I agree with you. A losing culture has a compounding effect. A player gets used to winning and losing. You might say that you show up to the rink expecting one or the other and, in a way, it makes it so. But that culture has to be created by someone (I know you know this) and that someone--that group of someones has created a culture of losing.
But it can all be turned around if only Ted or the next owner will build a proper winning culture. Where excellence is rewarded and failure is scraped off and trashed. Losing must become unacceptable. Keeping the context that there is a salary cap and it is very very difficult to win even for the best GM's.
I don't agree with that thought process, but for a very different reason than one might expect. I do believe losing cultures are a problem, and we should avoid creating one whenever possble. They are contagious. There's a problem though, and that's the fact that losing cultures have nothing to do with tanking for a draft pick, or a late season run, and everything to do with stability in the front office, and the presence of franchise changing personalities on the roster. The Redskins didnt change their culture with Gibbs, nor Zorn, nor robiskie, nor Zorn, nor Spurrier, nor even Shanny, the culture change required a combination of Shanny's house cleaning of the roster AND the addition of a RG3. To be sure there were other players that were important like London Fletcher, but without a linchpin leader with franchise talent, no amount of work from Shanny was going to change much. Ditto the Cavs with Lebron and without (though Irving looks like a changer), ditto the Penguins with Crosby, luck in the draft and the FO, ditto with the Nats here at home with the combo of outstanding team building from Rizzo and Kasten combined with franchise changing talents in Strass and Harper to go with vets who had a positive culture too.
Winning or not winning games late in a season has absolutely expletive all to do with team culture. As Tom Tolbert (former Warrior) mentioned years ago, "late season runs don't carry over, particularly in leagues like the NBA with long seasons. There simply is too much possibility of player turnover, too long of an offseason, and no ability to connect what happened last april, with whats going on in October/November. It just doesn't happen."
Want to fix our culture? Want to avoid transitioning into an abject losing culture? Then playing better, drafting better, and having an effective offseason is the way to do so. Winning some games in april aint going to mean anything about our culture and at the end of the day, acquiring a potential franchise player in the draft is 10,000x more valuable than winning 24 games instead of 20 this spring. Just look at my fellow redskins fans. In the fall of '11 i was having a complete meltdown over the slotting crushing victories the redskins were managing against the redskins and in a late game miracle comeback in september (i think the cardinals) during an absolutely miserable season. Redskins fans left and right were arguing that they could never root for slotting over winning on sunday, and no amount of my pointing at the packers needless season finale victory in '88 getting them Mandarich over Aikman could change their mind.
Well four months later when we traded a 2nd rounder, and 3 first rounders to move up a few slots for RG3 they were finally reevaluating just how worthwhile those handful of bizarre wins in '11 were, because at the end of the day, they cost us first rounders in 2013, and 2014, and a 2nd in '12 that could have really helped.
At the end of the day this caps team sucks. Just like the Wizards. And my interest in both cases is at another shot at a franchise/culture changing player via the draft, because april victories in a lost season, as always, don't mean squat (just remember the runs the wiz have gone on every april for 2-3 years, just how much carry over did we get from last april, to this past fall when we started 4-28? Not very much).