The year Baltimore won it all, they had a historically-great defense, a top-tier running back in Jamal Lewis (and Priest Holmes as backup), an above-average TE (Shannon Sharpe) and an awesome o-line. The only major areas they sucked at were QB and wide receivers. Comparatively, the Eagles were similar but with a good QB and not nearly as good a defense. Indy had both the QB and the receiving corps, but an average to bad defense for most of the past 7 or 8 years. So talent-wise, I'm not sure there was quite the differential that you portray. Yet, the Eagles & Colts were able to maintain a consistently good team, while Baltimore could do no such thing. I'm not meaning to imply that a QB can win alone without other talent or a good O-Line or whatnot. I'm saying that a good/great QB is a critical component of maintaining consistent success and makes it easier to build the rest of a team. It's the reason while teams will tolerate a game-manager QB for a year or two, no team wants one. To connect it back to the original argument, if Vince fits that bill of being a good/great QB, then it makes it far easier for Tennessee to trade away parts from last year and maintain some level of success than it would for other teams that are not QB-centric and go up and down a lot more.
football, like any sport, is really very simple: score more than your opponent, and you will win. the titans were outscored by their opponents last year, no matter how you choose to slice and dice their season. be it all 16 games (324-400); games in which only vy started (291-324); even during their 8-3 finish (264-265). now, if i were to remove all context and ask you to guess a team’s record over a 11-game stretch in which they were outscored 264-265, you’d settle on 5-6 or 6-5. it’s the logical, most “accurate” representation of those numbers (granting that such predictive exercises are never exact sciences). and yet the titans were anywhere from 2-3 games better. what’s accounting for that discrepancy, because that’s a significant abnormality. therefore, it is likely that even if they returned the entire ’06 team intact, they’d fall closer to expectations commiserate with their struggle to consistently outscore their opponents. that concept is given extra weight when you remove, if no one else, the (imo) team’s best player from last year (pacman jones). sure, it’s april. but i don’t see how anyone could successfully argue that the team is poised to be better given last year’s statistical anomaly and the current roster. yeah, and so did 31 other teams…. or did you mean lendale white? he was taken in the second round (they took some QB in the first round) and… so what? when has draft position ever guaranteed success? major, it wasn’t like i (or others) started watching football in 2002; and i don’t view the game only through the prism of my own team. QB is a part contributing to the whole; you can win with good, average and bad ones. teams win games; not individuals. and “on paper,” the titans don’t have a very good team right now and played above and beyond reasonable expectations last year. both represent enough of a foundation to support the titans falling back to earth next year. it’s certainly more logical than assuming vy will automatically get better and that that alone will increase their likelihood of success.
true, but if "leadership" translated between the lines and impacted the scoreboard even remotely, why did applewhite not make an NFL roster? a guy who obviously can provide leadership offered no value whatsoever to 32 nfl teams? doesn't that speaks volumes of how "important" leadership is to the bottom line, which is winning? meanwhile, btw, the guy applewhite did take starts from, the guy who, by most accounts, possessed fewer leadership skills, is a starting qb in the NFL. exactly; though i'm not sure team A winning is so absolute. will they likely win more than they lose? sure. but it might only be 6 of 10 times; i doubt it's 10 of 10 times.
sure, but leadership in what context? from a coaching standpoint? absolutely. but how does it translate on the field of play in relation to players leading players? do we really know? no, and that's why i think it's overblown, imo, and an easy crutch. it's not quantifiable, and therefore, impossible to dissprove. i understand intangibles; i concede they exist to a certain extent. but how do they manifest themselves? that's far more complicated, and something NONE of us will ever be able to properly comprehend because, i assume, none of us have ever played sports at a level in which we're discussing. and yet, it's tossed around like fact far too often and glorified just as much.
This should be a very interesting year. I can honestly say this is the first time in the last 3 years that I have actually been excited about an upcoming season.
Because he doesn't have the talent for that level. That was my point. The college game and the NFL game are not the same animal. Because he does have the talent (although barely, and I don't see him lasting). Like I said in my first post, they're not mutually exclusive. You can take a talented athlete with not much leadership and build on him, you can't do anything with a great leader who has no talent. I think we pretty much agree on this; we just have different ways of stating it. I agree. I'd bet 7 out of 10, but it all gets rather arbitrary when discussing made-up scenarios.
OK, show me where I said that I am one of the VYOF crowd. If you think that those folks are "gay" then that's your perogative but insults alone aren't going to be enough to make this go away. As I have posted before, this will be with them (Texans) until they start winning on a consistent basis. Now whether you folks like it or don't like it - GET USED TO IT because that's the way it's going to be from now on. I fully expect the talking heads in the media to revisit the 2006 draft when they play the Saints and the Titans with the spotlight shining most brightly on Mario Williams' play. Is this fair? Not in the least but this is the nature of the beast Texans' fans now live with. If you want to vent at someone then vent at the Texans' organization and Bob McNair whose ineptness and thick-headedness is responsible for creating this mess. Unlike ima & others here, I am not as forgiving of their past record choosing instead to see some concrete proof on the field that this franchise has indeed turned the perverbial corner before I start believing in them again.
yes, we're likely on the same chapter, if not page, but i think you're missing my point specifically in relation to applewhite (or i'm not properly conveying it): if on the field leadership translated to success on the field, why is applewhite not holding a clipboard as somebody's third-string QB and putting his leadership skills to use for the greater good of a team? i would offer it's because it has little-to-no value; not enough, even, to oocupy the 53rd spot on a roster - they'd rather use it for a guy who can kick-off. the concept of leadership is just overblown. if they miss the 60-yard FG; if the giants hold their 4Q lead; if jacksonville commits one less turnover and the titans go 5-11 - is vy any less of a leader? is he a better leader because those things happened and did his leadership in any way impact those things? that, to me, is where this starts to spiral out of control; i sense you're with me, so that was more or less directed at the board in general, not in response to you.
Haven't been here in a while but I'll post what I will post EVERY season: 16-0, baby. ¡¡¡¡VAMOS, TEXANS!!!!
Because it's not enough to compensate for no talent. On-the-field leadership has to be just that: on the field. You can't lead from the sideline holding a clipboard--you might as well coach (hence the 53rd spot on the roster is really a red herring in my view). Case in point: Mr. Applewhite. And here's where we disagree. The value is certainly overblown by many hacks and BBSers, but the value is greater than little-to-none. If you don't believe me, ask Kubiak, Smith, Johnson, Schaub, and literally scores of other professionals, including hall-of-famers and champions, who discuss its value. We overblow it certainly ("we" being passionate sports fans, etc, and hacks posing as journalists such as Dick Justice); but they do not. Well, I wasn't discussing VY or the Titans, but we have no idea what those games would have looked like were Collins still in there. How did they get into a position to be within a 60-yard FG of one win or a few accidents away from several others? Does Vince's "leadership" overcome his relatively poor play last season (boy, I'm about to get blasted for that one!)? I don't think VY is a good example just yet to point at for on-the-field leadership. His performance needs to match his hype first. Spot on. I'm right with you there. I'm ducking missiles, too.
Certainly true. And I think in baseball and basketball, this is absolutely very important. However, as you get a schedule with fewer and fewer games, this stat is less and less meaningful because a single blowout will have a huge impact on that. And due to the nature of football, where you change strategy as you get further behind, those kinds of things can snowball as well. I can't speak statistically, but I imagine there's a lesser correlation to record in football with total point scored/allowed than other sports (though it's certainly still there). My main point here was that it's not like they just lost a running back and had no replacement. They have what they probably think is a decent replacement for him. It's one thing to lose Peyton Manning if you have Carson Palmer backing him up vs Joey Harrington. Unless you attribute them doing better than their "on paper" would suggest due to intangibles and leadership.
i'm sure that "leadership' is every bit as important as "taking it game by game," "giving 110%," and "wanting it more than the other team did," etc., etc., etc. know what i mean?....
leadership is very important. look at what Sam Cassell did in the 4th quarter vs the Lakers last night. truely inspirational.
The quotes I've read over the years praising certain athletes for strong leadership were very specific and direct, not Biggio-esque generalisms laden with clichés. And, it comes across a little arrogant to sit on the outside and dismiss what folks who have succeeded mightily in their sport have to say about it and the way it is played. The funny thing about clichés, though, is how they got that way: because they're true. A balanced focus on the day's work at hand and an awareness of where each game fits in the big picture is important. Exerting all the effort available is important. Desire is important, although the whole "they wanted it more" is a load of horsecrap. Leadership is important, too. Or, next time Gary Kubiak refers to it in a press conference, let's have one of our journalist buddies pipe up and say, "Hey Gary cut out the meaningless cliché BS and just tell us if the guy can play." Bottom line, Ric: the misrepresentation of something's value by one or more parties does not negate its existence or value.
such as? do they in any way address how leadership actually manifests itself on the field of play? i'm not outright dismissing it's existence; i'm questioning the degree of importance we (blindly) hand it. i'm not dismissing anything they've said since nothing specifically was posted for me to dismiss. i think leadership is important and a valuable commodity, but it think it comes from coaches more than players, and i've yet to have a coach, player or sportswriter explain how leaders on the field impact a team's bottom line (winning). like i've said previously, leaders is really just another word for winners. the next time we glorify the leadership skills of a guy on a losing team will be the first. sure; they also provide easy-to-digest soundbites that absolve the player and/or coach of actually having to say anything meaningful.
btw, msn, i think this is a pristine example of what i mean. now, i did not see the clipper/laker game; i did glance over the recap after reading tinman's post. seems cassell came off the bench to score 8 big 4Q points to help the clips beat the lakers. so where and how did a fine performance morph into an example of leadership? was it just a case of cassell playing exceptionally well and providing opportunities for his teammates to shine in his wake? or did he really lead thru means other than by example? where's the line that separates a simply great performance from a great performance that we categorize as leadership?
You've generally dismissed these statements as "meaningless". Why bother with specifics when we can generalize and sweep it all out into the street? The bottom line is still the bottom line: the misrepresentation of something or its value by one or more parties does not negate its existence or value. I'll refer you to the bottom line, quoted above. I respect your position on this, but I think your response to the many casual, inaccurate, and/or overblown representations of "leadership" by fans and mediots is akin to an overcorrection while driving. The correct answer, IMO, is further in the middle. Hey, have a great weekend.
Bottomline...if your talent is translated to success on the field/court...you may be among the few selected as leaders. Sam Cassell did well on the court last night, so he lead them to victory. But, if he missed a couple of those shots, he is all of a sudden, no longer a leader.
Kansas City W @ Carolina W Indianapolis W @ Atlanta W Miami W @ Jacksonville W Tennessee W @ San Diego L @ Oakland W Bye Week New Orleans L @ Cleveland L @ Tennessee L Tampa Bay W Denver (Nationally Televised) L @ Indianapolis L Jacksonville W
I disagree. John Elway, for example, was an excellent leader regardless of whether he made the plays. Leadership doesn't always translate to winning, and neither does talent. None of these things is absolute, and its illogical to argue them as such. I don't know if Sam Cassell is a leader. But if he is, he is--regardless of his performance last night. The earlier post called his performance "inspirational". That it may have been (I didn't see it), but leadership is not hitting "clutch" shots.
