Then you clearly don't understand the explicit definitions of those four words. Wiith all due respect...... Wink wink
no, I'm not being sarcastic. There is no direct correlation in this sense. People who are good leaders are most likely good motivators, but good motivators are NOT necessarily good leaders bc motivational ability is only 1 aspect of leadership. people with the ability to overcome adversity can manage stress, however, people who can deal with stress do NOT necessarily have the ability to overcome adversity because it's entirely more extreme by definition. Many people can handle daily stress, but does that mean they all have ability to become a NAVY SEAL.
No the nature of the conversation is "can Cam Newton learn enough about leadership to become a good enough leader to lead an NFL football team?" I understand you took high school psychology. It must have been very beneficial. Paragraph 1: That is silly. My argument means I am not a natural at anything? That is completely silly. There are things that people could say I am a natural at things. However I do not have the hubris to believe that someone who doesn't could never be greater than me. Paragraph 2: I did read your post. It was a simple explaination of something that is very complex. And actually the debate is the EXTENT needed to chagne or strengthened a connection. A person with an innately weak connection could improve it so far as to be one of the best professional speakers and commedians. Paragraph 3: All studies are open to debate. This is not a study I have read. Most of my research has been with the brain. Does the study have a scientific explaination of what exactly a natural is and does it know the neural pathways needed and the extent of what they are needed to be considered a natural? Paragraph 4: What I am saying is Tiger Woods worked hard. Calling him a natural is an insult to all his hard work and his ability to focus. If they were to be able to create a test to determine everyone's natural ability to play golf, I am quite sure they would find someone who has a better one than Tiger's. Paragraph 5: You are putting a lot into effort when that is just one small part of the equation. There is environment, and also the personal decisions.
For the sake of argument, can we break this down to its bare essence so that we're all not attempting to change the definition of the English language? Adversity definition per Webster's: a state, condition, or instance of serious or continued difficulty or adverse fortune. per YourDictionary.com: 1. a state of wretchedness or misfortune; poverty and trouble. 2. A state of hardship or affliction. 3. A calamitous event. >>Calamity: 1. deep trouble or misery. 2. any extreme misfortune bringing great loss and sorrow; disaster. >>Hardship: something that causes or entails suffering or privation. >>Privation: the state of being deprived; especially, lack of what is needed for existence. >>Suffering: the pain, misery, or loss experienced by a person who suffers. Stress definition per Webster's: a state resulting from a stress; especially : one of bodily or mental tension resulting from factors that tend to alter an existent equilibrium (job-related stress). Webster examples: "She is dealing with the stresses of working full-time and going to school." "He talked about the stresses and strains of owning a business." Webster synonyms: pressure, strain, tension. **What Cam went through was some tough stress, but it wasn't true adversity....... and no where in any definition of adversity will the word "stress" be listed, nor is "stress" listed amongst its synonyms. If someone would like to tell me what it was that Cam "lost" or had to fight for in order to gain back etc, then I'm all ears. Was he injured? Was he booted from the football team? Did he lose a loved one? Did he fight through a serious illness? Was his life in jeopardy? Was his scholarship revoked forcing his family into a major state of crisis to ensure his stay at Auburn? Was he falsely accused of rape charges, sent to prison, and forced to fight for his freedom? Does he have a baby to take care of b/c its mother walked out on them? Is he raising 3 brothers and sisters b/c his parents are dysfunctional smack addicts? Is he juggling football & school while attending daily to an extremely ill family member? Nope, it's none of these things. It's much more serious..... b/c coping with deserved criticism trumps all the above. No offense, Emo, CK, Dupree, and others, but saying that Cam's self-induced problems are an example of "adversity" is a an insult to anyone who's actually overcome "real" adversity. It's a slap in the face to guys like Mark Herzlich. I can't believe people are glorifying a guy for getting through a stressful time that he brought upon himself. I actually think he's made himself into a great guy with some worth as a person, but I refuse to praise him for something that he should've never let himself be subjected to in the first place.
How bout we just keep it real here...Cam Newton is a dum ***...Iam just trying to figure out if a dum *** can lead a Professional NFL football team to a championship.
You're making cracks about "high school" psychology yet you're unaware of a 30 year study of over 2 million people that deals specifically with people's strengths (IE: natural innate talents that are responsible for them). I guess that means you didn't realize the Gallop study asked 1.7 million employees from 101 large companies across 63 countries to answer yes or no to "whether or not they have the ability to do what they do best every day (which deals with their strengths/natural talents)". Globally, ONLY 20% said their strengths are being utilized. What's striking about this number is that most organizations operate at a 20% capacity. (Does that mean that 80% are flat out lazy, or does it mean that a large majority of the 80% are constantly turning over or are less productive/successful b/c they don't have the corresponding natural talents for their respective position despite being given the same training etc as their fellow employees?) To address this, the Gallop Organization needed to understand why 80% of employees felt somewhat miscast in their roles. Their 30 year study concluded that most organization's basic assumption about people are wrong (which in turn means much of society's assumption is wrong)..... and their conclusion was based on interviews with 80,000 average-to-excellent Managers from hundreds of organizations worldwide. The focus was to determine what the best managers in the world had in common. They continue on....... (Side note: there are so many different types of natural talent that it would be impossible for each of us to possess them all.) They follow this up with a page that reads <from the top>: They concluded that there were 34 prevalent themes of human talent (which of course don't capture every human idiosyncrasy b/c that would be impossible). The book continues into discussing "strengths". Let's jump into the chapter titled "Talent" (since this explains deeper why naturals in a certain activity are the way they are, and non-naturals will never become naturals in the same activity, contrary to belief): The chapter discusses the brain and how it's an odd organ that seems to grow backward. Unlike most of your body that grows larger after birth, the brain gets very big quickly and then shrinks and shrinks into adulthood..... and as your brain becomes smaller and smaller, you actually become smarter and smarter. They get into other fascinating stuff like how a person's natural ability (or lack there of) go hand in hand with nature's intended desire for us to innately follow the path of least resistance. IE: people who don't have a natural talent for an activity don't like to execute repetitive efforts that relate to it b/c those efforts can instill a feeling of failure when the individual realizes it's taking him noticeably too long to achieve, especially when he recognizes that others can learn and apply the same ability quicker and more effectively. Great leaders will rise to the top b/c they have a NATURAL TALENT <in enough areas that deal with leadership> to become successful if they apply themselves. You're not going to just "make" yourself a good leader if you don't have a natural talent for it b/c you'll most likely throw in the white towel b/c your time invested becomes greater than the amount of time that you initially wanted to invest (or continue investing). I, for example, will not painstakingly attempt to become a nuclear physicist b/c I'd probably be 270 years old before I accomplish it, and I seriously don't think I'll live that long. I will also never try to become a musician b/c more instruments would end up broken out of frustration rather than properly played. I will also never become a world-class secretary or enter the Punctuality Olympics because I have horrible INNATE organization skills and a crappy aptitude regarding the sense of time. I could take organization & punctuality classes till I'm blue in the face, but all they would do is frustrate me b/c these actual NATURAL TALENTS <yes, the ability to be organized or punctual are actual innate talents> dont exist in my mental make up. I could practice enough to where I get by, but why would I even try to build them up past a proficient level when I can be productively spending that time improving one of my strengths? Many people, managers, and companies around the world operate under the false belief that you improve your success (or company's success) by trying to build up the weaknesses of your poorer performers while ignoring the "top producers" b/c they believe that the producers are already successful which means they don't need any extra attention. This is false and fits into this entire debate. For example, if you're managing a revenue based company, spending 4 extra hours a week with your top 10% performers (who are naturals) will actually see greater revenue than spending 4 hours with your bottom 10% b/c a natural will assimilate the new knowledge or skill easier than a non-natural will b/c their stronger synaptic connections will allow them to. Millions of individuals are poor performers in aspects of their job (or life activities) b/c they simply dont have the underlying talent to succeed in the related area. It's not always b/c they're lazy and don't work hard enough (which is an absurd type of thinking). If they don't have the underlying ability then they WONT succeed. Go find something else to do or figure out what your talents or strengths are. Plain and simple. I'm still flabbergasted about your Tiger Woods comments. There are PLENTY of golfers who practice as hard as Tiger but will never see a PGA green b/c they have zero natural talent for most aspects of the game. By the way, since when did calling someone a "natural" all of a sudden mean that they're lazy and don't put in any effort. Saying that Tiger got to where he is b/c he practiced harder than anyone else is an insult to his natural ability...... just as saying that Michael Jordan had no more talent than anyone else and is only the best there ever was b/c he practiced harder than anyone else. Take it for what you guys will..... and if there's another comprehensive study that's more proven and effective, then I'd honestly love to hear about it.
I don't know where to begin with this post. I'd be here for days if I had to break it down (including what's been excluded). Again, no disrespect, but being a good leader is much more complex than just 3 attributes: commitment, public speaking, and awareness of appearance....... which is why there are 200+ page books about the subject by authors who are experienced and trusted authorities. If it were so easy to be a good leader, then we'd have a lot more of them, and definitely more of the elite ones who have graced our history's presence over time...... but instead we get all too many rotten apples of bosses, managers, politicians, etc who couldn't lead to save their lives. Did Ghandi reach his status by marching daily to the local community college for Acting 101 classes? Did MLK swipe his credit card at Toastmasters to hone in on his public speaking ability? Was Hitler online takin Phoenix University classes on how to look the part of a leader and grow a suitable mustache? There's a reason these 3 guys accomplished what they did. The biggest thing you're missing is: A natural ability is needed to lead successfully. THAT'S NUMERO UNO, in bold face letters, neon-lit........ with a stripper next to it twirling on a pole, and a midget spanking her a$$. You can work on 1, 2, & 3 till you fart pixie dust, but you wont be a good leader unless you have an underlying talent for it. You can take all the classes you want; you can commit to it every morning over a bowl of Lucky Charms; and you can dress and look the part as if you've studied the appearance of every US president till you're counting their faces in bed instead of sheep...... but if you don't have an underlying talent for it, you won't truly be a good leader b/c the naturalness of it will still be lacking. Do you realize that public speaking is a natural talent all by itself? Again, spend a year in a class, but if you don't have a natural ability for it, then you most likely won't come across effortless or 100% credulous. Your efforts will look contrived.... unless you think you can be a leader by memorizing a few particular speeches that you recite over and over again as if you're in a play. Will you also take an impromptu acting class to better handle the spontaneity aspects of it all so that you don't appear incredulous or insincere? There are a few of flaws to #3 but I just want to respond to one of them: "A leader does not speak too quickly". You're highly intelligent in many areas, but this statement draws into question your ability to truly understand what it means to be a good leader, and it questions your ability to comprehend human nature, behavior, motivation, or how our brains operate on an individual level b/c we're not ALL THE SAME and don't share the same abilities. If you had a gift for understanding this stuff, you'd realize that if you were dealing with a collective of hyperactive brain type individuals (maybe you're leading a self help group for ADHD sufferers), then you'd be a horrendous leader if you tried NOT to speak too quickly b/c you'd lose them as fast as a group of lemmings could jump off a cliff. This stuff deals with proper mirroring. If you want to get through to your audience, then you speak at the rate that they can absorb or process, which is typically at the same rate in which they speak, unless they've suffered a stroke or something. lol.
No offense, but your entire analysis and understanding of this stuff is contrived and ignorant bordering on inane. I mean that with the utmost respect. If you had a more natural talent for reading comprehension and understanding complex concepts, you might realize that I was not saying that a leader should speak slowly, but rather that a leader should not speak TOO quickly. In other words, a leader must control the pace of his/her speech. It's not your fault, you clearly just are not good at comprehending this kind of thing, no offense.
Ok, this is gonna be fun. Maybe it's you who doesn't comprehend even the simplest of concepts (much less complex ones) if you don't understand the difference between "should" and "does", as in the (your) following statements: "A leader DOES not speak too quickly" vs "A leader SHOULD not speak too quickly"... or... "CK DOES not put his foot in his mouth" vs "CK SHOULD not put his foot in his mouth". Apparently you believe the words, does and should, are reflexive, but unfortunately they're not; however, if you'd like to continue fabricating a new language etc, then please do us a favor and throw us a solid---- Make a thread about it so we're ready for these changes in advance. While we're at it, "a leader does not have an embarrassing laugh". Really? Has THAT now become a prerequisite (which apparently, to you, supersedes "natural talent" on the hierarchy)? Refresh my memory>>>> How many terms did Bush serve as president? Golly, I don't know why he didn't run down to Dallas Community College and have that embarrassment hammered out. Or, wait a sec, is his idiotic laugh the reason why he was a bad leader? Ouch..... hold on.... my side is hurting...... I need to stop laughing for a second. My "understanding and analysis is contrived and ignorant bordering on insane"???? If that's not typical CK stuff who, when intellectually backed into a corner, lashes out with ridiculous attempts at asserting mental dominance. Your feeble insults w/o any substance backing them are further child's play, only with bigger words. The problem here, as most able minds will view it, is that you believe YOUR OPINION to be the final word no matter what anyone else introduces to a debate b/c CK's intellect is omniscient. I love how my understanding is contrived and ignorant despite using things like: the dictionary (which unbeknownst to you has been around for ages), the most comprehensive study on talent & strengths ever conducted, and referencing the fact there are books about leadership available for purchase from leading authorities. However, we're all wrong, and CK's opinion right as usual. Ho hum.
Honestly, your 1-2-3 analysis on Leadership sounds like a 3rd grader giving a report to his teacher after reading a pop-up book..... and considering how bad it was, that might even be a compliment. Wow, I've heard a lot, but this one takes the cake. Your statement might apply in high school and college, but some 32 year old man with a family and $30 million in the bank is NOT going to follow some 22 year old kid just b/c he has football talent. That's absurd. Aaron Maybin has talent...... and so does Matt Leinart. How much are those 2 clowns being lauded? Zach Thomas must have been a poor leader according to your interpretation of leadership. NFL leadership ability does NOT come down to football talent. Even production trumps talent level like it's a spade on a 2 of diamonds. NFL leadership is about natural leadership talent, work ethic, dedication, confidence, the ability to think quickly and make accurate decisions, the ability to efficiently explain & convey what you're thinking, courage, mental strength, an ability to handle criticism (from coaches, teammates, and fans), determination in the face of adversity, drive, passion, heart, knowledge of what the f*** you're doing (and what the guys around you are doing), care for your teammates, desire for team success, selflessness, respect, humility, production, a never-give-up mentality, trust (of your teammates and them of you), assertiveness, a desire for great execution w/o cutting corners, the ability to step forward without arrogance ..... I can keep going if you like until you start to get it............... but of course if you don't have any of these traits you can simply go to your local community college and take a class on them. Voila! Since when does this mean a hill of beans in the NFL regarding leadership? This is enjoyable so lemme run with it. 1. Aspiring NFL leaders should keep a mirror on them at all times (or post one on their center's butt) to ensure his appearance looks appropriate. 2. Aspiring NFL leaders should hit the locker room & change their pants upon any signs of dirt. 3. Effective immediately, all aspiring leaders shall have visible tattoos removed. 4. Aspiring leaders shall have scraggly hair shaved. 5. All leaders shall wear a uniform. (Ok, you got me on that one). 6. Aspiring leaders will stand with proper posture in the huddle b/c leaders do not slouch. 7. Aspiring leaders will not celebrate after TDs or yell at refs for blown calls in order to prevent from jeopardizing their facial expressions. 8. To prevent sounding shrill, aspiring leaders must refrain from yellling out at teammates who blow assignments. 9. Aspiring leaders will no longer pat teammates on the a$$ after big plays b/c open homosexuality is not a preferred trait of leadership. 10. Aspiring leader are prohibited from expediting their voice in the huddle despite 12 seconds left on the playclock b/c great leaders shouldn't speak too quickly. 11. Aspiring leaders, with no little natural talent for it, will take acting classes in the offseason to trick people into believing they can lead. Let's recap shall we: You can throw #3 (Awareness of appearance) out the window b/c it's virtually meaningless in the NFL...... and cartwheeling down the building behind it is #2 (Public Speaking) b/c, in their early years, aspiring NFL leaders have enough to worry about during their typical, strenuous, 3 year learning curve w/o having to take a freakin class on public speaking if they happen to be bad at it. So for your definition of leadership, all that leaves as a prerequisite to NFL leadership is: football talent along with #1 (commitment to being a leader)...... however, the commitment aspect is a little easier said than done b/c players are also confronted with the arduous task of being committed to becoming a good football player first and foremost w/o having the efforts of "leadership" thrown atop the pile. Otherwise, there NFL would be comprised of nothing BUT leaders. So let me restate this to you b/c you do not seem to be getting it: leadership at the NFL level stems from having a NATURAL talent for it...... meaning it comes naturally to them w/o having to spend precious time working at it or thinking about it when players have too many other things in this complex game to worry about. How hard is this to understand? Gaining leadership ability <w/o an underlying talent for it> takes time and effort, extra time and effort that these guys typically don't have. Politicians etc dedicate their entire careers (even their lives) to becoming good leaders..... so do you think a football player will become a good leader by spending his offseason taking some class? Do you think a player will even WANT TO after enduring the stress and rigors of an NFL season? Will he be reading his "leadership book" on the plane to his next game destination while role-playing with the guy next to him? Cmon now..... stop acting so naive. (and that goes for you, too, Dol-Fan Dupree and your "how do you know Matt Ryan didn't read books on leadership bla bla bla to get where he is?") Leaders in the NFL come NATURALLY where they have the ability to lead w/o being distracted from the rest of this complex game. They can lead w/o thinking about it b/c it just comes to them. And if you don't believe me, then go ask the most respected leaders in the game how they became leaders...... and they'll probably tell you something like "I don't know...... It just happened during the course of me trying to win and become the best I can be". Did you take a class on it at your local community college? "No <chuckle, chuckle>.
Thanks Panda. lol. I almost decided not to compose that long arse post, but then I figured if one person gets anything from it, it's worthwhile.
This is hilarious that you're getting so bent out of shape because I basically repeated back to you some of the same things you've been saying to everyone that has disagreed with you in this thread. You're the one that has basically been attacking people all throughout the thread under the guise of "No offense, but..." and "I say this out of respect, but..." etc. You're the one that has insinuated that anyone in here who disagrees with you doesn't know anything about the subject. That's a cold fact right there. And yet you're getting your panties in a twist because I used your own argument tactic against you. Nice.
My panties aren't in a twist.... I'm not even wearing any today. Thongs don't get twisted. To clarify, you, Emo, and Dol-Fan aren't disagreeing with me; you guys are disagreeing with years and years of collaborated research and study. It's not getting me bent out of shape; it's making me chuckle..... especially considering the efforts you put into becoming great at player profiling yet you ignoring an aspect (or understanding) of it that can make you even better. I'm attacking a "few" people in the same manner in which they post towards others. Everyone else I'm basically respectful towards. That's why you see over 8000 fist pumps below my avatar, b/c I DO give credit where credit is do. And there's no insinuating anything. If you're disagreeing, you're wrong. lol.
Says it all, right there. I and the 22,000 fist pumps under my name disagree, and I doubt we're wrong.
You "doubt" huh? Doubt establishes uncertainty. Uncertainty means you believe it's possible you were wrong. There was no uncertainty when I said it...... b/c I knew you were wrong, too. lol. Sorry, I can't be serious when I see you or I writing "thousands of fistpumps under our name/avatar". The wording sounds like we're either an overzealous Asian soldier or a couple homos. Uhhh, you're supposed to come AFTER the 22,000 fist pumps, not before them. (grammatically speaking of course)
Gotchya. Just so I know--- what gives you the right to say someone is or isn't losing credibility? Have you conducted your own study on the subject that's debunked the one I referenced? So I'm the one losing credibility b/c I provided a 30 year comprehensive study to back my posts, but personal opinion from the other members is now credible, acceptable, and superior? Remind me to call the billion dollar companies, who've adopting these truths into the way they operate, and tell them that a few guys on ThePhins.com have said their new way of doing things is false. Why don't you just come out and say what you mean: it's not acceptable for anyone to question Cam Newton because of how badly you want us to draft him. Does your post mean that I'm adding you to this list of people disagreeing with this study? (for clarification)
Nobody's losing any credibility...Personally I love it when the intellectuals go toe to toe, both deserve some good deep fist pumps.........what..
lol. Uhhhh, only by female members........ small female members....... one's who've maybe lost a finger or two in a fireworks gone bad experience.
This is a ridiculous argument right now. But back to the topic, no one knows if Newton is a leader. No one knows what he's saying on the sidelines and in the huddle. No one knows if he instill hope in his players. No one really knew if any of the players ACTUALLY believed he was going to lead them to victory in the bowl game. And you can LEARN how to imitate a leader and partially develop into one. But you need to have some natural leadership in your body before you develop. Its really hard to lead during the toughest times if its all something you learned with regards to leading. I believe its a bit of both worlds. I think I would know, one of the reason I wasn't able to play in a bigger school, like major program at WR is because I was way to quiet as a leader. I was asked to lead, and I just wasn't the motivator, leader, etc. I was a silent leader, but those are much harder to follow in football. I barely talked but I did my job and finished. I don't think I celebrated once on the field in 8 years of football. I TOOK a few seminars and classes in learning to lead to just for football and it helps, but you really need to have it in yourself. You can DEVELOP it more but in the end it's not something you just magically create or exponentiate 1000x.
I've read through the stuff on leadership and I have never been more sure that Toddphins is completely wrong. There seems to be a disconnect with the facts and the conclusions that are jumped to. Its almost a nature vs. nurture argument. And the fact is that there are 1000s of studies that support both sides. To claim that it is not even debatable is either blind or intellectually dishonest. Most reasonable experts on nature/nurture debates have come to the conclusion that both play a role. My personal belief is that your innate abilities set up a range and your experiences determine where you end up in that range. But that range is fairly large. For example, public speaking. The vast majority can learn to be at least a good public speaker. I know I have seen some horrible public speakers who have learned to be pretty good. I've seen the same with leadership. Everybody can learn to be a a better leader and some have greater potential than others, but to say its all or nothing is simply wrong.
Thank you. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand, especially when examples of this are apparent everywhere and with everyone & all walks of life. We've ALL experienced things that we know we're good at that come easily, just as we've all experienced things that we simply have no affinity for no matter how much effort we put into it.
I'm sorry Rafael, and I respect what you have to say, but becoming a good public speaker when you're speeches are mostly predetermined does not really count. I agree that people can learn to become a better leader, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will become a "good leader". If you don't believe me, then simply take a poll of every member on here regarding bosses they've worked for. Most of us have worked for a boss who has no right leading people, yet they were promoted to the position b/c they were productive and worked hard. This is where society's thinking has been wrong (and disproven by the study I referenced). Upon promotion, these soon to be managers are then provided managerial/leadership training. They become a manager, and then all of a sudden, despite extensive training, stink it up and lose morale of their entire staff. The nature verse nurture that you mention is correct..... they do both come into play, however, the nature comes first in the context we're discussing. A person has the natural underlying talent (nature) and then uses skill & knowledge (nurture) to make that talent become a strength. You can practice something all you want, but if you're not a natural at it, you'll never truly be able to duplicate all the intricacies involved to become great at it. Example: Anyone with a normal brain can learn how to play Twinkle Twinkle Little Star on the trumpet. However, only people with a natural talent for music can reproduce Mozart w/o spending their entire lifetime trying to do so, if ever. I could probably train a chimp to cook me a turkey pot pie, but that doesn't mean he'll become the next Bobby Flay. Classical conditioning, or learning an easy skill through repeated repetition, is not the same thing as becoming adept at a skill that involves much complexity. You could teach some computer programmer with no athletic ability to efficiently throw a ball through a hole to win a million dollars, but that doesn't mean he'll become an NFL QB with maximum effort and dedication........... just as NFL QBs <with little natural ability understanding computers> will not become a successful programmer or truly grasp binary code, but they can easily learn how to understand the basics of a computer.
Well I dont completely agree with anyone here. I think both points are right. You can learn to develop and harness your skills into a better leader. But you can't just grow it. You need to have some of both. Have it naturally in you and the ability to want to learn and develop it. No one on this forum knows if Newton is a good leader or not. Unless you played at his HS, Blinn, or Auburn with him in the huddle, no one can make the judgement if he can be a good leader. You can use his game play and tape for evaluation, but he's leading kids, not men. Leading in football is MUCH about motivation. Motivation plays a huge role in it. Some players are different, Eli Manning comes to mind, but motivation is NEEDED most of the time.
I don't think they're willing to move up for any QB in this draft. However, the draft is stuffed with defensive plums which might be irresistible to many NFL teams. if Newton or Gabbert should fall to #15, we'll go for it. should there stock hold, I think we'll pick up Ingram & the best offensive linesmen we can draft. anything can happen, we'll know about after it does.
I think people are confusing "learning a simple ability like riding a bike" with "being good at an advanced ability like riding motor cross". Anyone can learn to ride a bike, but that doesnt mean they have the ability be on the Xgames. That comes from natural ability (combined with practice). Leadership is not a simple ability. There are TOO MANY separate abilities that go into leadership for it to be something simple. Otherwise history would be flooded with millions of great leaders. That's what I'm saying. I'm not against Cam per say, but I'm not going to just assume that he has the ability to be a great leader just b/c he was a successful college QB. The motivational part is awesome (and I agree it's a huge part) but the other aspects of leadership are still required. As a QB, he'll also need to become become productive at the NFL level and gain a strong understanding of the game before anyone will follow him. A player can be the best pregame motivator on earth, but if they doesn't have the other intangibles (including knowledge & production), then he'll never transcend from motivator to "game leader". That's why we occasionally see guys who are great pregame motivators who are not leaders on the actual field of battle. That's why I said earlier that great leaders are also great motivators...... but great motivators are not necessarily great leaders.
Raf, I have a question for you. Based on what you're saying and as an ex scout, do you feel that players can practice and develop true instincts for the game when they don't come naturally? (and we're not talking simple read & react stuff; I mean legitimate instincts) CK, you can answer this too if you like.
Respectfully to all, please understand----- All the leadership training in the world can't prepare you for the infinite number of situations you may face. All the training in the world can't prepare you for the infinite number of personality types etc that encompass each person's psyche..... or teach you how to properly deal with them all. And all the training in the world can't truly prepare you for the human condition which is entirely unpredictable. A non-natural at a specific ability would have to practice/train/learn for years (and possibly a lifetime) to become as good at said ability as non-natural who's had 1/10th the exposure, give or take. A person needs natural ability (instinct if you will) to guide them. W/o natural ability (good instincts), a person can not be consistently efficient when it comes to complex abilities. When this deals with leadership, one false decision can prove enormously costly. An NFL QB's job is football first and foremost...... hence the majority of his time is spent on developing his football ability, not leadership skills. If a QB had enough time to devote toward leadership building, then I agree that they could better a become one (and maybe even get by if they have no talent for leadership). But this isn't as simple as: "I just read Leadership for Dummies...... BAM, now I'm a leader." People are making it out to seem as though becoming a leader is some easy feat, like it's no different than reading a recipe in a cookbook and then reproducing the dish. Leading a seriously complex task, and the people on this thread disagreeing with Robert_Horry & myself are doing nothing but disrespecting born leaders like Manning, Matt Ryan, or Ray Lewis......... while also disrespecting the rest of the NFL who are NOT leaders by implying that the only reason they're not leaders is b/c they're lazy and just don't want it bad enough.
To CK, Raf, Emo, Dupree, Garden, and others in disagreeance. Let's put it this way--- If good leadership was an easy thing to accomplish, there wouldn't be so much research invested in it. There wouldn't be so many classes taught on it. There wouldn't be millions of dollars invested in developing leaders. There wouldn't be a billion dollars spent on books by individuals trying to become better leaders. How many books are sold on "how to ride a bicycle?" I rest my case. lol.
Everyone please read this then take a LOOONG look at this then look at yourself in the mirror. He just said it all, unless your on that team its all one mans opinion wich may or may not be correct anyway. I doubt any of us know Cam Newton personally so to try and argue that he IS or IS NOT a leader is actually laughable.
