xan

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."