Saints = No Leadership
 

Unless we are talking strictly about players as leaders, I think the Pats leadership comes directly from their coaches. They have a no BS approach with all players, and pump that noone is above the team concept to all. That\'s where their leadership comes from. I think it was noted pretty early on we feel we won\'t get that kinda leadership from our guys. Carry on. :cool:

Saints = No Leadership
 

You need both whodi. You have to have good coach leaders, but you also have to have players that buy what you are trying to sell them(heard Denny Green say this). If you don\'t have strong players that will take a stand and believe in what the coach is telling them(whether they are acting or not), then that\'s where the leadership ladder falls. I think Haslett can be a good coach leader, but he has a problem. Who is Haslett\'s favorite son??? I hate to bring it here but it\'s AB. He isn\'t a leader and will never be one. That is a PERFECT example.

Talent aside...if you can\'t be a leader in the NFL...well it doesn\'t make success impossible, but that much more difficult.

Saints = No Leadership
 

I feel like I\'m taking crazy pills right now. Golden Tomb, Xan and I seem to be the only three Saints fans in here that recognize that the team lacks true leadership. JKool, you can try to pick apart my views and opinions all you want, that\'s your right. But pick this view apart, if the Saints had better leadership, be it from the coach or players, they would win more games. Do you think that we have 8-8 talent? Can you honestly tell me that better leadership and discipline wouldn\'t result in a better team? ;)

You ask how do I know certain things about the team. That\'s just it. I don\'t know anything but what I see from their play and behavior. You don\'t have to be John Clayton to see that this team has no direction, discipline, or leadership. I didn\'t just wake up the other day and say, \"I\'m going to think that the Saints don\'t have any leadership\". My opinion of the team has been molded over the last few years by the obvious.

In this case the obvious being the inconsistent play on the field and the overall lack of class by some of the players. For example, compare the way the Saints carry themselves with the way the Patriots carry themselves. Do the Patriots players: pull out cell phones after touchdowns, act like high school kids in the endzone, blast teammates, the FO, or the coach in the media, put their personal stats higher in importance than the teams success(AB), smile and laugh after stupid passes and losses, etc, etc, etc. The list could keep going indefinitely, but I won\'t waste my time trying to make a point to people who think the team is just fine the way it is. But you can\'t deny the fact that the Patriots are a team that combines talent with leadership and discipline. The Saints are an example of solid talent with no direction. ;)

Saints = No Leadership
 

bignic,

What the heck is \"true leadership\"? Look, I\'m not trying to be annoying here; I thought you were saying something pretty interesting, and I\'m trying to figure out if I agree.

(1) Again, not trying to \"pick anything apart\". I\'m just trying to understand your view.

(2) The view that \"leadership from somewhere\" would lead to more wins isn\'t obviously true to me. That is why I was trying to understand your view. I ALREADY AGREED THAT WE LACK LEADERSHIP (in fact, I don\'t think ANYONE disagreed with that). I\'m just trying to understand what that means, how to fix it, what that is like, what are its implications and so on. Since you started this thread, I thought we could explore those things, if you\'re not interested in that I\'ll stop asking you about your view, so let me know.

(3) My current view is that it is unclear how talented this team is. We\'ve been roughly .500 for four years now. There are many possible reasons for this - one is lack of leadership, another is a lack of actual talent, another is unwillingness of our owner to shell out the cash (though I\'m skeptical of this one), yet another is a voodoo curse (I\'m pretty sure it isn\'t that either), and the list goes on. Why are you so sure that one of these many possible explanations is so much better than the others? Actually, that question is a bit unfair; how about this one - why do you think we have so much talent, when we go only .500 over four years?

(4) I didn\'t wake up one morning and think to myself \"the Saints have leadership\" either. What is your point? Leadership has come up here many times - from the ensuing discussion we\'ve made interesting discoveries about different kinds of leadership - leading by example and vocal leadership - as well as somethings about their role and value in football. You\'ve suggested a third kind THAT I\'M INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT MORE ABOUT, why aren\'t you intested in discussing that idea with me? I just want to know how it works in terms of winning football games. It is like you\'ve decided that I just disagree with you and that\'s it; I really want to know how your view works!

Golden Tomb,

(1) The point about Lewis was this (and it wasn\'t directed at your view really): if what the Saints need is a real integrity/character guy, Lewis isn\'t an example of that. I was thinking about whether or not there was a third kind of leadership players should have/need - the kind of thing that bignic was suggesting (which I\'ve been calling integrity, though I\'m starting to think that isn\'t the right word). Apologies that you took that as a criticism, it was just a thought.

(2) I agree that leadership has to start somewhere. However, why does it have to come from someONE, why not a group of people with unique abilities coming together in the right way - sometimes the whole is worth more than the sum of its parts, right? I don\'t see why we need ONE leader (though I can see how that might be nice); why not a group of leaders who compliment each other?

(3) I still agree that we lack leadership. I\'m really more interested in understanding what kind of leadership we lack, how we might get it, and what kind of impact leadership has on W-L.

Saints = No Leadership
 

JKool is basically saying that the team needs to be just that, a TEAM. The FO, the coaches, the players, the owner....all need to be a TEAM.

When you have a team acting as a team, you don\'t need just one leader. You have several people acting as one, forming a team of leaders.

There will be several individuals with more of a leadership role, but the entire team is not headed by one LEADER.

At least I think thats what your trying to say......right.

Saints = No Leadership
 

jnorm,

I hadn\'t really thought of it that way, but that is an interesting way of putting the point. It sounds more or less right to me, but I\'ll think on it a bit more.

Saints = No Leadership
 

The point of Leadership on the Saints is an interesting one , certainly you would think they have leaders on the field and certainly on both sides of the ball .

The most interesting thoughts on leadership for the Saints , may come from various reports if you read them .

From PFW Whispers section
Certainly this is not the first time a report has been made as to say something is wrong with the play calling .For the last 2 years Venturi has been trying to find a way to simplify the defensive scheme , on or around mid season .Deuce reported earlier in the season that Brooks was calling the wrong blocking on plays .

To simplify all this .

How does a player lead when he has no faith in the system ??? .. ;)

Saints = No Leadership
 

That is an interesting question 08!

There are some who can lead even when the system is flawed, but those are usually the greatest of leaders. Political examples come to mind - George Washington lead when the system was flawed and crumbling, for example.

Maybe this is the heart of bignic\'s suggestion: Since there is no leadership from proper sources (e.g. coaches), then we need a player to rise up from the ranks and instill faith in his teammates?

It is not clear to me that Haz can\'t lead some of the time, or aggregate (\"teamness\") leadership can\'t take the place of a single, strong leader, but maybe the situation is so dire we need one of these \"super leaders\". I can\'t say that I believe that, but at least it makes some sense to me.

Saints = No Leadership
 

This thread is doing what threads should. It\'s making people think. The idea of leadership in football is alot more complex and important than the average fan realizes.

Let me see if I can show you guys where I\'m coming from with my views. I played high school football at arguably the best high school football program in not only the state of LA, but the entire nation as well. West Monroe High School. Year in and year out the Rebels have great success and almost always end up in the state championship. A person looking at that team from an outside perspective would say that they continue to have great success because they have great players and coaching. That couldn\'t be further from the truth. The reason the Rebels win every year is because the team has great leadership from the coaches all the way down to the water boys. The team prides itself on class, discipline and dignity. You won\'t find a more disciplined team in the nation. Their success isn\'t about great players. We\'ve had two players go to the NFL that I can remember, Shawn King and Bradie James for Dallas. That\'s nothing compared with the amount of pro players powerhouse high school teams like Long Beach Poly or Del Le Salle , both in California, churn out.

I know damn good and well that the NFL isn\'t class 5A high school football, but the same principles apply in any team sport. I also know that grown men don\'t respond to discipline and leadership the same way kids do. But winning teams are built the same way no matter the sport or level.

Here are the basic ingredients in my recipe for success in team sports at any level: Leadership, Integrity, Heart, Talent, Good Teachers, Trust, Direction, Goals, Comradery, and An Overall Sense of Team. Of course there are alot more things that go into the \"Stew of Success\", if you will. If you look at our beloved team with an objective eye, you will see that we are severely lacking in many of those aspects of winning.

JKool keeps asking how the kind of leadership I\'m referring to relates to Ws and Ls. Well JKool, think of it like this, I\'ll use my best analogy. Imagine those big wine glass fountain things you see at weddings and such. Before all of the glasses can be filled with wine the first must be filled. The rest of the glasses are filled by the trickle down effect. Eventually all of the glasses will be filled, but not without the top glasses being filled first.

Now think of the overall pyramid structure of glasses as a team, and each individual glass as a player. Think of the wine as my \"Stew of Success\". Now, a player, a group of players, a coach, or a group of coaches must take the initiative and begin to pour the stew on the team, by spreading a new approach to team unity and success. At first only a few players will be filled, or catch on to the new idea. If the person or persons keep pouring, eventually all of the players will be reached and will buy into the new concept of being a successful team. Thus, in theory, all the players will be on one page. They will all have what it takes to win games consistently.

My point is simple, we don\'t have the type of leaders who can start the process of creating a winning and focused attitude. Talent plus \"Stew of Success\" equals the opportunity to win on a weekly basis. Talent plus no leadership, discipline, or direction equals the ability to win some games but with no consistency. JKool let me know if you still can\'t understand what I\'m trying to say. :casstet:

Saints = No Leadership
 

I like your analogy... very fancy.

So, you seem to agree with me that a core of guys who can lead. More on this, while I work on getting the analogy.

The stew is the set of goals set up by the coaches - starting with the HC, I imagine. This set of goals, if achieved is assumed to be all the ingredients to success. I can see how this has to do with W-L. When I played, we called it the ladder of success. The first rung was always something cheezy like \"remember your helmet\"; of course, the top rung was \"win the championship game\". Thus, if you climbed all the rungs, you\'d have a winning team. Of course, in HS the ladder always included things like \"be a positive memeber of the community\" or \"study hard, play hard\". I\'m not sure that those things ever had much to do with winning as a team - certainly nowhere near as much as \"have no penalities in a game\" - they are a way of justifying sports as a character builder to parents and the school board. Either way, I think I\'ve got this one.

The structure of glasses demonstrates how the stew (the plan) is distributed to the players. Of course, this structure supposes that it must start with one guy. I\'m sure you don\'t really think that. Of course, if there aren\'t a core of guys on board with the recieving the stew (the plan), it is unlikely it will get to all the guys. So, I don\'t see that there is a need for one leader - as jnorm might put it, \"if you have a TEAM attitude, the plan should flow easily to all the players.\" Of course, if the guys who get on board initially are good leaders themselves (whatever that means), then the plan (stew) will spread more quickly.

So, I think we agree on these points:
(1) There must be a good and effective plan, designed by the people at the top. (The plan itself is not leadership, it is the disemination of the plan that requires leadership.)
(2) In many (all?) cases, the plan must flow from the higher ups to the lower downs. (This is also not leadership, it is a fact about communication.)
(3) The plan will get spread around faster if it is perpetuated (and accepted by) the strong leaders on the team. Those leaders are the people who have charisma (or some other means of getting others on board with the plan, like strength or something of value).

So, you have hit on another characteristic that is related to leadership, just as I suspected! It isn\'t integrity as I first postulated, it is charisma - the ability to get others to listen and follow. Does that sound right?

It does seem to me that this is something that others have been talking about. AB isn\'t very charismatic; he says stupid things, he fails to command respect due to his sideline smiles, etc. Your claim appears to be that Joe Horn isn\'t charismatic either, since he is out for number one (and who can really respect that in another). I guess, I\'m on board with these ideas (though in Joe\'s case, it isn\'t as obvious).

It isn\'t clear to me though, from observing games and reading related reports, that the Saints have any more or less charismatic leaders than other teams. Maybe someone has more information about this than I do? If we have the same number of charisma guys, then our problem isn\'t that. If have none and other teams have one or two, then I\'m not sure what to say about that - that is, I\'m not sure how big a factor it is.

Whodi suggested earlier that the Pats are strong because of the charisma of their coaches. I\'m willing to grant that we don\'t have that. Maybe that is all you were trying to say. It seemed to me though that the big concern was that we didn\'t have any leaders (read: charismatic players) - I guess I don\'t know about that.