To expound on that, this is maybe the dumbest statement I've read on this topic. Heart, desire, and effort are by definition intangibles. Without knowing what's going on in a player's head, you have no idea how the distraction affected their play. You can guess based on what you see, but that's the very definition of intangibles. As for personally relating, many of us can relate to good leadership and the impact it has on performance as well. Leadership examples in offices, sport teams, and everywhere else were pointed out to you - and you dismissed it all, saying it was irrelevant. Now that it's something can personally relate to, its relevant again? A bunch of hogwash.
no, that's never been my argument... energy?... i expect all players to play to their potential. and i don't think ability, intelligence, etc., can be augmented by a fiery leader with guts and heart. that's made-up mumbojumbo, imo. of course players take plays, series, games, and/or seasons off; sure, there might be a teammate who jumps down his throat and tells him to get his act together. and maybe the player will respond and start playing up to (but not beyond) his potential. but that's just an example of a fed-up player running out of patience with an underachieving teammate. nothing really remarkable about that. having your life disrupted is not on the same planet as, say, having someone call you the day after he's traded to your team. one is very much tangible; the other, a nice gesture that gets blown out of propostion by the john mclains of the world. they had t-shirts made that said, "bud selig killed our season" or somesuch. t-shirts are very tangible, major. then again, if the astros just had a leader on their team, they could have blocked all that out and won a few of those 5 in a row they lost after the hurricane... i think bosses/coaches can certainly lead; ie put you on a path/in position to succeed; but it's still ultimately up to the individual (and his/her skill level) to deliver. that's a far cry from yelping about vince young's leadership (for example) and how it inspires his teammates to play better - that's been exposed as such a massive fraud (and he's not the only example), that "leadership" now rests comfortably beside "gives 110%" in the cliche hall of fame.
i have no idea what "ok" means....but ok. it didn't really ease the frustration...they were competitive but it's still an L. just like 2002. that was ok then..it's not anymore.
this is from simmons' column last friday; it's not meant to be a definitive "see? told you..." because he doesn't rank as an expert by any means. but it is interesting to read the perspective of someone with no attachment to the team: "ok," to me, means getting back to where you probably thought or hoped they'd be this year: a competitive team that can, with enough breaks, push for a playoff spot; especially if - very big if - the colts and jags do indeed fall back to the pack this year. they can beat indianapolis this weekend; not saying they will, but they can. it sucks they get them after a bye week (really, and truly: "brutal" does not do the texans' early schedule justice) but they look more vulnerable right now than at any other time in the past seven years. steal that one and you could very easily be looking at 4-3 heading to minnesota; i think we'd all take 4-4 at the halfway point.
Right there with you. Unfortunately, especially given the extra week of rest for Freeney and Manning, I think another double-digit beatdown is much more likely.
