yes and no. numbers always have a context, some of which - such as good ol' observation (which i don't dismiss, btw) - can't be measured. case in point (quickly switching sports because it's such a ready example): you could argue, based on the #s (and the level of importance you grant OB%), that morgan ensberg had a productive 2006 season. however, i watched morgan ensberg a lot last year and it was obviously not a productive season; there were intangible factors - he looked timid, he was hurt; his batting stance was all over the map, etc. can i measure any of them? no, not really. but i know i saw them; and i know they impacted my evaluation of his production. so, no, i don't dismiss intangibles outright. i do, however, think they've become everyone's crutch, and sometimes (too often, imo), they're used in lieu of the numbers, and that, to me, is how i now read my simms post (again, from 4-5 years ago) - i was looking for ways to avoid the obvious. and that's where i really struggle - in the inflation of the intangible. i blame the emergence of the nfl draft and blowhards like mel kiper having to fill 15 hours of television every april. there're only so many ways you can report on 40-yard dashes, strength evaluations, college statistics, etc (ie, tangibles), so we've seen the rise of the intangible to help fill space and they've since taken on a rather mythic quality. plus, they technically can't be disproven, so kiper, et al, don't have to answer for any of them. if you tell me vy is a great leader... how can i disprove that? it's a bulletproof stance. but, could you quantify how it manifests itself on the field? that would be a little more difficult, but rarely do we call intangibles out on the carpet. ("clutch" is a PERFECT example of this.) and that, msn, is why i struggle with "leadership." do i think it's important in a business, in a sport, in life etc? sure. do i think it translates on the field of play? not at the expense of talent, no. i don't believe a good "leader" makes individuals better - they're either good or they're not. but can it keep a team focused? can it ensure young, less experienced players are in better position to succeed? sure; absolutely. but you still have to go out and make the play. so, imo, leadership has become a buzzword that can't be disproven, so we've seen it rise in popularity. but do you ever notice there never seems to be any leaders on losing teams? or, at least, they don't get championed? i mean, did you notice the past few weeks, a lot of people were lauding jeff garcia's leadership? but where were those stories the past two years when he was struggling in detroit and cleveland? as charlie pallio said the other day, (paraphrasing) leadership is just another word for winner. those who win, seem to also be leaders; it's not a coincidence, imo. sam fisher, i like how your latest dip into the past is labeled "new." i also find it interesting you don't time stamp or link to any of these posts... could it be to hide that they're at least 3-4 years old? or to hide additional context? i'm guessing this latest one is from... '03? when mcnair won co-MVP...? so nearly 4 years old? have your opinions not evolved the past 4 years - oh, wait; that's right: you don't actually have any opinions; just an overactive search fetish. but yes, mcnair DID have some intangibles: he was elusiveness; he didn't seem to get rattled; he was a tough SOB, etc. what's your point? anyway, MM, sorry for the long post, but there ya go - i don't dismiss intangibles, outright; but i do dismiss the glorification of them.
But here's what I think you're missing.... I agree with you wholeheartedly that I can't get a guy to better than his physical skills will allow him to be with leadership. But what I can do is create an environment that makes maximizing his own physical skills easier...or more likely. Of course you have to go out and make the play...but if you're confident and comfortable, you're more likely.
yes, yes - i agree. i do, sincerely. but where does leadership end and talent begin? i think that's a line that's too often being erased. if i tell you derek jeter is a very good ballplayer, and you fire back no, he's a GREAT ballplayer because he's clutch... i'm going to take exception to it. same with leadership. vince young is an exciting, scary young player. but if broinas misses the 60-yarder; if the giants literally make one play in the 4Q; if the texans win the coin toss... would we all a) be giving vy ROY honors; b) be championing the "leadership" qualities of a rookie QB on a 5-11 team? and yes, i realize those things didn't happen; and yes, i know vy took advantage of them. but my sense is that a lot of people too casually dimiss the good fortune and just assume it's a component of vince. and i struggle with that.
btw, i initially had a much longer response that i eventually cut down, and in it, i admitted that i likely went overboard in out-and-out dismissing leadership; i also feel my dismissal was somewhat misconstrued, however, and maybe i'm to blame for that. but like my stance on vy (i'm not anti-vy; i'm anti the glorification of vy); i don't discount leadership, but the glorification of it. anyhoo, wanted to make sure i posted that - i thought it important to backtrack a bit and clarify more succienctly and more prominently revise my stance on leadership.
Leadership in football and most sports has alot to do with being able to step up and make a big play for your team when it counts the most. It is being the guy that the team respects because they see the consistent ability to lift the team during the conflict by making a play that really counts. Leaders in sports are difference makers in a game. For instance Texan players were already saying that Demeco Ryans was a leader of the defense. Why? He made big plays consistently when the team needed them. He stepped up and made a play when it counted for something. Earl Campbell was a silent leader, the team rallied around his plays. Obviously Tom Brady has 'it' Jerry Rice had 'it' Yes they were great players, but they set the tone and they did not let their team lose, they picked the team up so to speak. They were difference makers in the won-loss column. Leadership has to have a following. Leaders have to have a positive impact on the team. A positive attitude is a must. Leaders in sports are 'winners'. A leader inspires the team towards a win. TO will never be a leader. Warren Sapp was never a leader. Was Marino a leader? The 'it' factor is very important in team sports. Often the team who has players who make big plays and inspire the team with plays that change the outcome have a certain 'it' on the field of play. Whether it is the silent leader or the vocal leader they must be a playmaker and a difference maker and a winner. That is what 'it' is for me.
This argument can go on and on, but there isnt a test for it and you cant make guys become one. Either you have it or you dont. When you're a young player and you gain the trust of crusted vets, you're a leader. Thats the problem with Eli in NY, but it was hard for him because he struggled. Anyone can try to lead when things are going good, but try it when things are not so good. Thats what make good qb great and ok qb's good. Lets face it, all the qb's have strong arms, can read defenses and like it or not are the most important player on the field because they touch the ball every down. In tight situations, the entire team look at the qb 1st to see how he handles the situation which is called poise. Poise in a qb is what makes him stare down a blitz and still make a good throw down the field, not look at the rush. Poise also makes a qb feel the pocket and move up, slide, or take off with the ball. When you look at VY, he never looks rattled. Now he may not make the correct read or may overthrow or underthrow the ball, but he's confident in what he is supposed to do. When you see Carr in the pocket, even when the pressure is picked up, he's thinking about last couple of season of getting hit, so he shrinks in the pocket and hit a checkdown. How many times have you seen the chance for a big play develop and he throw the ball to a checkdown? Ric- You can pretend about leadership and poise, but its the reason why there are some many mistakes made on qb's. How many times have they said you cant pass a franchise qb? Yet its suppose to have one come out every year, but how many are actually franchise qb. You can go from Boller,shuler,smith,ware,leaf,mccown,harrington,carr and the list goes on. There is a immeasurable in a qb that you cant test for. I'm not going to say as a titans fan VY is great or become great, but when the scouts i know talk about him, they said he was more McNabb than Vick in term of qb development. Its no secret why since 1999 Mcnabb has had such a high winning% and a guy even more talented like Culpepper hasn't had as much. If you took Brady,Manning,and McNabb and took the team winning % its pretty close. That Philly team was horrible when he got there. The "it" has a value they cant even gage its so huge.
i've seen him actually "fall into" sacks this way. where he just kinda goes with it instead of fighting to get away. i'm sure a lot of that is his lack of confidence in his ability to hold on to the football, otherwise.
And rightly so, there are stats piled upon stats that disprove the whole "clutch" myth. For every Bob Abreu someone digs up, there are ten or eleven "clutch" players whose numbers late and tight, or with runners on, or whatever, look remarkably similar to career numbers. Not the same with leadership. There are lots of examples of how some guys bring out the best in other guys (especially coaches). The tone in some clubhouses is set by guys who lead by example, and that impacts, though admittedly not quantifiably, performance on the field.
and yet, despite zero access to the manifestation of this leadership quality and with no sure way of actually quantifying it, quite a few of us don't hesitate to bestow it upon someone, do they? even going so far as to suggest it's the basis for someone winning an award when far greater quantifiable measures show others were more worthy. again, the glorification of it. like i said earlier via CP, leadership is another way to describe someone who's winning. when the winning stops, their leaderships qualities seem to disappear, too. it's not a coincidence.
1. Who drove the titans in range for the game winning FG vs indy? And even if he misses it goes to OT, and he might have gotten another chance. You can't assume a different outcome here. 2. Who says the texans score if they get the ball first in OT? Their offense was nothing to write home about this year. And he scored when he got the chance. 3. I understand Kiwanuka let up, but he still had to drive them down for the TD. Which he got. What team in the NFL doesn't get good and bad breaks btw. Go ask cincy how it feels to lose a must win game at denver on a blown extra point snap. Or tom brady how throwing a pick can turn into a season saving play. Etc. Here is the other thing I would say. Look at all the comments from vince's teammates in tennessee and from his time at UT. He has a way of installing confidence up and down whatever team he plays on. Is part of it talent? sure. But go back to last year on 4th/2 when texas stopped SC. To a man the defense said if we stop that play, we are winning the NC. And that confidence in Vince i'm sure helped their effort on the stand that they ended up getting. Now flash forward to tennessee. His teammates are saying the same stuff about him as a rookie. It's not a concidence. When he gets a chance to make plays he makes plays, and that breeds confidence from his teammates. But he also is talking guys up in the huddle/on the sideline whatever. It's a combination of his talent breeding confidence from his teammates and the fact he also knows how to pump his teammates up/get them feeling like they can contribute. At texas before his junior year, he spent the entire offseason telling and working with all his WR's and anyone who wanted to show up, saying if we work this hard, i'll deliver a nat'l title. Sure enough he did.
Really? Can you provide an example? The Astros stopped winning in 2000 for half a season. Guess what the clubhouse was like. There were a couple of great leaders in there, and the leadership didn't "stop". Here's a distinction upon which you and I may agree: on the field, one can have talent without leadership, but one can *not* have leadership without talent. One can't lead folks where one can't go. With the possible exception of some over-the-hill greats in their prime, it's not possible to have leadership on the field without showing the goods.
I can't let this go. Sports is, above all things, human. As such, it is a logical error if one wants to reduce the whole thing to a bunch of damned statistics. Statistics have their place, but there are those as guilty (or moreso) of glorifying them as those who glorify the "it" factor (a term I never use btw) or "clutch" or "leadership". "Zero access to the manifestation of leadership quality"?? Are you freaking kidding me? Go to the clubhouse. WATCH (put down your slide rule). Talk to guys. Then, you tell me. I'm sorry I can't put down a stat for it, but leaders exist, they impact games, and they impact their clubhouses. Arguing against it is, well, crazy. Finally, WATCH the teams and their dispositions on and off the field for these various rookies. Know what you'll see when observe VY's team? Evidence of a leader.
I also remember earleir when he took over, a blitz came, he threw to the spot and Drew bennett didn't route adjust. He looked at Drew and gave the signal to the eyes like he should have route adjusted. He didn't show the guy up, but he let the guy know he ran the wrong route as a rookie. Thats no accident. You never stop being a leader in the lockeroom of teamsports. They say it all the time that Joradn ran the Bulls practices, not phil. Plaxico and Shockey go to Miami to work out in the summers thus leaving Eli to throw to mostly Toomer. Peyton works out with the receivers all year and thats why they make the plays they do. In football, the brotherhood of men are looking at the qb for leadership and if in tough times the leader fail, the team does also. I just think you cant put a number on it and as much of the blame and the credit a qb takes, he still has to be just like another player and fit in as well as tough enough to get on guys when they run a poor route or dont fight for a ball.
They wont admit it, but this is why i dont think the Texans will draft a rb: NFL player rankings NFL Rushing Leaders - sorted by Yds Gained Rank Player, Team G Car Yds Avg TDs Long Fmbl lost 1 LaDainian Tomlinson, SD 16 348 1815 5.2 28 85 2 1 2 Larry Johnson, KC 16 416 1789 4.3 17 47 2 2 3 Frank Gore, SF 16 312 1695 5.4 8 72 5 5 4 Tiki Barber, NYG 16 327 1662 5.1 5 55 3 1 5 Steven Jackson, StL 16 346 1528 4.4 13 59 2 1 6 Willie Parker, Pit 16 337 1494 4.4 13 76 6 4 7 Rudi Johnson, Cin 16 341 1309 3.8 12 22 6 2 8 Brian Westbrook, Phi 15 240 1217 5.1 7 71 1 1 9 Chester Taylor, Min 15 303 1216 4.0 6 95 4 3 10 Travis Henry, Ten 14 270 1211 4.5 7 70 3 1 11 Thomas Jones, Chi 16 296 1210 4.1 6 30 1 1 12 Edgerrin James, Ari 16 337 1159 3.4 6 18 3 3 13 Ladell Betts, Was 16 245 1154 4.7 4 26 4 2 14 Fred Taylor, Jac 15 231 1146 5.0 5 76 2 1 15 Warrick Dunn, Atl 16 286 1140 4.0 4 90 1 0 16 Jamal Lewis, Bal 16 314 1132 3.6 9 52 4 2 17 Julius Jones, Dal 16 267 1084 4.1 4 77 1 1 18 Joseph Addai, Ind 16 226 1081 4.8 7 41 2 2 19 Ahman Green, GB 14 266 1059 4.0 5 70 2 2 20 Deuce McAllister, NO 15 244 1057 4.3 10 57 2 1 Of the top ten, only 1 LT was top 5. Of the top 20 only LT,lewis,jones,edge,taylor were top 10. Which really proves the bronco theory that you dont need to spend a high pick on a rb. As much as i like ap and lynch, it would be really out of background charactor for the front office to draft a rb at 8.
But we do have access to it. Every player and every coach at every level who's ever talked about VY talks about it. I can see the argument that fans mix up leading and winning (though I disagree), but do you think THEY are just making it up? Titans players & coaches were talking about it before he ever played a game for them - they saw in practices, in the huddle, etc. It wasn't just a creation that showed up when they started winning. Can we quantify it? Of course not - that's why it's called an intangible as opposed to a tangible. That doesn't, by any stretch, mean it doesn't exist. The people that play beside leaders see it - and they talk about it. Not all great players are referred to as leaders, so it's not like if you win, they call you a leader. It's a unique thing, and people who see it firsthand can identify it. Agh. I keep trying to get out of this thread and keep getting sucked back in.
