teams with culture.  BB's culture had limited success (to put it mildly, before Brady started.  Mentioning Garapollo and Briquette, who started a tiny number of games makes no sense.  You will understand this better when Brady retires.

 

The Packers McCarthy won lots of games despite there being no identifiable culture (other than, as we now know, tension and petty bickering).  The Steelers current "culture" boiled over publicly in a very messy way last season.

 

Don't confuse history with culture. 

 

The Browns "culture"?  Come on.  Their fortunes are tied completely to Baker Mayfield.  HE is singlehandedly changing, becoming the "culture" of the Browns.

 

Seattle's Legion of Doom is gone, Beastmode is gone, Bevell is gone, but they are still a 10 win playoff team--mainly because of Russell Wilson--who instantly changed the fortunes of that team.

 

The point is that there is no amount or type of culture that will bring, in and of itself, a winning team.  Nor is some specific culture required to achieve a winning team.  You either hit on the right HC/QB combo or you don't.  

[GaryPinC]

8 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

You are confusing good teams with culture.  BB's culture had limited success (to put it mildly, before Brady started.  Mentioning Garapollo and Briquette, who started a tiny number of games makes no sense.  You will understand this better when Brady retires.

 

The Packers McCarthy won lots of games despite there being no identifiable culture (other than, as we now know, tension and petty bickering).  The Steelers current "culture" boiled over publicly in a very messy way last season.

 

Don't confuse history with culture. 

 

The Browns "culture"?  Come on.  Their fortunes are tied completely to Baker Mayfield.  HE is singlehandedly changing, becoming the "culture" of the Browns.

 

The point is that there is no amount or type of culture that will bring, in and of itself, a winning team.  Nor is some specific culture required to achieve a winning team.  You either hit on the right HC/QB combo or you don't.  

BB was there one year before they drafted Brady.  But beyond that, BB didn't focus on culture until after Brady came.  But Cassel leading them to 11-5 with Brady out invalidates your argument.

 

Anyone who looks at the Packers situation understands that McCarthy/Rodgers relationship fell apart only the last few seasons and front office problems/lack of new talent killed the winning culture that they had enjoyed.

 

The Browns new winning culture has started in the front office and needs to be fully developed in the locker room.  Certainly it is heavily tied to Mayfield at the moment but that is a talented roster and developing a winning culture will dictate how far they go in the playoffs.

 

I am not confusing history with culture.  Culture is multi layered and different for every winning team but to sustain winning you need the right talent, the right HC/QB combo, and the right culture.  As critical as the QB is, it's still a team game.

 

Again, the bickering Bills is just a blatant example of this.  Why do you ignore it?

[Mr. WEO]

6 hours ago, GaryPinC said:

BB was there one year before they drafted Brady.  But beyond that, BB didn't focus on culture until after Brady came.  But Cassel leading them to 11-5 with Brady out invalidates your argument.

 

Anyone who looks at the Packers situation understands that McCarthy/Rodgers relationship fell apart only the last few seasons and front office problems/lack of new talent killed the winning culture that they had enjoyed.

 

The Browns new winning culture has started in the front office and needs to be fully developed in the locker room.  Certainly it is heavily tied to Mayfield at the moment but that is a talented roster and developing a winning culture will dictate how far they go in the playoffs.

 

I am not confusing history with culture.  Culture is multi layered and different for every winning team but to sustain winning you need the right talent, the right HC/QB combo, and the right culture.  As critical as the QB is, it's still a team game.

 

Again, the bickering Bills is just a blatant example of this.  Why do you ignore it?

 

 

Cassel invalidates nothing!  He came along in Brady's 8th year (his season out).  They had already built a team that went to 3 SB and won 2.  He had a top 5 running game and a top 10 Defense...and yet it was the only time they missed the playoffs in the past 16 years.

 

The Packers culture of dysfunction has been going on for years with McCarthy.  It finally boiled over and became public.  You think Rodgers just became aware of McCarthys' lazy weekly habits and poor game planning and simpleton play calling??

 

Yet they were winning all along until the "culture of GB", which relies almost completely on the draft started blowing draft after draft and they stuffed "Packers Man" Ted in a broom closet.  What would you describe as the "winning culture" of the McCarthy years?

 

I'm glad you described the Browns' as a "new winning culture", because that's exactly what it is and I pointed that out.  They started winning immediately, not because of some superior existing culture (they were completely dysfunction for many years), but because they got a competent QB.  Of they have a "culture" now, it's solely because they are winning games, plain and simple.