xan

Gumbo, I\'m not really picking on you here, but -

I believe that leadership is the accumulation of small successes (inspirations) that transcend an individual\'s contribution and the group\'s dependence on that individual\'s reliability and good judgment.

Inspiration is the result of an (usually) uplifting effort. As in, \"His heroics on the football field were an INSPIRATION to us all.\"

Inspiration is not an ability. Inspiration is bourne from acts of genius and leadership and daring. It is the crossing of untamed boundaries. It is a final product upon which a superlative value is placed.

When addressing any member of the Saints, it is important to delineate between the action and attitude. It cannot be argued that there have been many moments where there has been inspired play and leaders to acclaim.

The frustration that I have is that there appear to be certain boundaries that key components (or any for that matter) cannot or will not dare to cross. It is true that success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. The boundary that this group has yet to cross is that between HOPE and EXPECTATION.

Joe Horn EXPECTS to catch the pass because he EXPECTS the ball to be thrown to him, whether the play is designed toward him or not. Sure, he drops passes, who doesn\'t, but, like in Michael Lewis\' \"Moneyball\", the difference between an All-Star hitter and a minor leaguer is their ability to forget the last strikeout and focus on the next at bat, negating the value-judgment castigation or self-reverence of the previous result.

Great leaders go right back to the guy who made a mistake to show his confidence and offer redemption. Great fools continue to make the same mistake without learning.

Brooks has the ability to punish by altering plays to distance the ball from a skill player or direct the angle of attack away from the weak link. Just as he has the ability to reinforce confidence by doing the opposite. The ultimate question is whether he has the judement to understand when to apply the \"reward/punishment\" system in ways that his teammates understand and in ways that move the team toward its goals.

Yet it isn\'t limited to LEON, here. His coaches have to field the blame for placing him in situations where he will fail either to execute or make good judgment. His teammates have to not make things harder on themselves (and LEON) by doing stupid things like pre-snap penalties. But enough about accepting responsibility for one\'s \"inspirations.\"

In sum, leadership is derived from repeated acts of boundary crossing inspiration and the seemingly contradictory act of ignoring that previous result (except to learn the \"why\") to focus the group on the task at hand. It is the core of the debate as to whether Aaron Brooks should be allowed to continue in his role.

Calvin: "I wish I was a Tiger."
Hobbes: "Common lament."