I don't see any difference between Schaub and Sage Rosenfeld. David Carr is still terrible. Schaub might get better, who knows. We need a left tackle desparately Mario was not worth the overall #1 pick The price for Schaub was high We don't have a quality rb Still no impact pass rusher Kubiac is learning hopefully or he's wasting mistakes Hind sight is awesome
boy, that's true. i was under the impression they could make just any old running back look like a star...apparently that's not the case.
Yep, when Elway did "the drive" in Cleveland - 98 yds. he exhibited NO leadership! The number of times that Elway crushed the Oilers in the playoffs especially '91 divisional playoffs. Yes, some luck was involved but clearly the loss came as a result of one team being totally comfortable with the situation and one team losing confidence and hope. Apply the same to the Buffalo debacle (Reich) though not a superstar had done something similar when he was at Maryland vs Miami in 1984 in the Orange Bowl. Finally of course, the subsequent meltdown vs the Chiefs the following year. When Montana went 92 yds vs the Bengals in SB XXIII and led SF to victory with seconds remaining ... that example exhibited NO leadership? C'mon Ric, for crying out loud the verb "led" from the infinitive "to lead" should be a clue. Both cases were examples of ordinary men doing the extraordinary under brutal circumstances. Why do we call QB's "field generals" then? Sorry Ric, but on this topic you are completely WRONG! Leadership IS a major factor whether on the battlefield, on the gridiron, in the boardroom, etc. Desire+Will+Trust+Respect=Leadership. Because to be a GOOD leader you have to have someone willing to follow YOUR lead! Leadership+Confidence+Skill+Ability=Superstar. THAT much to my chagrin, is what Montana and Elway were out there. Anything less than description is an insult. The aforementioned Ric was a result of design (repetition of a successful model), NOT happenstance!
Well, he was clearly a great leader--but his performance had a little something to do with it as well. I believe there are folks with great leadership qualities who wouldn't have been able to pull off some of Elway's comebacks--because he had sick skill. Just sick, sick, sick. See, I think this is overplayed. The difference to me was purely one of talent. Moon was a decent leader. Leadership didn't win that one for the Broncos, neither did the "WILL to win". *Both* teams wanted it. *Both* teams had leadership--undeniably so. But Denver was just better in the talent department, and they executed. I think he simply overstates his position because he's so sick of the other being so grossly overplayed. I honestly believe several of your examples are overplayed a bit. Yes, but it is *never* the exclusive force in a win or a come-from-behind winning drive. Or in a military battle. Or in a company making money. Completely disagree. You need to read John Maxwell's books on leadership.
Ok respect your opinion. That's just simply my take for what it's worth. Maybe I'm hollywood-izing the subject a bit. Keeping this topic relevant to the Texans, I think Schaub DOES have some qualities to making himself into a GOOD leader on the field. He has desire, dedication. He's just a little rusty on confidence and execution. A few concussions and few snaps in REAL time may have something to do with that.
hatemavs4life, your examples are confusing success with leadership - had elway/montana not completed the mentioned drives, would it have been due to a lack of leadership? and explain to me how that leadership manifested itself. did it make players around him better? did it calm their nerves? did it render the other team leaderless? i mean, can you step back from the mythology and recognize how silly a notion "leadership" is as you're trying to describe it? it's nearing "magic" territory. leadership is more or less a distant relative of teaching. veterans can "lead" rookies down an easier path, show them how to prepare for gameday, what to look for in film study, etc. and that could obviously have a bearing on a game's outcome. and, obviously, coaching is an extension of that. but the term "leadership" has been bastardized into this intangible "it" that people float around because they're lazy, stupid or a lethal combination of both (see: justice, richard). if leadership had any tangible impact on a game, guys like major applewhite would have been playing in the NFL. instead they - this is gonna come as a shock - coach. i've met joe montana; i've seen interviews with joe montana; i watched his SNL broadcast; and i remember joe montana's stint as a studio host - a leader can take many forms, but shouldn't they be, on some level, charismatic? not, like, dripping with it, but at least have enough of a personality to engage another human being? yeah, well, joe montana's one of the most boring people i've ever met. maybe in the locker room, he's a changed man. but i've seen NFL films, watched games... he has the personality of grass watching paint dry. but he won 4 SBs so, of course, he's a LEADER! it's overblown and silliness. end of the day, talent trumps all, followed closely by coaching. i've never seen a talentless bunch of "leaders" win a damn thing.
It's more than that (but not as much as what hatemavs4life is making it). An example: Schaub's leadership, in contrast with Carr's lack thereof, is seen in some of the players' comments about his composure in the huddle and how he keeps everyone "settled down" and "focused". You never--and I mean never--heard them say that about David Carr. That doesn't mean Schaub is more talented than Carr, and it does nothing to predict the results for any play much less the entire game. I'll agree that has much more to do with talent and execution (as I stated above, and as we've arrived when we've done this rodeo before). But it nonetheless is there.
and with schaub as a starting QB... they're on pace to equal last year's 6 wins. i just find it utterly naive to think, in a huddle full of 11 superior athletes who have been playing, practicing and studying their sport for years on top of years on top of years, that they don't ALL possess some degree of competency, confidence and poise; that it's all dependent on ONE guy, who just happens to also be the QB, to rally the troops, settle the nerves, keep everything in perspective and LEAD. silly.
So you believe that the players and coaches who talk about leadership of certain players are complete liars (or morons)? That these superior athletes who, unlike you or I, have spent years playing and being in the huddle, don't understand have any understanding of the game and believe this leadership thing exists when it, in fact, doesn't? You also believe that every player on every team plays with the same level of energy and focus on every play, no matter the circumstances? You don't think teams ever come out flat or don't play hard, or that teams ever come out with increased emotion and effort? Or, if they do, each individual player happens to come out flat or with intensity entirely on his own?
(Andre Johnson was out for three of of those losses, and Ahman Green for four, but those are just details.) I find it utterly naive to think that you have to take what the players state to such an extreme and then argue against that extreme. Who has said they don't all possess some degree of confidence, competence, and poise? Who has said that it all depends solely on one guy? You bet it is. Creating an extreme from someone's statement, then shooting it down, is utterly silly. Quoted for truth. Perhaps I'm "naive" or "silly", but I tend to give guys the benefit of the doubt and believe what they say. And, I find it quite telling the difference in the "praise" they gave Carr and the praise they give Schaub. But, that's just silly.
My first little retort to this statement was inconsistent with my argument. I'll refer you to my earlier statement (in the same post, no less): "That doesn't mean Schaub is more talented than Carr, and it does nothing to predict the results for any play much less the entire game."
it isn't all dependent on one guy. it just helps. if you have someone in the huddle...and it doesn't have to be the QB, though it helps because he's the one doing the talking...who can create a sense of confidence...a sense of "we're gonna get this done"...then it's better than NOT having that. it's the very same in business. i've worked with people who have leadership qualities...and i've worked with people who drag you down. i've worked with people who were immensely talented and ridiculously smart, but were absolutely a weight on your shoulders to have around. those people stifle growth and opportunity, in spite of their talents.
i think it's coach/playerspeak, on the same level as taking it one game at a time, giving 110%, leaving it all out on the field.... no, major; do you conversely believe that there are only a select few individuals who are always energetic and focused, no matter the circumstances? sure, it's better than the alternative. at the same time, the human condition - emotions, fears, et al - are not easily controlled by a calm, soothing voice. if you had to read a speech to a large gathering, and was nervous as hell about it (as most people would be) - dry mouth, shortness of breath, your heart beating rapidly - would me telling you to relax, everything was going to be ok because i just made a speech myself make any difference in your condition? no. but if you were prepared, if you knew what you were talking about, if your speech was well-written... 2-3, 5 minutes into the speech, you'd seize the situation and be fine. and then the next morning, richard justice would write a glowing article in the company's internal newsletter about my clutchy leadership. you're describing the line between good/bad teammates (co-workers; or, just for tonight, co-people). the difference between the two is not leadership. it's talent, it's desire, it's effort, it's focus, it's motivation, there could be distractions, jealousies - it's so varied and complicated... which is why "leadership" has emerged as a catch-all crutch. i have no idea what's really going on with this team since i have no access to it because they all hate me (i'm being richard justice here), but it's starting to win suddenly, so... i'll slap a "leadership" tag on its most prominent player and head to make-up for my next worthless appearence on some stupid ESPN show. if you're talking about someone stepping up and controlling that environment; leading it in a very literal sense, then you're talking about a coach (or boss); the person with the power to make decisions to positively impact the situation. msn, i have NO IDEA what you're talking about. not at all. i was agreeing with and then expanding on thoughts YOU posted... so why are you turning around and ripping my post down?
Apparently you didn't read my post. I talked about those who have tons of talent...but couldn't lead a group of people to save their lives. I've worked with tons of people that way.
You just defined leadership. Leadership is very important to everything successful. Companies spend billions of dollars developing leadership. The problem here is taking parts of leadership and analyzing them for a football player misses the point. There is bad leadership and good leadership. A leader is one who is followed. It can be a cancer to a team if it involves the influence of bad attitudes, poor behavior and division. On a pro football team good leadership involves those qualities that instill synergy. The sum is greater than the individual parts. Leaders impart and or instill- desire, effort, focus, motivation, execution, chemistry, identity, inspiration, direction, unity, expectations, accountability and confidence. Whether or not someone is a leader is best learned from those who follow. Talent alone is not enough to be a good leader. It is more than trying to do it also. Leadership is a inner ability to inspire whether by example or abilities or attitude or character. I think leadership is very important to team sports, whether it comes from the coach, a player or a combination it really effects the performance of a team. Leadership is not static either, you have multiple influences and personalities involved so the stronger good leadership the better the results. One way to expose and understand leadership is to watch how a team responds to adversity and how well a team responds to their potential. To label Schaub a better leader than Carr is certainly subjective, but it is also something that is true or false. The only way to know is to understand how the team was impacted by their influence. I wouldn't discount leadership, but I wouldn't try to make it clear cut either; it is very important to success, but not as easy to see when the results are not evident or the makeup and identity of the team not clearly known. I pretty much can guarantee you that there are leaders either on the staff or amongst the players on every team. They are vital, especially good ones.
But the leadership tag is given to specific players - and there's no pattern there. It's not always winners. It's not always QB's. Etc. In the case of Vince, it was before he ever stepped on an NFL field - his teammates all talked about it based on his demeanor/attitude/etc in practice. Not coincidentally, this tag follows him around with different groups of people. That tends to happen with most leaders. Not at all. I believe, like in any other situation, whether military, office, friend groups, etc - many people take on the attitudes and style of a certain few people. If those few people practice harder, everyone else tends to also. If those few people lackadasical, the whole group tends to be that way also. if those people play with emotion and energy, the whole group moves in that direction also. The ability to lead comes from a mix of charisma, presence, willingness to step up, etc. The good leaders are the ones that practice harder, etc. The bad ones that the ones that are lackadasical or moody. It doesn't have to be a QB, but anytime you're in a position of power, it makes it easier to be a leader as well. Coach, QB, leader of the defense, point guard, etc tend to be leadership positions because they are the positions that everyone looks to for guidance and they are the ones at the center of every play during the games. Examples of leaders in various sports: Vince Young, Bob Sura, Ray Lewis, Stephen McGee, Phil Jackson, etc. It tends to be the people that emotionally fire up teams and get people to put in maximum effort (leading both vocally and by example). Not all of these are particularly good players, not all are QBs, etc. But they all serve that role.
