LB, that’s a really long winded response, but you failed to address your contradictory statements. Does culture matter or not?
Depends on what context you're asking.
Does Losing Culture Matter Long Term? - No.For the majority of this forum, they assumed that Philly would perpetually be bad, because it was impossible for a bad team to suddenly be good. That runs counter to decades of history to the contrary. We've seen numerous teams flip a switch from "terrible" to "awesome". One need only look at the career of LeBron James as proof. Cavs are a 17 win team before they draft him. In a few short years they are a 50-66 win team capable of making the Finals. He leaves, they go back to a 19-24 win team for a few years. He returns, they are back to a 50-57 win team making 4 straight Finals. He leaves, they are a 6 win team right now. Similarly, the Heat were team a few years removed from winning 15 games. Bron jumps on board and they are 54-66 win team making 4 straight Finals. He leaves, they are a 37 win team. Talent cures all.
In our own history alone, we saw the Celtics go from a 29 win team to 61 win team with the arrival of Bird. We saw 24 win team go to a 66 win team with the arrival of KG. We saw a 25 win team go to a 50+ win team in 3 short years with the implementation of Brad's system.
From that respect - ya'll were wrong. Most people here thought Philly would be a lotto team last season. Nah. With a finally healthy Embiid and Simmons off to a phenomenal rookie season they flipped a switch from 28 win team to 52 win team. Superstar talent is the name of the game.
The risk of a "losing culture" infesting a franchise and making it impossible for them to ever get out of it - is nonsense. Once you have superstar talent, game over. That's actually one of the reasons I was a little worried about the Kings this year - the risk of Fox and Hield taking a leap and their potential to draft a superstar level prospect like Doncic made me nervous they'd dig out of the bottom 5. Granted, they thankfully messed up by not taking Doncic and they are still most likely going to miss the playoffs in the loaded West, but you can't be surprised by them playing above .500 basketball so far. Even on arguably the worst managed team of the past decade, the Kings are not immune to star talent digging them out of the dumps.
So that's one context. Big picture, "losing culture" doesn't make a lick of difference if the goal is acquiring Superstars. Once you have that star talent, it will immediately change the culture. Lakers have been toiling away winning 20ish games for the past 5 years. Bron shows up and they are on pace to win 50+.
The other topic is a different one and you're intentionally pretending like you're confused about the two to try to suggest there is a contradiction.
Does Culture Influence Player Development? - Depends on the player.Some prospects are likely benefited by having low-pressure situations where they can get reps on a bad team. It was probably in Durant's best interest to spend his rookie season on a 20 win team jacking up 21 shots per game while shooting 43% from the field and 28% from three... it gave him the necessary reps as "the man" before he was ready to be "the man".
Other prospects are likely benefited by having strong role models and a quality developmental system around them. I sincerely doubt Rondo ever develops into an all-star had he not ended up in Boston with 3 hall-of-famers to learn from, a GM who had been an all-star point guard, a coach who had been an all-star point guard, spending some of his early developmental time learning from Sam Cassell - etc. Rondo's ceiling was raised by his surroundings. Likely the same with Kawhi. Likely the same with Jaylen Brown.
So, you'd probably say, "Well obviously it's better for a young guy to spend his formative years in a winning environment"... Well, not necessarily. I'm sure there have been instances of players not reaching their ceiling, because they didn't get the required NBA reps they needed early on. Had Darko spent his rookie season getting 35 minutes on a 19 win bottom-feeder, would he have had a better chance to figure things out than he did having his confidence shattered by receiving 4 minutes per game (in only 30 games) on a 54 win Pistons contender? Is it possible that a guy like Yabusele would be having a solid career if he had spent last season getting significant minutes on a bad team? What might James Young's career look like if he had been force-fed starter minutes on a lotto team as opposed to being buried in our G-League system? Had Devin Booker been drafted by this Celtic team and instead of getting starter minutes right away he instead received the Terry Rozier treatment and spent the entire rookie season in G-League behind our numerous guards, does Booker look as good as he does today? Possibly not.
In that respect, it's a case-by-case basis. Robert Covington's development benefited by getting big minutes he wouldn't have gotten elsewhere. It's fair to say that Noel and Okafor's careers might have looked differently if they had spent their early years surrounded by quality mentors.
There's really no way to predict this stuff and it's kind of impossible to say one situation would be better than another. Is it in Robert Williams' best interest to spend his rookie season getting spot minutes while he learns from vets like Horford - or would Williams be better off getting consistent minutes on a team like the Bulls?
What I do know is that I credit our system for raising Jaylen Brown's ceiling. I doubt I'd think much of his ceiling if he was on a crappy team like the Suns. On the flip side, I was worried that our system might stunt Tatum's development. Instead of getting the freedom to experiment with his immense skillset (and jack up 20+ shots per night as Durant did as a rookie), Tatum was forced to play a specific role his rookie season. I worried that pigeonholing Tatum might hold him back and ruin his opportunity to become a Superstar during these formative years. That's why I actually LOVE that the Celtics have spent this 2nd season giving Tatum the freedom to take contested mid-range shots, fadeaways and long-twos. Let the kid experiment. Let him get these reps taking tough shots so that it will pay dividends long term. It's a tricky thing to manage, though - as evidence by all the backlash from fans who lose their minds when Tatum takes a contested shot and just want to see him take open looks.
Bottom line - Philly's "process" has already proven to be a massive success. They are one of the best teams in the East now. None of their players or fans are losing sleep over the few brief years they spent as a bottomfeeder. Those days are gone. They are relevant.
Now, if you're asking how I would guess Avery Bradley's career would have gone if drafted by the Kings compared to how Ben McLemore's career would have gone if drafted by the Celtics - that's a different discussion.