Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints

Saints = No Leadership

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; xan -- Look, I respect your opinion on leadership. But, you have yet to answer my questions to a point where you\'ve convinced me that our problem(s) are leadership. Do me this one favor? FORGET AARON BROOKS. I don\'t think ...

Closed Thread
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-22-2005, 03:37 PM   #61
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
Saints = No Leadership

xan --

Look, I respect your opinion on leadership. But, you have yet to answer my questions to a point where you\'ve convinced me that our problem(s) are leadership.

Do me this one favor? FORGET AARON BROOKS. I don\'t think we\'re going to get anywhere using Aaron as a reference point. The subject is too volatile.

Let\'s compare Peyton Manning to Donavan McNabb.

According to you, Peyton is a great leader where McNabb really isn\'t. Peyton has a probowl RB, probowl WR, and pretty much the best supporting cast in the NFL on offense.

Donavan McNabb, on the other hand, hasn\'t had much help on offense the past 4 years. Before Terrell Owens, McNabb had a bunch of cast-offs at WR. And he\'s never had a premeir RB, either.

Yet, under McNabb\'s guidance, the Eagles have had a very potent offense. McNabb has gotten the most out of the talent on offense and has proven time and time again that he can lead his team DEEP in the playoffs.

BUT -- was it really McNabb\'s leadership that got the Eagles to 3-straight NFC championship games and then to the super bolw in 2005?

Accoding to your logic, leadership is vital at the QB position. But, when it comes to McNabb and the Eagles, you say it\'s Andy Reid who provides the leadership.

The only conclusion I can come to by using your logic is that leadership at the QB isn\'t needed so long as it comes from somewhere? In this case, it\'s HC Andy Reid.

It seems to me that you have a preconcieved notion of what leadership is and when you don\'t see exactly what it is you\'re looking for, you start to make excuses for why teams can be successful without it.

Look, I\'m not missing your point. It\'s just that it just doesn\'t add up to me.

I\'ve never heard anyone say Mark Bulger was a great leader. Or Mike Martz.

I\'ve never heard anyone say Mike Vick was a great leader.

Yet, they\'ve alll been successful.

Hey, I have an open mind .. I\'m still listening.

GumboBC is offline  
Old 03-22-2005, 06:13 PM   #62
Professor Crab and
Site Donor 2014
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Princeton
Posts: 3,272
Blog Entries: 33
Saints = No Leadership

I\'d like to say that leadership is just like pornography, but I\'ve been through too many leadership seminars/forums/retreats to know that\'s just not true.

Living as I do 55 miles from Philadelphia, I can honestly say that I\'ve seen more Eagles games than I ever EVER wanted to. That bias being said, I\'m not saying that McNabb isn\'t a good leader. He fits the Philadelphia system and is a relatively smart guy. He exercises good judgement (most times) and doesn\'t try to do more than he is capable of. He and his coaching staff are on the same page. It is his coaching staff who run the team\'s offense. McNabb doesn\'t get to call his plays, and has limited audible freedom. Phily\'s offense has been run oriented but not because the team lacked good receivers (I\'ll admit they get picked on by the media a fair bit). Andy Reid\'s philosophy is hold the ball, beat up the opposing defense, and play field position. The team is built to function at all levels in that regard, and McNabb is very proficient at running it from the offensive side. He has 3 quality running backs who can alternately pound the ball, break outside and catch short passes and he had a great tight end until he went down in the NFC championship game. Until this season, McNabb didn\'t have a deep threat, but even when he did, he didn\'t throw the ball downfield as much as you\'d think adding Owens. Owens did more for that team\'s self image and confidence than McNabb did. But as a good leader, McNabb absorbed any blame in losses. He fell on swords meant for other teammates regularly. In the end, Reid is the \"go-to\" decisionmaker and ultimate leader. (I would bring up McNabb\'s apparent 4 minute long brain cramp at the end of the Super Bowl, but that\'s piling on)

Manning on the other hand is a different kind of leader. The 2004 season was by far and away the worst defense Indy has had in 5 years. Still, Manning managed to create an offense that outscored opponents in 13 of 18 games. He had bad games, as everyone does. The 2004 loss to the Pats was his worst playoff game, not because he didn\'t lead well, he just couldn\'t figure out what was going on. However, he took on the responsibility of driving the bus, and he, like McNabb took responsibility for the wrecks. Because Manning owns his offense, constructs the strategies, creates and calls the plays, manages the personnel, and is capable of executing at a consistently All-Pro level, the demands of his leadership skills are far greater than McNabbs. You are right to attribute the team\'s failure to advance beyond the eventual Super Bowl champs to Manning. Even the 2003 \"holding festival\" loss in the AFC championship game. But that doesn\'t detract from his ability and proven skills in leading his team.

No one would ever expect McNabb to be able to do the kind of things that Manning could do. As a business analogy, McNabb is a product manager and Manning is a COO. Both have leadership skills, but one takes it to a different level.

In the end, it\'s all about execution. Who, when called upon, will deliver. And just as ultimately, who is doing the calling. The leaders do the calling.

Calvin: "I wish I was a Tiger."
Hobbes: "Common lament."
xan is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:03 PM.

Copyright 1997 - 2018 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts