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

[buffalo2218]

On 3/12/2019 at 10:09 PM, buffaloboyinATL said:

Man, the Steelers got much less for AB.

That shows more how much Pitt wanted him gone

[Doc]

13 minutes ago, buffalo2218 said:

That shows more how much Pitt wanted him gone

 

Or how few suitors there were for him, especially after the Bills backed out.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

What about me (OBJ)??

 

to not get left out of the news Odell amends his statement 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/odell-beckham-jr-lands-another-jab-at-giants-says-they-traded-him-to-cleveland-to-die-and-calls-it-personal/

 

it's 'personal'

 

"That doesn't mean that Beckham is done airing his grievances with the  Giants , who traded him to Cleveland during the offseason. Beckham, during  a recent interview  with Sports Illustrated, said that the Giants, despite having other teams interested in trading for him, sent him to Cleveland in an attempt to derail his career. 

 

Just tell him to do what he does," he said. "There's a reason he was the first pick. There's a reason he won the Heisman. There's a reason he led Oklahoma to all those great seasons. I just let him tell me what he thinks I should do and I'm just gonna do that, and he's gonna put it where it needs to be." 

 

"This wasn't no business move," Beckham said of the Giants' decision to trade him to the Brown. "This was personal. They thought they'd send me here to die."

 

#asskissersayswhat

#brownnoseforlife

Edited August 21, 2019 by ShadyBillsFan

[Magox]

On 3/12/2019 at 8:56 PM, Scorp83 said:

Same Thing

 

Once you wins some games... that will automatically chance your Culture 

That's not how it works.  Culture is established before the winning.  Winning only reinforces and validates it.

[Mr. WEO]

5 hours ago, Magox said:

That's not how it works.  Culture is established before the winning.  Winning only reinforces and validates it.

 

 

It is?

[Magox]

53 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

It is?

 

Of course.   Winning organizations don't just magically happen.  

 

Edited August 21, 2019 by Magox

[Don Otreply]

53 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

It is?

Yup, it is, every time. Teams with the I me me mine cultures don’t do well with any frequency.

 

Go Bills!!!

[TheFunPolice]

Whatever culture the Browns established last year left when they fired pretty much everyone I would think...

 

 

[BarleyNY]

7 hours ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

What about me (OBJ)??

 

to not get left out of the news Odell amends his statement 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/odell-beckham-jr-lands-another-jab-at-giants-says-they-traded-him-to-cleveland-to-die-and-calls-it-personal/

 

it's 'personal'

 

"That doesn't mean that Beckham is done airing his grievances with the  Giants , who traded him to Cleveland during the offseason. Beckham, during  a recent interview  with Sports Illustrated, said that the Giants, despite having other teams interested in trading for him, sent him to Cleveland in an attempt to derail his career. 

 

Just tell him to do what he does," he said. "There's a reason he was the first pick. There's a reason he won the Heisman. There's a reason he led Oklahoma to all those great seasons. I just let him tell me what he thinks I should do and I'm just gonna do that, and he's gonna put it where it needs to be." 

 

"This wasn't no business move," Beckham said of the Giants' decision to trade him to the Brown. "This was personal. They thought they'd send me here to die."

 

#asskissersayswhat

#brownnoseforlife

 

It is a recent article, but the OBJ quotes about the trade were all old.  It’s just a writer trying to get clicks by making it seem like they’re still feuding.  OBJ said some nice stuff about Baker and Eli said some nice stuff about OBJ.  Other than that it’s old news. 

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, Magox said:

 

Of course.   Winning organizations don't just magically happen.  

 

 

Did the Seahawks develop some sort of "culture" before they suddenly started winning in 2012?

 

What is the "culture" going on there in Green Bay, now that the wins are suddenly harder to come by?

 

What was the "culture" in Denver before  they went on a 4 year tear with 2 SB appearances and a win a few years ago?

 

And, most obviously, what was the "culture" in NE in 2001 that suddenly led to an unending winning streak that persists to this day?

 

Winning IS culture.

 

 

 

[Magox]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

Did the Seahawks develop some sort of "culture" before they suddenly started winning in 2012?

 

What is the "culture" going on there in Green Bay, now that the wins are suddenly harder to come by?

 

What was the "culture" in Denver before  they went on a 4 year tear with 2 SB appearances and a win a few years ago?

 

And, most obviously, what was the "culture" in NE in 2001 that suddenly led to an unending winning streak that persists to this day?

 

Winning IS culture.

 

 

 

 

This is pure ignorance.  That's not how it works and it is clear that you have never been a part of an ongoing successful program or organization.

[Mr. WEO]

40 minutes ago, Magox said:

 

This is pure ignorance.  That's not how it works and it is clear that you have never been a part of an ongoing successful program or organization.

 

This is the typical response from someone whose premise (some sort of "culture" HAS to pre-exist and therefore creates winning) has been quickly disproven.

 

You can't answer my simple questions so you divert your poor focus toward a personal jab at the person who exposed the fallacy of your argument.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Mr. WEO

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

It’s all about the PROCESS 

 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

There will be a huge plate of crow waiting for you come December Scott.  

This team will not suck this year.  

 

[Magox]

15 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

This is the typical response from someone whose premise (some sort of "culture" HAS to pre-exist and therefore creates winning) has been quickly disproven.

 

You can't answer my simple questions so you divert your poor focus toward a personal jab at the person who exposed the fallacy of your argument.

 

You're right WEO, winning just happens.   

 

Successful organizations just happen because in order for them to be successful they just have to first be successful.   Right?   Right????

 

Creating a culture of accountability, work ethic, preparation, discipline, structured program, recruiting, scouting, development, proper training these are all just made up buzz words, terms and processes that are thrown out there that have no meaning.   Because, ya'know    Winning just happens!   Amirite?  First win!  Then culture comes.    

 

 

This line of thinking is pure and adulterated ignorance.   I will say it again and I will stand by it knowing that you and any other person who believes this to be the case which is that winning creates culture rather than the other way around has never been a part of a consistently successful organization or program.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2019 by Magox

[Wsam4031]

On ‎8‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 12:24 PM, Doc said:

 

Just curious but never reached out to the Browns on him...for what?  To look to trade for him after being traded there?

Yea i meant the Giants.

[Mr. WEO]

48 minutes ago, Magox said:

 

You're right WEO, winning just happens.   

 

Successful organizations just happen because in order for them to be successful they just have to first be successful.   Right?   Right????

 

Creating a culture of accountability, work ethic, preparation, discipline, structured program, recruiting, scouting, development, proper training these are all just made up buzz words, terms and processes that are thrown out there that have no meaning.   Because, ya'know    Winning just happens!   Amirite?  First win!  Then culture comes.    

 

 

This line of thinking is pure and adulterated ignorance.   I will say it again and I will stand by it knowing that you and any other person who believes this to be the case which is that winning creates culture rather than the other way around has never been a part of a consistently successful organization or program.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Every team prepares, scouts, has some structure, develops players, trains and coaches them--and yet they still don't consistently win (or win much at all).

 

My point (for which I gave examples that you couldn't respond to) is winning in the NFL can  and has "suddenly" happened, before some unique "culture" could be long established.  The winning then became the culture and propagated itself.

 

This is an easy concept to understand.  Teams that don't win much will convince their fans that, with each new regime, a "new culture" will be installed which will become a winning culture.  And then it doesn't.  And the cycle repeats itself.  This, too, isn't hard to see.  No amount of culture can overcome lack of talent, especially at the HC/QB combo.

 

Can a team become a winner over time?  Obviously, but it's not become of some unique "culture" has been adapted (there's no such thing in the NFL anyway), it's because over time, a team has assembled enough talent to be more competitive.  Look at the Browns---is it the "Culture of Freddy Kitchens" that will lead them to what may their first winning season in 12 years?  Of course not and to suggest so would be silly.

 

The bolded part sums up your understanding of these concepts.  It's a frankly impossible conclusion.

[TheBeane]

On 8/21/2019 at 7:37 AM, Magox said:

That's not how it works.  Culture is established before the winning.  Winning only reinforces and validates it.

 

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

[GaryPinC]

17 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Did the Seahawks develop some sort of "culture" before they suddenly started winning in 2012?

 

What is the "culture" going on there in Green Bay, now that the wins are suddenly harder to come by?

 

What was the "culture" in Denver before  they went on a 4 year tear with 2 SB appearances and a win a few years ago?

 

And, most obviously, what was the "culture" in NE in 2001 that suddenly led to an unending winning streak that persists to this day?

 

Winning IS culture.

 

 

 

You can debate the importance of culture all you like, but winning is NOT culture.  And certainly culture alone will not guarantee winning, talent is also needed.  

 

What teams do you feel have won consistently (5 years or more) with a bad culture?  Certainly winning will encourage the culture but winning will not be sustained in a bad culture.

 

Seahawks:  Yes, they did develop the culture first.  Pete Carroll game to the Seahawks in 2010.  Took his culture and roster turnover 2 years to get going.  There's plenty of articles on it

https://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-seahawks/post/_/id/17555/renowned-psychologist-impressed-with-seahawks-culture-of-grit

 

 

http://old.seattletimes.com/html/seahawks/2022617012_seahawks08xml.html

 

So ironic you use the Patriots.  Belichick came in 2000 and is all about the culture.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/13/bill-belichick-leadership-rules.html

https://cbssportsradio.radio.com/articles/former-player-discusses-bill-belichick-new-england-patriots-culture

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinandjackiefreiberg/2019/02/04/the-belichick-brady-way-10-lessons-from-the-patriots-about-the-art-of-execution/#28f98a854c68

https://www.thescore.com/nfl/news/1791312

https://www.complex.com/sports/2018/05/current-former-patriots-respond-pats-culture-fun

 

Green Bay:  Look at the turmoil with their front office the last two years.  They still have Aaron Rodgers.  Why are they not winning?  How about cultural issues and a culture shift in the front office?  Certainly their FO may not be bringing in enough talent but there's been a distinct culture shift at the top.

https://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2019/05/09/silverstein-critics-see-cracks-green-bay-packers-new-management-structure/1142267001/

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/11/29/green-bay-packers-problems-aaron-rodgers-mike-mccarthy-ted-thompson

 

And you left out the Steelers, one of the strongest culture driven teams in the NFL.  Last year the breakdown of that culture was deeply concerning for former players and fans.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001027011/article/eventful-offseason-puts-pittsburgh-steelers-culture-in-spotlight

It'll be interesting to see how they do this year if they recover their culture with an aging Roethlisberger.

Edited August 22, 2019 by GaryPinC

[Mr. WEO]

51 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

You can debate the importance of culture all you like, but winning is NOT culture.  And certainly culture alone will not guarantee winning, talent is also needed.  

 

What teams do you feel have won consistently (5 years or more) with a bad culture?  Certainly winning will encourage the culture but winning will not be sustained in a bad culture.

 

Seahawks:  Yes, they did develop the culture first.  Pete Carroll game to the Seahawks in 2010.  Took his culture and roster turnover 2 years to get going.  There's plenty of articles on it

https://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-seahawks/post/_/id/17555/renowned-psychologist-impressed-with-seahawks-culture-of-grit

 

 

http://old.seattletimes.com/html/seahawks/2022617012_seahawks08xml.html

 

So ironic you use the Patriots.  Belichick came in 2000 and is all about the culture.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/13/bill-belichick-leadership-rules.html

https://cbssportsradio.radio.com/articles/former-player-discusses-bill-belichick-new-england-patriots-culture

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinandjackiefreiberg/2019/02/04/the-belichick-brady-way-10-lessons-from-the-patriots-about-the-art-of-execution/#28f98a854c68

https://www.thescore.com/nfl/news/1791312

https://www.complex.com/sports/2018/05/current-former-patriots-respond-pats-culture-fun

 

Green Bay:  Look at the turmoil with their front office the last two years.  They still have Aaron Rodgers.  Why are they not winning?  How about cultural issues and a culture shift in the front office?  Certainly their FO may not be bringing in enough talent but there's been a distinct culture shift at the top.

https://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2019/05/09/silverstein-critics-see-cracks-green-bay-packers-new-management-structure/1142267001/

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/11/29/green-bay-packers-problems-aaron-rodgers-mike-mccarthy-ted-thompson

 

And you left out the Steelers, one of the strongest culture driven teams in the NFL.  Last year the breakdown of that culture was deeply concerning for former players and fans.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001027011/article/eventful-offseason-puts-pittsburgh-steelers-culture-in-spotlight

It'll be interesting to see how they do this year if they recover their culture with an aging Roethlisberger.

 

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. 

[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.