*EDIT
*This is not an Either/Or question. Which is More important?
Credit goes to FinNasty for inspiring this thread. He argued the following in the "trade Vontae Davis" thread.
I think I agree with the above.
What I question about it is, while winning breeds a better team culture, does it last? No one listens to the malcontents when you are winning. But losses are inevitable. You need a strong culture to overcome setbacks.
I thought it deserved more in depth debate. With roster cuts and possibly trades looming, Philbin and Ireland are going to determine the initial makeup of the Philbin era.
For the sake of argument, let's assume Philbin and Ireland believe the Dolphins lack leadership on the roster. Is it better to go 4-12 this year by jettisoning some of those leaders, or go 10-6 and be forced to keep things in place?
Page 1 of 2
-
Cannot win without a winning culture. But I don't believe there is anyone on this team that prohbits a winning culture.
His'nBeatYour'n likes this. -
Winning trumps everything and builds team culture.
I'd take the winning team culture of the early 90's Cane teams over the culturally proper teams that currently reside at the U.
In fact, I'd gladly take a group of misfits that win over mediocrity.Rouk, MikeHoncho, GreysonWinfield and 1 other person like this. -
ToddPhin likes this.
-
Is team culture defined by operating as one unit, both ethically and with the same work ethic to achieve those goals, or is the morality of team culture irrelevant to the discussion?shula_guy likes this. -
This may be the easiest thread to answer I have ever seen on this forum. Absolutely nothing is as important in the NFL and any other sport for that matter, as much as winning. You can have the best behaved and most mature acting players in the league, but if they don't win, no one cares.
-
I don't know of any successful organizations that didn't have a solid business plan prior to opening their doors. Maybe football is different.
-
-
The Miami Dolphins were defined as a two headed monster during the Shula / Marino days. A coaching legend on the sidelines and QB leader on the field.
Heck, the master of organizational excellence, Billicheck was on the way out before a male GQ model was dropped in his lap.Fin D likes this. -
I think both are important, no doubt. But I think talent wins games more than team culture... and winning trumps everything else. And I would argue that team culture doesnt last if you are losing.Anonymous and His'nBeatYour'n like this. -
You cannot win without either IMO.
-
While the talented player who doesn't work hard, though he can help win a few games (Vince Young) is not helping the team get better because he is leading by the example of "be more talented." -
-
I do directly feel there is a correlation between a stadium, The building you play in, and how strong of culture you have, and how culture originates.
It's not ironic to hear every year about the lack of emotion and enthusiasm from your team, you try walking into a half empty stadium on the day of the big game, and hear the roars of the other teams fans, there are constant reminders of how poor the culture is in this town, and IMO, it takes it's toll, and robs them of their energy and team pride enough where it does become a problem..Bpk likes this. -
John Wooden would absolutely argue culture.
No one was a better coach or won more championships.
No one.dolfan32323, smahtaz and His'nBeatYour'n like this. -
Maybe I am misunderstanding the question. I take it to mean whats more important, winning, or having a bunch of goody two shoes on the team that never get in trouble. I wouldnt care if every guy on the team was an a-hole as long as they were winning. Any of you on this message board would take a Dolphin Super Bowl win this season even if it meant having a team full of Brandon Marshalls and Chad Johnsons. If you say you wouldnt you are lying and if you arent lying, then you dont understand what football is all about. This isnt your kids pee wee league where you have to worry about the kids. All this is, is highly paid men playing a game for our entertainment. We could have a team full of axe murderers and I wouldnt care as long as they won the Super Bowl. Thats why I dont understand when alot of people on this board are happy when we get rid of players that are good, but trouble makers. Save your morals for your personal lives
-
Talent affects wins/losses which affects team culture. There are countless examples of teams throughout the history of professional sports who've succeeded, and even won Championships, with what many would call a poor "Team Culture." Their were some Oakland A's teams back in the day like this, and many Heat fans will remember that the 2006 team with Shaq, Antoine Walker, Jason Williams and Gary Payton that won it all but weren't a particularly likeable group of guys. (That is still arguably Pat Riley's greatest accomplishment, btw)
TL;DR you can win with good players and horrible culture, but you're unlikely to win with bad players and a great culture.Anonymous likes this. -
-
The thread title may lead you to the think I'm asking that, but I don't think my initial post does. -
Talent is what matters. If you don't have it, especially at QB, you don't win. After the importance of talent, is the importance of coaching. Team culture comes after you have those things because winning is the only thing that actually breeds good team culture. That old saying "nice guys finish last", it is exactly true in sports. You can gather up all the great character guys you want, but if they're not very good at the sport, you won't be winning very many games.Anonymous likes this. -
'Winning' is quantifiable... 'team culture' is arbitrary.
-
Is it better to trade a guy like that and sacrifice some wins in year 1, but keep guys who work hard, overachieve, and help young guys see how it is done? -
-
Establish culture as a priority.
Enjoy winning as a byproduct. -
There may be people who neither prohibit it nor contribute to it. The problem is, we need contributors. Having nobody who prohibits doesn't necessarily mean we have anyone who contributes.
Had Vontae Davis shown up to camp and picked up where he left off last year, he -- like Reggie Bush and Jake Long -- would've been a contributor.
As it is, at most he's a nothing. He may not prohibit anything, but he sure as hell isn't contributing.
And the problem with that is, due to the salary cap, you have a limited number of spots in your starting lineup from which you can draw contributors. Guys have to have the work ethic and the physical talent to make plays to be able to contribute to a winning culture. Davis has the talent to be one of those guys, but he's way short on the work ethic.
And now thanks to him, we have one fewer guy who can be a contributor, and we have to find one elsewhere in the starting lineup. Like I said, you have only a limited number of possibilities for that.Stringer Bell likes this. -
-
Losing ugly could harm youn player development.
Balance my friend.His'nBeatYour'n likes this. -
-
But to answer your question with a question, are those guys who replace Dansby and Davis worse players? If yes, than no. If not taking the above into consideration. -
I pick Option 3: quarterback play.
That will lead to both team culture and winning.HardKoreXXX likes this. -
-
shouright likes this.
-
-
-
-
Put yourself in Philbin's shoes. Would he be better off with Peyton Manning, if by winning with Peyton Manning, he loses the ability to build a nucleus of players who will still be helping the team in 5 years?
Caldwell clearly didn't have guys who bought into him, it didn't matter how many wins they had in 2010, team culture sucked, and they went 1-15 without good QB play. -
The Peyton question is pretty easy as well. Assuming Peyton is healthy and gives the team another 3 or so great years. Then yes, having Peyton would make Philbin, and the team better off. I say this because I don't understand why he would lose the ability to build a nucleus of players who would still be helping the team in 5 years. Last time I checked, there isn't a rule that states signing a Peyton Manning forces you to lose all draft picks,and are not allowed to sign players in free agency under the age of 30.
The Colts sucked because their players and coaching sucked. Culture had little do with it. That team has pretty much been ALL Peyton Manning for several years now. They were destined for epic failure the minute he got injured. -
Do Caldwell and Polian regret a player cut, not drafted, not signed that would have filled the leadership void Manning left? There were obviously things neglected because they were winning in the short run that cost them their jobs in the long run. In that scenario I would argue winning was not as important as team culture because poor team culture left them one bad spine away from disaster.
Page 1 of 2