But sometimes there is a belief that artificial constructs and social contracts entirely negate the way people's psyches work (and have worked for as long ago as they've been studying psyches and before that too). I don't think that... but many seem to (not here, specifically, but in general, so I'm not trying to be a pisser towards FinD... this just has me on a train of thought now) It's this idea that what has been true and natural is somehow superceded by later artificial constructs. The truth is the opposite. I mean, the Earth already revolved around the sun before science said it did. In my work with clients, I do a lot of reading on behavior and found this passage interesting, written by a collective of doctors about addicts (alcohol in this case): Quite an amazing admission that the scientific knowledge approach in and of itself was insufficient. This reminds me, in a tangential way, of Kant When we presume only to give the credence of existence to things we can perceive through observable evidence (the constraint of many who cleave heavily to empirical proof, evidence, facts and things that must back up what IS to prove that it actually IS) then we miss the reality that these things exist in their own state, irregardless of whether we can prove or perceive them. Thus it is, in my opinion, every time we get into one of these arguments about proving something that clearly is at work and has been at work as part of matter-of-course of natural human history but that now requires some sort of evidence. Am I overblowing this? Absolutely. I have had a coffee in the afternoon, and I should never do that.
Um, have you looked into the NFL? I'm not sure you have. There is no scientific fact at all, that the leader of an NFL team is always the highest paid. That's your premise and it is wrong. Your trying to obfuscate that faulty point with kinda, sorta related studies in kinda, sorta, similar-ish business models. Zach Thomas was leader, he was not the highest paid player. JT was a leader and he wasn't the highest paid player. Players on rookie contracts can take over a team. There is nothing to back up your stance.
I never said the leaders are the highest paid. I said an organization where the highest paid aren't leaders will suffer from lack of engagement. What specifically do you believe promotes a culture of engagement or lack thereof on NFL teams?
Here's a question: If The Miami Dolphins gave a $10M/yr contract to a backup Guard, do you believe that would increase, decrease, or have no effect on employee engagement?
Its absurd because no matter how many times you say it, in the NFL, the best players/coaches =/= always highest paid. That is a fallacy and you keep pushing it as if it were true. You cannot always pay the best player/leader on your team the most money because of things like the salary cap and positional requirements. Players respect play on the field and that does not always reflect salary.
It would likely cause some SERIOUS salary arguments, particularly in the off-season, but it may also cause some teammates to lose a bit of faith in the organization during the season, and not give as much a damn...but I'm no psych doc...could you imagine if that backup was, say, Brenner? Lotsa folks in the organization would no doubt be pretty pissed about it.
If the guy was a leader he would lead. Salary opens a door into leadership, it does not go through the door, sit down at the desk and kick its feet up.
I paid attention and no they don't. If the best leader you have on the team is an average WR, then he needs to be the leader and paid like an average WR. Once again, money =/= leader. You are trying to apply one rule to the incredibly complex human animal. All humans always respond X to Y is not true, ever.
I never said "best leader". There is no such thing as a "best leader" Why is someone a better leader, but worse overall receiver?
Out of a group, there can absolutely one person ranked as the best leader of that group. You know that. We all do.
Again, you're missing the point. If you pay someone highly and they aren't displaying a trait, what does that say about how you value that trait?
Sigh. There are numerous reasons to pay a player. One of the reasons may be leadership, but its not the only or chief reason.
And that's certainly your prerogative. But the same dynamics exist in the NFL and every other organization. What a organization rewards its members for says what they value. Rewarding talented players that may lack leadership says you value talent over leadership.
Leadership is a bonus. You can value more than one thing and not have those things be equal. You are talking like a C++ program runs your OS.
If you believe leadership to be a "bonus" then you're entitled to your prerogative. Personally I believe it is just as important as talent. We will have to agree to disagree.
Again, what teams, in your studies, have exhibited the practice of valuing talent the same as leadership?
That's not even close to what he's said. He's saying it is problematic when your highest paid player is NOT the leader. Ideally it should be the QB given QB salaries. Seriously Fin D, are you even trying to read what he's writing? You're making things up. He's written his points pretty clearly. When the best players get big paychecks, they are expected to be leaders, or become leaders, even if it's not in their nature. It's like Barry Bonds, the greatest hitter of all time. He wasn't a leader, and his teammates mostly hated him.
I still dont understand how LSU didnt win a national championship.. Hill Landry OBJ... And Mettenberger wonders why Mariota was drafted..
Stringer thinks leadership should be valued as much as talent. I disagree and am wondering how many teams agree with him. JDang is doing what he always does and jumping on anyone's side as long as it is opposite of mine. He has a perverse compulsion to do that with me. We can experiment with it....you argue that water is dry and dogs are cats. I'll disagree, and he'll jump in and say I'm making things up/not reading/am stupid/crazy/etc.
I'm confused...earlier in the day, the argument was that leadership didn't win games. Now it seems that the argument is that leadership is as important as talent...which tells me that now the argument is that leadership DOES win games. Sure, you would like your QB to be a leader. However, leadership is not just throwing for 5k yards and reaming out your oline when they allow a sack. If we had a QB throwing for 5k yards and 40 tds, but wasn't considered a leader, I don't think I'd care. It's funny, but the people who generally seem to have a negative view of Tannehill are in here talking up leadership and QBs. Like, is leadership going to be the new thing that Tannehill gets bagged on for?
Common sense, dude. Obviously. It's comical you would want evidence for every little common sense truth out there.
I'll offer my opinion.. (might as well talk about something other than football occasionally ) Science is an attempt to find precise (and hopefully quantifiable) relations among measurable (or observable) phenomena. Thus, the limitations of science are the limitations in our ability to measure something and/or the limitations in our ability to find relations/patterns in data. The information that doctor said the profession doesn't have is simply a (much) better ability to predict human behavior (e.g. how different things you say or do to alcoholics affect their behavior). So while that's an admission the current state of the science is not that good, there should be no implication that the scientific method is incapable of leading to the necessary level of understanding far in the future (evidence is required to claim the scientific method theoretically could not give us that info). I should add that there will be a difference in how these things are debated if you ask a good clinician/doctor vs. asking a good research scientist. Doctors and engineers are people who just want to see something work (the machine, or the treatment, etc..). The assumptions they make about why something works are often not that well thought out (they tend not to make good scientists unless explicitly trained as such). Scientists on the other hand are supposed to think very carefully about the implications of the assumptions they make, but they may (and often do) lose sight of what all that carefully done research may be relevant for in the real world, and the final result often ends up being relatively useless in practice. Finally, regarding the need for evidence of existence, I think the easier the phenomenon is to observe, the more "common sense" you can justify using, though you do hope for a much better understanding of the phenomenon once actual evidence for how it's related to other phenomena are provided. But if the phenomenon is not easy to observe? I think you need to err on the side of requiring evidence in that case. Just use your own example: who in antiquity believed the Earth revolved around the Sun before science showed that was true? It clearly was not "obvious".
Mmm.... Hm. Sometimes I go back and read my posts and I am like. Whoa, dude. I have been known to over-react.
Well as far as the Ravens go, they were starting Murderer after his prime and he was declining, but his leadership kept him out there...at least that's how I saw it.
They're probably sensing that the deep ball won't be an issue anymore next season, so they're already planning their next argument... In all seriousness though, I think Tannehill isn't a natural-born leader, but I'm from the camp that thinks that leadership can be developed. I think confidence breeds leadership and confidence in a work environment can be attained by (among other things): 1) being very good at your craft and having a good grasp of the system, 2) being respected by your peers (teammates) and superiors (in this case, the coaching staff and ownership), 3) being in a position of power (QB is naturally one) 4) having good job security and being comfortable in your surroundings Tannehill already has numbers 3 and 4 (just signed long term contract), he's working very hard at achieving #1 and I think #2 is already at least partly true, but is a consequence of 1 as well. With time, Tannehill will naturally be more of a leader, IMO.
Declining yes. But they didn't have a better option at MLB then Ray Lewis, talent-wise, either. Simply put, if a team has two options: Player X is an excellent player and an average leader. Player Y is an excellent leader and an average player. They are going to go with Player X 9 times out of 10.
Why would you chime in and bring up Tannehill??? Maybe I missed something. As far as the highest paid/leader talk, Calvin Johnson seems as reserved as they come..but is pretty damn good.
Just curious WHY he has to be the forefront of every topic, has he shown he is a great leader? Not to the naked eye but that doesn't mean he won't. When he is given the ability to change plays based on the defense that's when he will kind of have the "keys to the car" in regards to the offense. Hopefully that is 2015.
How is Tannehill the forefront in this discussion? I made an off-hand remark, based on the posters and what they were saying, and what it made me think of.
