What is your deal with VY? Are you that bitter that the Texans didnt draft him and he's in Nashville having a good career? Im not saying its all VY but you cant tell me that Titans team would have won 8 games with Kerry Collins at qb. I bet you anything VY wins atleast 9 games this season.
Who said it was one on one?????? Im saying the Titans turn around season in 06 had alot to do with VY. I never said one man won all 8 games. When you have a player/leader like VY he gets the best out of all his players. Just like he did at UT.
If John Elway was always on perennially losing teams...If he never made the playoffs...If he never did anything beyond the average joe QB...you wouldnt be calling him a leader. Therefore, since he made the plays, you are giving him this distinct title. Otherwise, his name would never come up in discussions.
No, I'm giving him the title based on what his teammates and coaches have said. You guys can argue that "leadership doesn't exist" or "leadership is only what people call winners" all day, but I'll take the opinion of folks who actually played NFL football above yours.
You dont think that Elway's success on the field had to do with coaches and teammates giving him praise? You think those same people would be singing the same tune had Elway never led the Broncos to more than 7 wins a season? If you really think that people would call Elway a leader while losing constantly, then I really dont know what to say.
If you really think that's what I said, then I don't know what to say. It's OK if you don't agree with me; but don't make up stuff that I didn't say.
First, you said... Therefore, you're implying that had he not made plays, he still would have been called a leader. Correct? Thats what you said...not what I made up. Next, you say... And my response was that coaches and/or players gave Elway praise as a leader as a result of his production on the field. Those same players/coaches would never have called Elway a leader had he failed miserably on the field. So, where along the line did I make stuff up? You said that he was a leader regardless of whether or not he made plays...and that coaches/teammates talked about his leadership qualities. Right? Thats what you said. However, my point is very simply, that he had to make those plays to get the praise as "leader" from teammates. Otherwise, he'd be an average run of the mill QB. You gotta make the plays to get the recognition. And you said the opposite regarding Elway.
Lets make this simple... Name one NFL player or NBA player that has consistently been given the title of "leader" throughout his career...while having average numbers. I want the name of a "leader" who, on the field/court, displays average skill. Someone who fails to make the plays, but is praised by teammates and coaches as leading the way to victory.
Before the last couple of seasons where his game has gotten more polised, Tom Brady. His stats during the season was pretty pedestrian compared to what other QBs did during the same seasons (like McNabb, Manning, Brees, etc). it's a reach, but I think he was a leader while not producing gaudy numbers.
People were callling Vince Young a leader the day he arrived at practice. Coaches and teammates are calling Matt Schaub a leader-type, and he hasn't done anything worth anything on the field.
If Schaub throws 10 TDs and 21 INTs while having a record of 6-10...would they still call him a leader? If VY and the Titans go 5-11, would those same people call him a leader? Or, would those people wait until Schaub/VY has a productive series of events before reclaiming him "leader"? If the play on the field isnt productive, the tag of "leader" is removed from the equation.
Absolutely - but that's because it's irrelevant. You don't want untalented leaders. The idea is to get both attributes. But just winning doesn't make you a leader either. There are plenty of players who tend to win and/or put up good stats that aren't considered leaders - Pacman Jones, Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, etc.
Right about here: If you can take my two statements and extrapolate that and give me credit for it, can you come and do my taxes? I'm thinking I'd clear at least a few more hundred. ...in the midst of a conversation in which I've repeatedly said there can't be an on-the-field leader without superior talent. The talent gives place for the leadership to materialize. For (another) example -- when MJ missed potential game-winning shots in his career (I believe he missed 26 of them IIRC), he did not "cease to be a leader." Even though he failed to make the play, he was a solid on-the-court leader for that team. Perhaps no player in history is MJ's equal, but there are certainly star-caliber players who are *not* leaders. It's a really simple concept, frankly. Major has listed some just above, and I listed some earlier. Again, I don't expect you to agree. But I never said that "Elway would have been a lerader while losing constantly." Feel free to disagree, but don't make stuff up. Naw, let's make it even simpler than that--how about you read the earlier parts of tihs conversation that make this particular excercise an utter waste of time? I'll give you a hint: "leadership doesn't materialize if one doesn't have the talent to give it place."
Kansas City W @ Carolina L Indianapolis L @ Atlanta W Miami L @ Jacksonville W Tennessee L @ San Diego L @ Oakland W New Orleans L @ Cleveland W @ Tennessee W Tampa Bay L Denver L @ Indianapolis L Jacksonville L Overall: 6-10
Naw...I dont have time to sit through 10 pages of thread, reading every word you throw out. But, you could have basically said this "hint" to me when you first got in the debate with me...because that's been my point. You disagreed with my following comment and thats what has set this debate off... Notice how I say you "may" be a leader...that accounts for the TOs and the Pacmans of this world. Elway's talent translated to success on the field...MJ's talent translated to success on the court. I dont see why you chose to step in and disagree when you are essentially saying the same thing. I think you just like to talk a lot.
Here are some comments that are more specific & meaningful: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=127395
Chose to step in? You replied right after my post and used some of the same terminology I used in post. I'd been involved in this discussion for most of that afternoon before you joined the discussion. But I "chose to step in"? Thanks for the ad hominem, anyway. It's a discussion board, and you post just as often as I do. And, "Bottomline...if your talent is translated to success on the field/court...you may be among the few selected as leaders" is not the same thing as "leadership doesn't materialize if one doesn't have the talent to give it place".
