Leadership
 

Favre, Delhomme, Hasselbeck, Trent Green, all considered great leaders... Yet, what did it get them?


Favre - Threw 4 ints in the first playoff game and got his team bounced by the lowly Vikings!!

Delhomme -- From superbowl to ummmm... sitting at home watching the playoffs.

Culpepper, Vick, McNabb, Bulger -- Not considered to be leaders. Where are they at.

Vick -- Won the NFC South and had the second best record in the NFC.
McNabb -- Won division and had best record in NFC.
Culpepper -- Threw 4TDs and beat Favre on his home turf!!
Bulger -- Beat Hasselbeck and the Seahawks on their home turf.

And then there's leadership from the coaches..

Parcells?
Gruden?
Holmgren?
Shannahan?


Can someone explain to me what leadership is doing for those folks this year?

It sure ain't making much of a difference.

Let me think... Talent or Leadership?

Culpepper or Hasselbeck?
Vick or Delhomme?
McNabb or Favre?

Parcells or Mike Martz?

Talent it is !!!

What say you?

Leadership
 

...out of curiosity, how many times are you going to post the same thing?

Leadership
 

To satisfy your curiosity, I only talked about leadership in one other thread.

And as the playoffs are played out, like today, it proves more and more my point about leadership being overrated.

Did that satisfy your curiosity? ;) LOL

Leadership
 

Tobias, I\'m so glad you joined B&G.net. You\'re very quickly becoming one of my favorite members here.

Maybe it would be easier to label these threads like:
Absolve Leon Thread #1
Absolve Leon Thread #2
Absolve Leon Thread #3

But to go ahead and talk about the merits of the thread for just a second.

In the Vikings win today, who is the leader of that team if not Culpepper? I wonder if the Packers suffer from a home field ego syndrome. They always make a big deal about how they can\'t be beaten at Lambeau in the playoffs. I wonder if they thought they were so bullet-proof that they didn\'t take the Vikings seriously?

I refuse to discuss the Carolina QB.

But why does it have to be either/or? I think everyone would agree that Norman Schwatzkoff is a great leader, but he probably doesn\'t have the physical tools/talent to lead an NFL team to the superbowl.

It goes without saying that to play professional football, you have to have physical talent/ability/prowess. The physical stuff is the ticket that gets you in. Everyone would also agree that Sullivan has all the physical ability/talent to be an elite DT, but he can\'t even stay dressed to play. What a player does with that talent when they get in seems to make all the difference.

So why can\'t we be talking more both/and?

Leadership
 

Lack of leadership by HC and QB:

Saints, missing playoffs 4 straight years.

Leadership
 

ScottyRo - almost right; you forgot the organization; i.e. TB.

The defining characteristics of gumbo are the type of stock used and the thickening agent used. - Too much thickening I fear :shrug:

Leadership
 

Let\'s just say I agree with you Gator (since I think I do). On your acount it seems to me that the following hold:

1. You can\'t determine who is a good leader based on wins/losses.
2. You can\'t determine who is a good leader based on on-field performance, since there may be no one to lead.
3. You can\'t determine who is a good leader based on getting to the playoffs.
4. You can\'t determine who is a good leader due to success of the team, since other players may be getting the job done.

If you say that you can determine who is a good leader based on what his teammates say, then Haz IS a good leader, since so many players have recently come forward to say that it is so (or at least that Haz was getting a bum wrap).

Sounds good to me that leadership is always a plus, but how can you know that? It seems to me that you\'ve left know real way of determining who is a leader and who isn\'t. Perhaps Billy\'s reasoning just isn\'t there, but your skepticism is too trenchant here.

It is my view that leadership is determined on the basis of a complex set of things that INCLUDES wins/losses, playoff appearances, personal stats, testimony of teammates and opponents, and so on. So, it seems to me that while Billy\'s argument is far from complete, it is nowhere near as off track as you\'ve made it seem.

Leadership
 

PS - I couldn\'t resist. ;)

Gator, I don\'t understand how you can even mention AB along with Peyton and Farve? Were you COMPARING them? I don\'t get it. You know that is IMPOSSIBLE, right?

Leadership
 

For what it is worth my two cents......a good/great leader is a person who inspires others to up their performance. He doesn\'t necessarily have to be the guy who always wins or does it all himself but through his motivational ability brings out the best in those around him. If for one second you think that Bret Favre is NOT a great leader then you, my friend, are just wrong. His play in loosing or winning brings out the best in MOST of his team mates. He \"inspires\" those around him that \"we\" together can do this. THAT is a leader.

Leadership
 

i\'d beg to different on culpepper n mcnabb. i think they are leaders.

Leadership
 

I find it very interesting that everyting has to be in balck & white when you are discussing somethng that has too many factors to condense it into those parameters. Is leadership important -- of course -- can leadership alone win -- nope you gotta have some sort of talent. That said -- here is my take on the whole leadership argument -- A good leader with average talent can take his team to the next level -- not necessarily always will but can do it because the team has trust and faith in him. A bad leader with talent can also take his team to the next level -- but much less often, As for the AB/Haz discussion with leadership -- can\'t really tell about Haz but I can say with authority that a leader doesn\'t not talk about him being a great QB with a good supporting cast.

Leadership
 

UK, I\'m glad we share a name. Absolutely hilarious.

ROFLMAO. Man, now I have to clean my montior again. That was hilarious.


In the last few posts, Billy has suggested that Leadership is worthless, said coaching is mostly meaningless, defended AB\'s comments about being \"a great QB on a bad team,\" and scoffed that anyone would be upset by Moss\'s butt-crack routine last night.

[Edited on 10/1/2005 by JOESAM2002]

Leadership
 

Agreed. I might even go so far as to call Vick a leader. I certainly can\'t think of anyone else on the Buzzards who is as influential.

On the other hand, I dunno who admires Matt Hasselbeck or Trent Green for their \"leadership.\" At best, they are moderately good QB\'s who just happen to be surrounded by alot of talent (especially Green).

Leadership
 

Gator -

I\'m sure you knew this, but I understood. This was just a part of a bit of a running joke for me.

Also, you did compare them. You said they each have a flaw (and we know they each have more than just one). That is a comparison.

The simple fact of the matter is that these guys are are comparable in the sense that we can make judgements about what is the same (and different about them). The only issue with that is that sometimes there are just too many differences between them to any real judgement away from it. It is my view that comparision IS possible AND not a problem.

Leadership
 

As for your view on leadership, I\'m inclined to agree.

First, good leaders are good - agreed. However, it is not clear to me that your analysis is quite right. Being respectful, for example, is good MOST of the time; surely you can imagine a time when being disrespectful would be good (I\'m sure you get the idea). Thus, I\'m disinclined to agree that leadership is analytically good - consider a team with too many leaders (the many headed beast, too many chefs, and so on).

That said, leadership, more often than not, is a good thing. I believe your \"common sense\" point is strong enough for that.

Also, in many discussions on this board, I\'ve come to believe that there are different kinds of leadership. Here are the two that come up most often: vocal leadership (leading by commanding, explaining, calling out, etc.) and example leadership (leading by doing). It is clear to me that Brooks is poor at the first kind, and low to medium on the second kind. I\'m also sure that there are others. Farve, for example, in contrast, is high on both.

As for your idea as to how to determine leadership, I like it. I suggested you may say something to that effect in my earlier post. Do you then agree that Haz is a good leader, since his players have recently rallied behind him and said that they wanted to win for him (surely a sign of a leader)? Benson thinks he\'s a leader. On your account (assuming you have no first hand experience of him), it seems you must say he is.

Also, I agree that we experience leadership, but personal experience doesn\'t usually do much for me. The greatest leaders are the ones who can lead everyone (thus, I\'d be inclined to think that my personal experience of that person would tell me that they are a great leader); however, many good leaders inspire some and repulse others. Take for example Margaret Thatcher - inspiring to some, annoying as all get out to others. My point here is that it isn\'t one\'s own personal experience that should matter so much as inter-subjective agreement (lots of people think x is a good leader) that should tell one about who is a good leader. A minor point, but I thought you might find it interesting.

Leadership
 

Oh, yeah. I also agree that good leaders have strong drives. That is a good idea for evaluating leadership; I\'ll think more on it.

At first blush though, it seems too coarse grained. Brooks certainly has a strong drive for some more cash. He also has a strong drive to be considered a top flight QB. Sometimes he even seems to have a strong drive to win games. We will agree that these strong drives are not an indication of his being a leader though, right?

AND we agree on leadership being multi-dimensional AND only a part of the big picture.