The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwkpbbM7NRk

The team in the video above is 3-7 on the season, functioning squarely at the level of failure overall.  They and their head coach have never accomplished anything extraordinary in the league.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpOG9K02F_g

The team in the second video above had just finished winning the first of three road games in the playoffs as a wildcard team, before ultimately winning the Super Bowl that year, a highly improbable feat.

The difference in "culture" from the head coach on down is easily discernible for just about anybody.

The team in the first video is clowning around, despite being 3-7 on the year, and despite that it could have a goal of turning its season around.  3-7 can become 10-7!

There is no clowning around in the second video, despite that the team had just won a game with tremendous significance, as an underdog.  That team's seriousness, drive, and determination is palpable.

I think you have to ask yourself why you aren't seeing the same drive and determination in the first video, when that's exactly what's required to turn the Dolphins' season around.

And I think the answer is that the team has a clownish culture in the locker room that follows from the clown-like personality of its head coach.

The team in the second video has no such clownish culture.  They're driven, determined, serious, and aggressive -- just like their head coach.

A team takes on the personality of its coach, as they say.  And I believe you see that here -- easily.

The problem is that the 2025 Miami Dolphins' "personality" isn't consistent with winning at a high level in the NFL, where seriousness, drive, determination, and aggression are what wins on the field in the rough and tumble game of football.  The game is inherently physical and aggressive, and being embedded in a clown-like culture makes winning less likely when you're facing teams with serious and aggressive cultures -- features inherent to the game.

If both of the teams in the videos above were identical in every way (physical talent, coaching, etc.) other than the way in which they're conducting themselves in their locker rooms in those videos, and you were a player on a team they could be facing next week, which team would you rather face.

Not hard for me personally to make that choice.  I'd believe I could tee off on the clownish Dolphins, and I'd believe I'd have to steel myself up quite a bit to face the driven and determined Steelers.

This doesn't read like any sort of "analytics."  It has nothing to do with scheming, or net yards per play, or opponent success rate.  No, it's more of the classic "You have to be mentally tough" and "We're going to come out and punch them in the mouth" and all the rest of the tired cliches from talking heads on ESPN.

This has nothing to do with factual analysis.  It is (again) astrology for men.  It is absolutely emblematic of the approach to "culture" that every single one of Belichick's flunkies has taken away from New England as the only thing they learned; a consistency matched only by the complete failure all of them experienced as head coaches.

While there is some correlation that weaker teams celebrate regular season wins more than stronger teams, you have the causation backwards.  Teams that win a game in which they are heavy underdogs celebrate their wins to a greater extent than a winning team that was a heavy favor.  This is true at all level of sports and is true for fans as well. 

There is "celebration" occurring for both of the teams in the above videos.  It's the nature of the celebration that's significantly different -- one is silly and clownish, the other serious, driven, determined, and aggressive.

I wouldn't want to face that Steelers team the following week.  That Dolphins team I would consider a cream puff by comparison.

Players who have been a part of this team during the McDaniel era have called it "soft."  This is why.  The culture in the locker room is soft, and that translates to the field as well.

There is absolutely nothing "soft" about that Steelers team.

Given that the Dolphins won their next game are you sure you want to double down on the idea that the celebration hurt them.

The nature of the locker room celebration itself isn't a causative factor in anything.  It's the team culture it reflects that's causative in winning and losing.  Locker room celebrations in themselves don't cause winning and losing -- team cultures do, however.  These locker room celebrations are simply reflections of their teams' cultures.

Likewise the nature of the Steelers' locker room celebration itself in the video above didn't propel them to their playoff win on the road the following week.  It was their culture that was significantly responsible for that, as well as for accomplishing the highly improbable feat of winning three playoff games on the road as a wilcard and then the Super Bowl.

As a Patriots' fan I suspect you were well aware of the power of the team's culture 2001-2019.  You don't have that kind of dynasty without a powerful team culture in my opinion.

Beating now 3-8 Washington without its starting QB by 3 points in overtime on a neutral field hardly dispels the notion that this team is soft, and that its culture is responsible for that.

Team culture is a factor.  And what is important is that the team is working as a team.  I see nothing in that video to suggest there is an issue.  Red flags for bad culture is a wide receiver pouting after a win he was not targeted enough.

Outstanding cap space management was a much greater factor in NEP's success than Belichick's sour demeanor.

Belichick's success didn't not come because of his personality, it came because he is brilliant at football.  The reason why his coaching tree is so horrible is folks copy his personality rather than his football accrument.  You don't need to be an asshole to be a successful coach.  Belichick won in spite of being an asshole not because he was an asshole.

A head coach doesn't have to be an asshole to win.  A clown he cannot be, however.

+1

I love his clownish qualities.  That's old fart-ism to think that you need to be gruff and serious all the time.  It's "his girlfriend is ugly; he has no confidence" vibes-based bullshit.

I love what he did in that press conference, where he snuck in and then asked a question.  The team hasn't quit on him.

His personality isn't an issue as a person and in life in general.  There is nothing wrong with a clownish, quirky, offbeat guy as a person.

The problem comes when you put him in the capacity of head coach of a professional football team, where "the team takes on the personality of its coach," and the team is playing the rough and tumble game of football.

Then being a clown is a problem.  It's fundamentally inconsistent with the job.

If McDaniel were coaching a tiddlywinks or a pickleball team for example, two sports completely different from football, his personality wouldn't be a problem.  In professional football it makes him woefully inadequate, however.

There is a reason there is no exceptionally successful head coach in football history (college or pro) who had a personality like his.  It's because it isn't consistent with the nature of the game.

Go back and watch Bill Cowher in the video linked in the original post.  That fits with football.  McDaniel does not.

Nothing wrong with him just as a person in general.  In the capacity of the head coach of an NFL football team, plenty wrong.

In life in general he's a square peg in a square hole.  As the coach of a pro football team, he's a square peg in a round hole.  He simply doesn't fit.

I just saw a coach in unserious capri pants walk into a locker room and "go ballistic (https://theramswire.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/rams/2025/11/16/rams-sean-mcvay-seahawks-win-locker-room-celebration/87312401007/)" after a week 11 win like his team just won the conference championship.  So unserious!  Yet more evidence that only Serious Coaches win in the National Football League.

You measure head coaching success in the NFL via the winning of mere single games?

Huh?  how is the relevant to what spider posted?

First of all, the post isn't even relevant to the topic at hand, because the coach depicted in the article linked in the post does not have a clownish personality in general like McDaniel.  One can hardly say that if "the team takes on the personality of its coach" in Sean McVay's case, the team will have a clownish personality. Unlike McDaniel, McVay is not a clown in general.

So, "what Spider posted" isn't relevant here to begin with.

Even if we wanted to put all that aside for moment and just focus on the nature of the team celebration in the video linked in the post, the celebration is far more akin to the Steelers' celebration than it is to the Dolphins' celebration in the videos in the original post.  There is nothing silly and clownish occurring in the locker room in that video, regardless of whether the head coach is "wearing capri pants."

In other words, Sean McVay doesn't have anywhere near the clownish personality in general McDaniel does, and there is no evidence in the locker room celebration video linked that his team has a silly and clownish culture.

Moreover, the Rams are 8-2.  The Dolphins in the video in the original post were 3-7.  Even if there were some silliness going on in the locker room on the Rams' part, it would've been occurring in a completely different context in terms of how the team has performed overall.  There should be no such silliness on the part of a team at 3-7 that should be functioning with dead set seriousness on turning its season around.  Silliness in that context is an indication of team culture dysfunction.

It is your contention that is backed up with ZERO EVIDENCE that if a team is celebrating winning a game when the team has a losing record than the team is clownish.  And such clownish teams are unable to focus and win.  And it is an almost strawman claim because it is rare that a team with a losing record goes on to win the superbowl.  And while I don't know if either the 2007 Giants or 1993 Cowboys celebrated going 1-2, I do know that the 2001 Patriots has a clownish level of celebration when they won their first game of the season after losing the first two. 

No that isn't my contention.  Again read the original post and my subsequent posts in the thread, or don't.  I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

The reason that the Dolphins are only 4-7 is not because of how they celebrated their four wins.  It is because of piss poor cap space management by the former GM. 

Totally agree, and I've said as much previously in the thread.  Nowhere in the thread have I said "how a team celebrates wins, in and of itself, causes subsequent winning or losing."

Again I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

Direct quotes:

So we can tell their "personality" by how they celebrate wins, and their personality "isn't consistent with winning."
You are drawing a direct line between celebrations and culture, and an equally direct line between culture and winning.
To say "A = B" and "B = C" is to say "A = C."

And finally, we arrive at "Scoreboard."

This would all be a lot easier if you just said "Winning teams are good and smart, while losing teams are bad and dumb."  And that's a completely defensible take!  It's childishly obvious and simplistic, but at least it's an ethos.  However, a take like this rings somewhat hollow if you disappear when this logic can be used against you; to take a random example, if there were a coach that you criticized as being "unserious" who was sitting at 9-3 in the #1 seed entering week 14.

No that isn't the case.  How single wins are celebrated isn't always indicative of a team's culture.  In the case of the particular celebrations in the original post here, however, they are in my opinion.  The Dolphins' current culture is silly and clownish, and the Steelers' culture in 2006 was serious and aggressive.  If either team happened to celebrate a single win in a different fashion, their team cultures would nonetheless persist.

In other words, locker room celebrations can vary for a team, whereas its culture does not.  The locker room celebrations in the original post were merely for illustrative purposes -- they show those teams' cultures in vivid fashion.  Again in my opinion.

An analogy:  every team varies in how well it plays single games.  How good teams are overall persists, however.  The Dolphins just beat Buffalo 30-13.  Is that an indication of how good they are and how poor Buffalo is?  Of course not.  It was merely single-game variation.  And single game locker room celebrations can similarly vary.


Being the #1 seed at 9-3 isn't a valid and reliable criterion for success overall as a head coach in the NFL.  There are numerious head coaches in NFL history who accomplished similar feats and who were then fired without ever accomplishing anything extraordinary in the league.

Again are you still stuck here, using incredibly small samples of performance to measure overall head coaching success?  Have you not yet learned anything in that regard?

This entire thread is about one locker room celebration, yet you're trying to complain about "small sample sizes."

No, the thread is about how team culture can determine how NFL teams function, and how the Dolphins' current culture follows from its head coach's personality, which isn't compatible with the serious and aggressive nature of football.  The particular locker room celebration in the original post is simply illustrative of that, and there is another team's locker room celebration provided in the original post for the purpose of contrast.

Here are two former players weighing in on the matter in similar fashion:

https://x.com/FinsXtra/status/1979955001868042597?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1979955001868042597%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=

https://x.com/DavidFurones_/status/1980791927692788166?s=20

Again the issue is that McDaniel is a clown and not a leader of men.  That creates a team culture for the Dolphins -- i.e., "the team takes on the personality of its coach."  That culture -- or that team "personality" -- isn't compatible with winning at a high level in professional football.  It simply isn't consistent with the nature of the game.

That's what the thread is about.  Far more than a single locker room celebration.

The thread has been about one locker room celebration, which you extrapolate into various conclusions about "team culture" and then directly link to a team's ability to win.
You citing some tweets two pages in doesn't change that.

Once again I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

Repeating bullshit multiple times doesn't make it true. 

No, repetition doesn't make something true.  Other things do.

This is a great way to understand McDaniel's tenure with the Dolphins:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FOk4bCAQhc

The last line there that was somewhat cut off was, "now the tuxedos seem kind of fucked up."

McDaniel's clownish personality may have initially seemed like a breath of fresh air, even to the Dolphins' brass who hired him, and especially to many fans, after Brian Flores's tenure with the team.

However, his subsequent behavior in his capacity as head coach of the team, coupled with the team's performance overall and how it appears to function in terms of "personality" and culture I submit is the equivalent of the intrusive fart one can actually taste in the above video -- it completely changes the perception of McDaniel in his position, to the degree that he shouldn't be in the position.

^^^ That video clip has zero relevance in your outlandish position that winning teams don't celebrate wins.

In the original post I provided a video of a winning team celebrating a win -- the 2006 Steelers, Super Bowl champions that year.

Anyone characterizing my position to be "winning teams don't celebrate wins" is either having lots of trouble following along here or is incapable of it.

The video clip just above (from the movie "Stepbrothers") is another matter -- it simply shows how the perception of a person can change based on new information about them.  But it appears you're having trouble following that point as well.

Watch the video here again and pay attention to what happens just after the 0:20 mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwkpbbM7NRk

Prior to that you have a 3-7 team, again functioning squarely at the level of failure overall, acting like silly clowns after a single win.  At the 0:20 mark you essentially have McDaniel's endorsement of it, where he gestures "in approval" if you will of what's going on there.

Imagine Don Shula coaching a team with a 3-7 record and watching that nonsense ensue in the locker room after a win.  Do you think he'd approve of it and endorse it?  Do you think any of the most successful coaches in the history of the game would?

Your team is 3-7 and acting like silly ass clowns after a single win.  And you're all about it?  That could have -- and should have -- easily been a reality check by the head coach, where he stops and says something along the lines of, "what are you all doing? -- we're 3-7! -- we got a long way to go and a whole lot of work to do before we can celebrate like this."

You don't have to be an asshole to get serious and get the appropriate message across in that context.  But by the same token you also don't have to stand there and essentially approve of clownish nonsense, without giving the team the appropriate reality check.

This is why this team will always have a low ceiling on success as long as McDaniel is its coach.  He simply cannot command and lead the team as a bona fide leader of men would.  Instead he's simply the "lead clown," and the team follows his lead and becomes clowns as well.

Then they look to him for approval and he gives it to them!  Hooray -- we're all part of a circus here.  Let's celebrate!  LOL.

^^^^ I am guessing you have never played sports at any level. 

They just beat a division rival nobody expected them to beat.   

If this was a scene in the locker room after a loss, I would agree, but they won. 

Celebrate your wins not losses.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHwZj4BCwC0

Likewise the Steelers in the original post had just won a road playoff game as a wildcard underdog.  No clowning.  All business.  On to the next game.  A bigger goal in mind.  Eventual Super Bowl champions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpOG9K02F_g

Any of them play sports at any level?

Doesn't matter what the Steelers did.  There isn't one way to do something with everything else being wrong. 

I haven't said the Steelers' way was right and "everything else is wrong."  I've merely said the one way in which the Dolphins are doing it at present is wrong.

There are lots of ways to do it right other than the way the Steelers did, but the Dolphins way ain't one of them.

I suspect the Patriots 2001-2019 for example did things differently than the Steelers in 2006.  Obviously that way was right.  Again however, the Dolphins' current way is most definitely wrong.

Are these guys silly clowns?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/n7hCvCVlWJo

Are they celebrating a single win that gives them a 3-7 record overall?

If so, yes.

So it turns out "culture" is just "your W-L record" after all!

Your defense for criticizing Team A but not Team B when they both act silly is that... Team B has a better record!

So the problem is not the "style" of celebration but that teams without winning records should not celebrate wins. 

While you are free to hold this opinion, it runs contradictory to every sports team I have been a part of.   And it is not an opinion held by most athletes or coaches.   And it is absolutely NOT an analysis of coaching skill. 

A straw man as usual.

Two teams both have 3-7 records.  One celebrates a single win in the way the Dolphins did in the video in the original post.  The other experiences the win like the Steelers did in the video in the original post.  The two teams likely have significantly different cultures, despite having identical records.

Teams with 3-7 records should celebrate wins like the Steelers celebrated their win in the video in the original post -- with seriousness, drive, and determination to turn their season around.

You're losing track of your own argument, which is that a culture of silliness cannot lead to "sustained success" (or whatever your goalposts are today).
Yet when you are asked about the team with the best record in the league displaying silliness, you notably do not retreat into the "They haven't proven anything yet" excuse that you deployed after-the-fact when talking about when the 2023 Dolphins were doing well.  No, instead you just point at the standings!

You are conceding that a team with a good record can be as silly as they like without it being an indictment of their culture.
Which undermines the entire point of this thread!

I didn't say anything at all about the Patriots' 2025 culture.  I said a team responding as they did to a single win that gives it a 3-7 record has a dysfunctional culture.

We have no idea how the 2025 Patriots would express themselves in the locker room after a win that made them 3-7.  We know how the Dolphins did however.

Do you spend as much time erecting straw man arguments and putting words in other people's mouths elsewhere in your life as well?

You deflected the question by referring to the standings, just as you did with the Rams.  And you're still deflecting: you refuse to address the Patriots' clowning around around after their win, with a weak attempt to pivot into "locker room" expression as a distinction for NE's silliness.

So let's get it on the record: can a team with a silly, clownish culture (as the Patriots just displayed after their Big Win at home against a 2-10 Giants team) be successful?  Get your position on the record now, instead of waiting until after a team fails to pop out of hiding and crow about how You Always Knew They Would Lose (as you did in 2023).

Take it out of "the locker room" then.  We have no idea how the 2025 Patriots would respond anywhere after a single win that made them 3-7.  Certainly the video of them provided above doesn't tell us that -- they aren't 3-7.


A team whose culture revolves around silliness and a clown show at the expense of the ingredients endemic to the game of football -- aggression, drive, determination, etc. -- cannot be successful at a high level.

At the risk of repeating myself: if the point of this thread is "Winning teams are good and smart, while losing teams are bad and dumb," then fine.  That's an extremely childish approach to "analysis," but it's at least defensible.   However, while you don't seem to want to come out and admit that's what you're doing, any time someone cites an example of a team with a good record acting silly, your only defense is "That team doesn't have a losing record right now."

Right now, the logical takeaway from this thread is "Unserious teams that are 3-7 have a Bad Culture, while unserious teams with a good record are outside the scope of this discussion."  This seems like a whole lot of words to repackage "Teams that are 3-7 have a bad culture."

Did you not read this post above?


Having a 3-7 record doesn't necessarily mean a team has a bad culture.

The Steelers in the video you cited weren't 3-7, and you haven't cited ANY video of a 3-7 (or similarly bad team) with a "good culture."
There is a rather obvious reason for this: the only objective way to tell that a losing team "has a good culture" is if they start winning!

But maybe I'm wrong: what losing team can you cite with an aggressive, driven, determined culture, and how did you identify the quality of their culture BEFORE they started winning?
(I will also accept a citation of culture quality for a losing team that never ended up having any success.)

I'm comfortable with what the information in the original post illustrates and suggests about variation in team culture in the NFL, and where the 2025 Dolphins are situated in that regard.

Also, many years ago I completed a doctoral dissertation for a committee of professors at a major university, and the credential I earned from that has made me millions of dollars since.  Not interested in doing another one to satisfy a single member of a football forum, when it won't make me a penny.

"I have a doctorate degree In The Real World and I'm a multimillionaire, so I don't have time for these petty squabbles, which I won't even get paid for"  ::)

I guess if you have no relevant justification left for your argument, might as well start name dropping!  Let me guess... your degree is from a Prestigious University and you also drive a Fancy Car.

Apparently on a never-ending mission to put words in my mouth and make me out to be whatever caricature of myself you have in mind.

At this point we've more than revealed your true motivation here.

Based on everything I know about Vrabel and Mike McDaniel they seem to both have the same player friendly attitude. The Patriot's OC has Belichick's seriousness, but not its head coach. 

Vrabel and McDaniel are almost nothing alike. If "the team takes on the personality of its coach" as they say, a team playing for Vrabel will have a markedly different "personality" (or culture) from one playing for McDaniel.

Nobody is mistaking Vrabel for McDaniel.  And I'm not talking about their appearance -- I'm talking about their personalities.

Coming back to this just to reiterate a bit -- it seems that some folks may underappreciate the fact that almost no one in history in the capacity of NFL head coach has ever had a personality like Mike McDaniel.

Again, the Dolphins are trying to do something here that's never (or perhaps almost never) been done in the NFL -- win big with essentially a clown at head coach.

The organization certainly shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt in that regard -- instead the view should be that McDaniel is substantially more likely to fail than even the typical newly-hired head coach, who despite NOT being a clown is himself likely to fail as well!

I think in this day and age its getting to where only former players can play the tough guy image and still be respected. Dan Campbell and Mike Vrabel earn respect for that alone. Someone like Mike could never get away with that nor could Pete Carroll. They have to be over supportive to get results from players.

You can be Pete Carroll (or someone like him) all day long and still be a LONG way from being McDaniel.  Again this guy is way out there where no one has ever been before.

And being "a tough guy" isn't the only alternative.  Andy Reid for example doesn't have the outward persona of a tough guy.  He just isn't a clown.

Andy Reid let a player push him on the sideline without repercussion. He also has been scremed at by his players. I'd say he is a far cry from a tough guy coach and leans more towards the supportive style coach.

I said explicitly Andy Reid doesn't have an outward persona as a tough guy.  He isn't a clown however.  If Andy Reid's team takes on his personality, they won't be clowns.  They'll be something other than clowns.

Again you can line up all the head coaches in NFL history and struggle to find even one who is a clown like McDaniel.

There are all sorts of possibilities other than clown -- it's only McDaniel who fits none of those possibilities.

The spectrum here isn't "tough guy/asshole versus supportive coach."  The spectrum here is "tough guy/asshole versus clown."  One can easily be a supportive coach without being a clown.

If either of those things happened to Mike you would freak. As it is you are willing to overlook the disrespect Andy Reid is willing to put up with because it doesn't fit the narrative you have going. I'm not saying it's right but there are way more variables than being either a fun coach vs tough guy to get results. If it were easy to identify everyone would have great coaches.

No that isn't the reason.  It's because Andy Reid's personality overall isn't so incompatible with the game of football that if his team takes on his personality it won't be regularly outdueled by opposing teams whose head coaches and personalities (i.e., culture) are far more compatible with football and with winning.  Consequently Andy Reid has a bigger margin for error than Mike McDaniel.

Moreover, the "narrative I have going" is no different from this one:

https://x.com/FinsXtra/status/1979955001868042597?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1979955001868042597%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=

Despite that we're nearing 60 posts with multiple participants in this thread folks, the most direct and substantive rebuttal to what I've said here -- the very simple and easily elucidated point that McDaniel simply isn't a clown -- has yet to occur.  That speaks volumes.

I'd say "explain it again, this time with those nuggies" is pretty clownish.

Sure it is.  However, do you believe Andy Reid is a clown in general?

Like if you were asked to describe Andy Reid's overall personality, you'd say "he's a clown"?

The only person who thinks McDaniel is a "clown" and refers to him as "Pee Wee Herman" is you.  The video you keep citing as damning evidence of the team's unseriousness has absolutely nothing unusual from McDaniel himself, yet you fault him for his players being too silly after an exciting win.  But when Mike Vrabel's players are even more clownish in public (not even in the locker room), you cast no such blame on the head coach.

We've also provided multiple examples of clownishness from other teams and you simply dismiss it because those teams didn't have bad records.

It's impossible to converse productively with you because you routinely mischaracterize what I've said.  The post quoted above is riddled with such mischaracterizations.

When you're interested in accurately understanding what I say, let me know.  Until then, have a nice day.

In all fairness ... I've called Pete Carroll a clown for many years. It's a subjective word so there is no way to prove it correct or incorrect.

The point is that nobody here, despite responding to the topic in general, is railing against the description of McDaniel as a clown.  If you described Don Shula as a clown, the immediate response by just about anyone willing to participate would be railing against it.

Again, multiple people have given you examples of coaches that behave even more clownishly than McDaniel, and your only response is to dismiss it because of their record, or say "But would you call him a clown?", when the only person characterizing McDaniel as "a clown" is YOU.

His entire time in New England he was referred to as a deer in headlights. 

No I don't dismiss it "because of their record."  Again another mischaracterization by you.  I dismiss it because in my opinion those coaches are exhibiting the situational variation in their behavior that everyone experiences, while not being clowns overall, or in general, like McDaniel.

If you dug around and found a single instance of Vince Lombardi for example behaving in a clownish manner, you certainly wouldn't conclude that he was a clown in general or that his teams experienced him as one -- it would simply be a one-off example of situationally-driven behavior on his part that had no relation whatsoever with the manner in which he coached his teams.

Likewise when Andy Reid films a TV commercial and the script calls for him to say something clownish in it, we certainly can't conclude that he's a clown in general or that his team experiences him as one.  That's quite a stretch and that perspective should be dismissed.  And it's not "because of his record" -- it's because it's faulty logic.

Once again, I'm not saying anything here that isn't also being said here:

https://x.com/FinsXtra/status/1979955001868042597?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1979955001868042597%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=

Whatever Bruschi is referring to about McDaniel there -- call it "being a clown" or call it whatever you want using your own vernacular -- is certainly highly noteworthy, is distinctive from other NFL head coaches, and is fundamentally incompatible with being the head coach of an NFL football team in my opinion.

This from yesterday I have no problem with:

https://www.tiktok.com/@miamidolphins/video/7581325320234470687

McDaniel will never be the picture of masculinity/aggression that coaches like Cowher, Campbell, and Shula, etc. are, but as long as he's not all the way at the other end of the spectrum at "clown" the team can get leadership from him that isn't completely inconsistent with the nature of football, and in turn have a culture in the locker room and on the field that follows from it.

Apparently he loved his time there since he gifted you guys a Super Bowl. hahhaa I lost ever having respect for the man because of him yelling at Pete Stoyanovich with the choke sign after he missed an extra point that would have tied them. Pete got the last laugh as he kicked the game winning FG a few minutes later. Hahaa

Can you imagine how the media would cover Mike McDaniel allowing a giant inflatable rabbit (https://bleacherreport.com/articles/25317931-eagles-reveal-inflatable-positivity-rabbit-locker-room-photo-amid-losing-streak) to be installed in the locker room?  Or what certain individuals here would have to say about such a development?

But this can't be "clownish" because the Eagles won the Super Bowl last season, you see.

Once again, a complete mischaracterization of what's been said here.

Just because you speak up and say something doesn't mean you're accurately characterizing what someone else has said.  You're apparently quite comfortable essentially talking to yourself with your own thoughts and projections and straw man arguments.

It's really simple.  It's ok to clown around when you're a winning team.  Not when you're a losing one.   Clowning around is fun and should be earned by wins on the football field.   I know plenty of instances where coaches have seen guys clowning around after losses and either punished them severely or booted them from the team on the spot.

Paul "Bear" Bryant- That's what happens when you get married!!  All your football is running straight out of the end of your dick!!

Amos Alonzo Stagg- Since your head isn't in the game, let's put your body in it and hope your head catches up.  Give me three stadiums... NOW!!!

Bob Knight- If losing means so little to you, maybe you're not fit to play on this team!!! (He said that to Coach K)

NEWS FLASH:  The video was from after a WIN! If the Dolphin's celebrated after a loss like that I would agree it would be clownish behavior. 

They need to act like winning isn't something new to them.   They are still performing below standards.

I just watched a video of Quinn Ewers, Ollie Gordon, and a couple of others playing football in their lockeroom (practice facility) against a Christmas Tree. The horror ..... when will the clowning around stop? hahaha

Nobody clowns around after a loss.  The point is that when you're clowning around after a win that makes you a very poor 3-7 overall, there's a problem with the team's culture.  Until the team gets its season turned around, wins should be experienced with seriousness and humility.

Again I have no problem with this from this past Sunday after the win in New York:

https://www.tiktok.com/@miamidolphins/video/7581325320234470687

The team there is still just 6-7 -- still not good overall.  The response to that win, in the context of still being a poor 6-7 overall, is on-target.  The locker room after the Bills win at 3-7 should've looked far more like that, instead of the circus that went on in the video in the original post.

This is exactly correct.  However, it is not the point being made in this thread.

The point being made by the OP is that the Dolphins' losses are caused by correlated to Mike McDaniel's status as "a clown"; a status that is somehow completely independent from all the documented clowning from other coaches with better records, who have been declared "not clowns."

No that isn't the point being made.  But you've already clearly demonstrated repeatedly you either can't grasp it or refuse to.

And once again you admit that your actual problem is with the team's record: teams with good records can clown around all they like without it being a "culture problem."

I called this 3 pages ago:

If the team had responded to becoming 3-7 with the appropriate seriousness and humility, this wouldn't be a thread.

And so no, the problem isn't "the team's record."  It's how they responded to a win in the context of that record, which again is an indication of a poor culture and which is the problem noted here, time and time again.

Again, are you capable of understanding another human being, or do you just like talking to yourself?

You have that completely backwards.  You celebrate more when you upset a team that is leading the division and was a preseason favorite to go deep into the playoffs and quite possibly be the superbowl winner than you do when you beat a team is contention for the first overall pick for next years draft. 

Again, the Steelers here had just won a road playoff game as a wildcard underdog, on their way to winning the Super Bowl:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpOG9K02F_g

Why no circus?  Shouldn't they have been wheeling each other around in laundry carts and breakdancing like the Dolphins did when they were a mere 3-7 and going nowhere?  Wasn't their win an even greater cause for a massive celebration and even more buffoonery?

I am not claiming the Steelers did anything wrong. 

Right, and neither am I.  What I'm claiming is that they were an example of doing it right, and the Dolphins at 3-7 were an example of doing it wrong.  The Steelers merely provide a contrast that illustrates the point.

So yes, it's about their record.

We know this because when other teams with better records have responded with clownish celebrations, you have nothing to say!  If you had a shred of intellectual consistency (or even some self-awareness), you would have thrown out your normal "Vrabel's Patriots haven't proven themselves to be a team with sustained success" handwaving; the same dismissal you made of the 2023 Dolphins after the fact.  That would at least be sticking to your guns.  But you can't even manage that!  When teams with good records clown around after victories, you simply say "But they weren't 3-7" and move on.

In short: clowning around after a win is fine - it's not an indictment of the team's culture, nor does it brand your head coach "a clown" - as long as you have a good record.  Which means the key factor is not the clowning, it's the record.

No, it isn't.


If we simply boldface a different part of what you quoted, it completely changes the focus and the interpretation.

But again, we know at this point you're focused in on only what you want to interpret, in your own way.  You're not understanding another person here -- you're merely talking to yourself.

Other teams with better records have responded with even less seriousness and humility than Miami and you have no criticism to offer them.
Because the "appropriate" level of seriousness and humility is determined ENTIRELY by... their record!

And that's because we have no idea how those teams would respond to winning a single game that made them 3-7.  We know how the Dolphins responded to that, however.

For all we know those teams would respond to a win that made them 3-7 with exactly the seriousness and humility I'm emphasizing here.  How can I "have criticism to offer them" when I (and all of us) have no idea how they would respond under those circumstances?

It's shocking that you can so badly miss the point your own thread is ostensibly making.

You cited the 2005 Steelers, not because they were a losing team that was serious, but instead because they were a championship team that was serious.  The point you explicitly made is that a clownish culture is not consistent with winning:


Yet when it is pointed out that the 2025 New England Patriots have an even more clownish personality - a direct refutation of your premise that "a serious personality" has an impactful correlation with winning - your response is... we don't know if they would be as silly if they were a losing team.  But that's irrelevant!  Your premise is that winning teams have a serious personality, and the 2025 Patriots - as well as the current reigning NFL champion Philadelphia Eagles, who installed a giant inflatable bunny in their locker room "for the vibes" - refute your premise.

After multiple contradictory examples have been cited - and, uhh, after the Dolphins have reeled off three more straight wins - NOW you're trying to spin this thread exclusively into a commentary on the personality traits of teams that are 3-7.  But if that were true, you never would have cited the 2005 Steelers in the first place!

I don't agree that we've established the 2025 Patriots as having anywhere near the clownish culture of the Dolphins, as was exhibited in celebrating the win that made them 3-7.


Likewise I don't agree that the rabbit establishes the 2025 Eagles as having anywhere near the clownish culture exhbited by the Dolphins in the original post.

Likewise I don't agree that Andy Reid's behavior in a scripted TV commercial establishes him as having the clownish personality in general Mike McDaniel does.

Can you see a pattern here?

You can't make your argument without leaning on the Dolphins' record; their losing record is what MAKES the Dolphins' activity "clownish" (but not the Patriots').
So once again:

Do we need to rewind all the way back to the point in the thread where I pointed out that any team is fully capable of responding to a win that makes it 3-7 entirely differently than the Dolphins did?

Of course their record is a part of what made their behavior clownish.  Are we instead supposed to divorce the appraisal of all behavior from the context in which it occurs and ascribe meaning to it in a vacuum?

If you were at a funeral at a church for example and there were hundreds of people sitting around you in tears weeping and you were standing up cheering, should we consider that behavior just as appropriate and fitting as it would be if you were standing up cheering at a football game when your team scores?

I am pretty sure the mood in each of the locker rooms matched that of the mood of the fans in attendance, so your funeral analogy makes no sense. 

A better analogy to what the Dolphins did post that game would be Patriots fans cheering and going wild after White caught a TD in Superbowl LI with the Patriots now losing 28-9 in the third quarter a still almost insurmountable deficit. 

After the game one celebrates the game not the record.

Hypothetically: it is week 18 and in order for the Patriots to get the number one seed the Patriot either need to win OR Broncos lose.  In order for the Dolphin to get the 7 seed the Dolphins need to win plus 4 other games need to go their way including the Chargers losing.  The Dolphins win but so do the Chargers and a few of the other games don't go the Dolphin's way.  In that case I would expect the Dolphin's locker room to be considerably more celebratory the Patriots.  Despite the fact that Patriots secured the #1 seed and the Dolphins missed the playoffs. 

OK so again, here were the Steelers in 2006:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpOG9K02F_g

How does that fit with your position that "one celebrates the game, not the record [or some other bigger picture variable]"?

Again the Steelers had just won a playoff road game as a wildcard underdog, eventually winning the Super Bowl.  If they had celebrated only the game, wouldn't they have appeared far different?

Did you bother reading everything above and below that line?  Because that was the meat of my post. 

I am not going to critique the Steelers because I don't think there was anything wrong with what they did.  The impetus is on you to explain why the Dolphin's celebration negatively affected future games. 

Also, the relevant context here isn't what "the fans in attendance" are feeling or doing -- it's being a 3-7 team going nowhere.  That's the context.  You celebrate a win with seriousness and humility in that context, until you get your season turned around, regardless of what your fans are feeling or doing.

The funeral example was provided only to illustrate how the meaning of behavior is determined in part by its context.  We don't ascribe meaning to behavior in a vacuum.

Precisely -- and in fact there was a whole lot right with what they did.  Despite winning a road playoff game as a wildcard underdog -- a cause for a massive celebration with whatever buffoonery they could have mustered -- their response indicated they had their sights set on a bigger-picture goal:  winning the Super Bowl.

Likewise the Dolphins in the original post could've shown the seriousness and humility that indicated they had their sights set on a bigger-picture goal just as relevant to them:  turning their season around.


We'll see what happens.  Stay tuned.

The CONTEXT of this win is a team that just beat the division leader in a game that nobody thought they would win.  You have obviously never played sports at any level, because winning upsets typically creates greater celebration than winning games where you  are the heavy favorite.  

Once again, here are the Steelers in 2006, as an underdog wildcard team after an upset in a road game in the playoffs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpOG9K02F_g

Any of them play sports at any level?

We know what happened next they won the next three games.  They have now switched to more muted celebrations that you approve of, so if they lose their next games it won''t be because they celebrated too hard after the Bills game.  It won't be that they weren't wild enough after the Jets game, either.  It is really a complete non issue.    

Both teams had the same record.  And even though the game was in Cinci the Steelers were favored by 3.  This was not an upset.  Please get your fact straight before applying analysis. 

And once again just because the Steelers acted different doesn't mean one is wrong and the other is right.  So quit posting the steelers clip and start explaining how intensely celebrating a win prevents you from winning future games.

Wrong.  The game was at Indianapolis and the 14-2 Colts led by Peyton Manning were favored by 8.5 points, which is a high number in a playoff game in the NFL.

Let's try this once more:

1) If you are a losing team (e.g. the 3-7 2025 Dolphins) and you display silly behavior after a win, it means you are not displaying the culture of a winning team.  Which is already proven by their record.
2) If you are a winning team (e.g. the eventual champion 2005 Steelers) and you display serious behavior after a win, it means you ARE displaying the culture of a winning team.  Which is already proven by their record, including their Super Bowl victory.
3) If you are a winning team (e.g. the 8-2 2025 Rams or the 11-2 2025 Patriots) and you display silly behavior after a win, it means... nothing?  We can't take anything meaningful from it, because their record makes their culture that of a winning team and not a losing team.  Which is already proven by their records.

In conclusion:

I said this way back on page 3 of this thread, response #39:


Why are we going down this road again?

You gave a concrete example of a losing team with a "clownish" culture (the 2025 Dolphins).
You gave a concrete example of a winning team with a serious culture (the 2005 Steelers).
Multiple people gave counterexamples of (currently) winning teams with "clownish" cultures (2025 Rams/Patriots).

So give an example of a losing team with a serious culture.  Not a hypothetical team that we can imagine; specifically identify an existing team with a bad record THIS YEAR that exhibits the kind of serious culture that you claim is consistent with winning.

That's what this entire exercise is supposed to be about, right?  You are making a claim about the future prospects of Mike McDaniel's Miami Dolphins: that his personality, which you have labeled "a clown," is an obstacle for the team's success.  So if this theory about "culture" is accurate, and not simply restating that "Bad teams are bad and good teams are good," you should be able to tell us which similarly bad teams - but with a culture of seriousness - will lead to winning in the future.  That would show that your theory has predictive value, in contrast to what it has been doing so far: telling us what we can already see from a team's record.

This year's Houston Texans after a 44-10 win at Baltimore on October 5th, which gave them a record of 2-3 at the time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaSvvh6_rN8

Again Houston after a 26-15 win at home against the 49ers on October 26th that made them 3-4 on the season:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65zp8jWUFhA

The Texans again after beating the Bills 23-19 in a Thursday night prime time game three weeks ago -- they were 5-5 going into that game:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A63mm1BOtAk

Far from a circus in any of those videos.  The Texans are now 8-5.

There is nothing special about the Texans in those videos -- they aren't exhibiting some sort of exceptionally good culture that guarantees a deep playoff run or Super Bowl for example.  They are simply exhibiting the normal behavior of a losing team after a win.  It's the Dolphins in the original post who are far from normal.

I suspect if we were to take on this task with a larger scope and greater effort, we'd find that almost all teams with losing records would likewise celebrate wins in a manner far unlike the circus the Dolphins exhbiited in the original post.  The Dolphins would be in the extremely small minority, deviating considerably from the NFL norm in that context.

You identified a team that has won a home playoff game in the prior two postseasons, when they were one game under .500 this year, as a "losing team" that your theory predicts will have "future" (i.e. NOT RIGHT NOW) success; a team that, at the time of your post, is 8-5. Well done.

But even if you had chosen an actual "losing team," your response still would have been terrible.  In the three videos you cited, we see the head coach speaking in a calm, yet motivated manner, congratulating his players on their win but encouraging them to focus on the task that remains.  This is no different than Mike McDaniel's behavior in the video you repeatedly criticize!  McDaniel was not "silly" or "clownish"; it was the players in Miami who were clowning, and those HOU videos don't show how the players reacted after the game (save the QB for a brief moment).

If you cut the MIA video down to just when the head coach is speaking - as it is for almost all of those three HOU videos - it is virtually indistinguishable from the three videos you just posted.

Ah, so you want me to focus only on teams that are established and sustained losers.  Well in that case it's all the more likely they'll have poor cultures as well.  However, that isn't the focus of my point here -- the focus is on the response to single wins when a team simply has a losing record, not when it's "an established and sustained loser."  So once again, you've misunderstood the point.

Nevertheless, the difference in culture between the Dolphins and the Texans in these videos more than overwhelms whatever other difference there is between the two teams.  In comparison to the Texans and in supporting the point here, the Dolphins are so far off the chart on the dimension of "clownishness" that whatever other differences there are between the two teams hardly matter.


Reply #30 in the thread.

I can almost guarantee had he done that the Dolphins would be a four win team at best.  And lets be clear you want him to scold and demean the team for celebrating a win.   

I have seen people (parents, teachers, coaches) do what you are suggesting and it almost always results in devastating consequences. 

When someone (or some group of people) have success after repeated failure you want to encourage the dopamine boost that comes from winning.  You want to maximize the positive feelings of a win.   Scolding or demeaning the success is the last thing you want to do.

I have had it happen to me.  I can handle being scolded for failure, but being scolding after success is devastating and never makes me want to try harder but just quit, because if winning is enough for approval their is no point in trying. 

Here is an interview with a head coach who was just featured on 60 Minutes for the biggest turnaround of a program in college football history:

https://www.facebook.com/100083784289106/videos/a-little-curt-cignetti-mentality-on-big-ten-championship-eve/2113638659377706/

Thanks for FUCKING WASTING my time.  Absolutely nothing in that video had anything to do with your proposed plan of scolding players for celebrating a win. 

The point is that head coaches in the real world, and highly successful ones at that, don't always respond to success with rainbows and unicorns.  They take context into consideration.

And "scolding players for celebrating a win" is nothing more than a caricature of my position.  The Dolphins weren't merely "celebrating a win" in the original post -- they were conducting a circus.  There a lots of ways of "celebrating a win" that don't involve conducting a circus, and that don't require any reality check by the head coach.

Again, the Steelers in the original post were similarly "celebrating a win" -- in a vastly different manner.  But you seem incapable of grasping that distinction, time and time again.

And speaking of "wasting time," what was this garbage you posted earlier and didn't even apologize for?