There will be people who disagree with this point of view, and that's fine. None of us, including myself, knows the inner workings of this team. There will be people who disagree with this point of view because they believe it discounts the effect of physical talent on the way the team is playing, and that's incorrect. There is an intimate link between leadership and physical play in my opinion. Leadership affects physical play and vice-versa. Do we need more talent in some areas to become a great team? Sure, and that's not mutually exclusive with the viewpoint presented here. What I see with this team at the present time is a vacancy in the leadership department. Prior to the Colts game I didn't believe this, but I believe this game revealed something about this team I wasn't aware of. As they say, "adversity doesn't build character -- it reveals it." The issue as I see it is that the Colts game was a potential corner-turner for this team, one that could've established its identity as one of the NFL's truly good teams. When you can go on the road and win as a favored team in the NFL, you've reached a new level of development IMO, and it certainly would've been new for this team by its standards, given its recent history. True leadership in such a situation would involve the following IMO: A player's feeling of ownership of his team His desire to see the team he "owns" and plays for become great His awareness of his team's developmental trajectory and how a "corner-turning" type of game fits into it His taking personal responsibility for winning such a game and helping his team reach a level of development that is essential for progress toward becoming a great team and eventually winning a Super Bowl. When all those things are present, as they would be for a true leader of a team, the player responds by playing in a way that's atypically good by his standards. He comes out and seizes the moment and has a great game for the benefit of his team. He leads by example and inspires his teammates. He makes the statement, by the way he plays the game, that he's going to help his team move forward and reach a new level. The issue as I see it here is that there isn't a single player on the roster about whom that can be said in the Colts game. IMO no single player had a game that was atypically good by his standards. Were there players who played well in the game? Sure. Cameron Wake for example was his typically good self. But no player can be pointed to as having had an atypically good game by his standards. No player seized the moment for the benefit of this team's progress IMO. I think there are players on this team who have leadership qualities, but I have to question whether there is anyone on the team who has truly assumed ownership of this team and its future direction. In other words, there are lots of players who are contributing to this team and are certainly by no means dragging it down, but I question who exactly is going to step up and get this team over the hump. Who is going to lead the team to greatness? When not a single player does that in a game of the magnitude of the one in Indy, I can't answer that question, and that IMO is a problem.
Shou, my problem is that a player can take as much personal responsibility as you like, but when the entire team is being physically outmatched by the other team AND players are not executing in key situations, it's not a leadership crisis. It's a butt kicking crisis. They could complete passes all over the field; their receivers were consistently open. Ours couldn't get separation anywhere close to the degree that theirs could. Our linebackers and secondary could not cope with their passing game. We couldn't stop them and we couldn't do the same thing when it counted. Their offensive line gave their quarterback time to throw throughout the game. Ours didn't when it counted. Our offensive line couldn't open holes for our running backs. They filled the running lanes. By the end of the game, their running game was getting chunk yardage, When our defensive backs had the opportunity to turn the game around, they failed to execute plays that were there for them to make. They got first downs at an astonishing rate. When we had to have one to win or tie the game, we couldn't get it. They could. We couldn't. All the personal responsibility, the playing above one's level, the accountability, the demanding better effort, the leading by example in the world does not help when a physical beating is administered. You can keep stepping up and redoubling your effort and rallying your teammates, but in the end, when the other guys are simply more physically capable, anyone eventually gets demoralized. It's a matter of the things a player can do with his body and what he can't do, no matter how hard he tries. It's a question of reaching the limit of your physical ability. We need a secondary that can do things, first and foremost. We need more receivers who can get separation beyond ten yards. We need a coverage scheme that doesn't allow for Koa Misi to cover a wide receiver in the end zone on a long pass. We need Long and Martin to block. We need to give our players the opportunity to make plays consistently, and if they can't, we need to replace them with players who can. This doesn't happen overnight. We're going to lose some games along the way. This team has lost three games by three points and it's at .500. We're going in the right direction.
Your point is inconsistent with the Colts' 5-3 record (4-3 coming in, same as ours), the fact we were favored against them, and the fact that we lost by only three points and were in position to win at the end. This wasn't a butt-kicking from a physical standpoint to the degree to which you've presented it IMO. In other words, there isn't a significant disparity in talent here. Now, with regard to what you said about how we played, sure, I agree, and that could be entirely the effect of a lack of leadership. When no single player is setting an example of taking the bull by the horns and playing atypically well by his standards in a game of that magnitude, what you have potentially is a team that's suffering from a lack of inspiration. If the team is uninspired, it probably isn't going to play well. Like I said, there are certainly areas in which we need to improve our physical talent, and in that respect we agree, but I don't think that particular aspect of the team was responsible for the loss at Indy. What I think was responsible for the loss at Indy was that no player assumed personal responsibility for helping this team reach a new level of development by playing atypically well by his standards. In other words, no player led it.
We were physically outperformed. On a great majority of plays, their individuals beat our individuals. Look at third down conversion rate, pass completion rate, time of possession, dropped interceptions, inability to get that final first down. My point is that inspiration will only get you so far. You have to get out there and actually do it, or keep the other guy from doing it. We were incapable of solving or stopping their passing game. That's why we lost. I understand about stepping up and playing beyond your normal abilities, but that calls for a reserve of ability that some of our people simply do not have. Those people need to be replaced. I don't coach. I don't know to what extent the coaching staff could have made adjustments in our coverage scheme to slow down or stop their pass completions. Maybe the coaches here can weigh in on that. But what I saw was a weak secondary exposed.
The defensive secondary played worse than normal. Look at how Sean Smith played against Arizona, for example. If he plays that way in Indy we probably win. There is a reserve of ability Sean Smith has. He just didn't bring it to the table Sunday, and in a game of that magnitude, IMO that suggests he's not a leader. Now, perhaps as you said, that means he needs to be replaced, but when no player on the team brings his "reserve of ability" to the table in a game of that magnitude, it also suggests there's a problem with leadership IMO. What I suspect is that this team has leaders who can inspire the team when there is a motive in a single game, such as responding to the trash talk by the Jets, but no leaders who have truly assumed ownership of the team and its direction and can therefore provide the bigger-picture leadership that spans a whole season, where the inspirational motives week-to-week are derived from what the team is attempting to accomplish long-term.
did you see that speech by chuck? sh*t if i was playin' for the colts during that game i would of went out there and dominated. that was the leadership they had that inspired them to go out and finish.
IMO you've hit the nail on the head. There was no way they, the Colts, were going to lose that game with their HC, who is fighting cancer for his life, in for a visit ... no way! It showed in the second half, we only were able to add 3 points to our first half total, while they came back and won! One, two, three, CHUCK!!! There is no way to beat that kind of high, no way!
I think that when you look at the offence that there were signs of leadership. Not big glowing look at me neon signs but we made enough plays on offence to win the game. The D has been the same since Wannstadt. There are enough individually talented players for the team to get ranked as a good D based on yardage allowed, but it has been a long long time since I felt that our D would step up in a big game. Zach and JT to me were perfect examples of great players who didn't inspire their team mates to be better. Than Saban gutted the team of anyone who had any signs of being able to think independently. I do agree that there is a dearth of leadership with respect to the D. But if the team doesn't have leaders who are the young players going to learn from? I like what Philbin and Co are doing but they are trying to install leadership into a group where it doesn't really exist now. It's a cultural thing that takes years to develop, and even then it doesn't have to be a recognised or nominated leader. Once the culture becomes one where players don't expect someone else to step up but realise that someone has to and it may as well be them then you have the basis for a team like the 'no names'.
Pagano didn't speak to the team before the game, only afterwards......because he lacked the energy to do so pre game.
Shou... sometimes teams with good leadership lose a game. If not... you'd see a hell of a lot more undefeated teams. We lost. There isn't always something deeper that needs to be examined when you lose a close game.
You countered the point in the original post with generalities with which no one can disagree, and with nothing specific to this team, which IMO is weak and unconvincing response.
My larger concern is that, contract-wise, Dansby and Pouncey may be the only players of the leader ilk who are sure they'll be here long enough to take "ownership" of the team. Think of the number of other players who are in a similar position to lead who have expiring contracts. How easy is it to take an ownership/leadership role on a team when you're not even sure you'll be on it next year?
This can be true and we can have the problems I mentioned with leadership as well. Both can be true. Again, the point is that no player on our team stepped up in a corner-turning game and played atypically well by his standards. The Chuck Pagano thing may be true, but it doesn't account for why none of our players stepped up in a game of that magnitude.
there's this thing in the NFL right now called parity. It's how a team like the Giants, with very good leadership, loses to the Steelers. It's how the Packers, with very good leadership, loses on the road to the Colts, the same team that plays really well at every home game, just like they did for us. Obviously, we don't have a Ray Lewis. leadership doesn't always have to come from the players, it can come from the coaches/coordinators too. We got outplayed by a good team, stop overanalyzing the situation.
First, I'll analyze the situation however I'd like, thanks. Second, if you take a deeper look at the games you mentioned I suspect you'll come away with the impression that the meaning of them them for the teams involved was different than this one was for us (i.e., a corner-turning game as a team favored on the road for the first time in a while, building on previous momentum generated this season). If you want to counter the point with something convincing and not a generality, you'll do that. And if you decide to do that, drop the condescension as well, please. I'm no idiot, and I don't deserve to be talked to like one.
Sorry I was unable to convince you. I'm posting from my phone. Quick question... would I have been able to convince you otherwise regardless of what I type? I doubt I'd be able to sway you from your philisophical belief... which I think you and I disagree on at its core. I think it's kinda ridiculous that we could be considered having good leadership prior to Sunday's game and then all of a sudden the leadership no longer exists just because we lost. If we had won, would you then consider us still have good leadership? And if so, what changed about the character of our men during the 60 minutes of the game where they went from being leaders to not being leaders. In my opinion you're either a leader or you're not and that goes deep into the character traits of the individual. And personality traits like that doesn't change over 60 minutes IMO. Teams with great leadership sometimes lose games. If we had gotten blown out, or shown any lack of toughness or fight, I would understand your argument a little more. However losing by three in my opinion is not a reflection on the leadership of a team that is already overachieving.
We didn't get blown out. That's all the proof needed to disprove this stance. The game was close enough that a butterfly fart could have pushed a pass a millimeter to one direction or another causing it to be incomplete which could have been the difference in the game. I said before the game there were 4 possible scenarios: Blow out win, a win, a loss & a blowout loss. Only a blowout loss would mean something bad for the development of the team. And what FiNasty said is not a generalization, its true. With good leadership, teams lose. One team has gone undefeated, yet more than one team has had good leadership.
No one was talking to you like an idiot. I don't need to go into anything more than generalities, because those generalities prove my point. If you want a more elegant answer, then see FinNasty's last point. You are more than welcome to analyze it however you want, and I usually enjoy your posts, but in this instance, you overanalyzed it and IMO there's nothing there.
LMFAO!! Shou, or should I say Jmal305, posted the same thread on Finheaven!! Starve for attention much??? http://www.finheaven.com/forums/showthread.php?329227-A-Crisis-of-Leadership
If you reached this opinion based on the Colts game only, then IMO you're putting too much stock into one game.
Regardless of this thread....a point of fact for anyone interested. Actually, Pagano did address the team pregame as well as postgame. Last night on NFL network and the Coaches Show, excerpts of his pre-game speech was read on air by Coach Mariucci. "He referenced how Cancer is an opponent, similar to the challenge of a football game, and you beat cancer because of the love you have for others...and thats how you win football games! etc, etc. The love of others in this room, etc" This article below highlighting the postgame speech, referenced the pregame visit and talk too. Again, just an fyi. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8592354/chuck-pagano-indianapolis-colts-coach-attends-game
Here's where I fundamentally disagree with this stance: Our Defensive Backfield shoulders most of the blame for this loss. It was unacceptable to give up 6+ 3rd and Longs. 3rd and 20, 3rd and 16, 3rd and 12, etc. I just can't imagine that if Jake Long had a good game or was displaying the leadership you're stating that the Defensive Backfield would have covered their guys better. Jake Long being a leader wouldn't have made Sean Smith catch that INT at the end or look good instead of like a fool on that 3rd down hail mary TD. Sean Smith doesn't try to get up and run with that INT with 3 minutes left in the 4th and we go into OT or win the game. We were a bad call/non-call penalty, a missed opportunity, or missed throw away from winning this game. It happens, it's sports. What I do believe, however, is that we're not experienced enough yet for that to have not been a game at all (i.e. win by 7+). And by that I mean that this team, no matter how good its leadership is, is not going win relatively easily against competent teams in the NFL. Not yet. Not this year. We're a more experienced QB and 2 solid players away from that. Not so much a leadership problem, IMO
I've already addressed that here: And with this hypothesis: So I'll ask you then: what is your explanation for why, in a game that could turn the corner for this team, not a single player played atypically well? Why did seemingly no player grasp the magnitude of the situation and come out and play big?
This is based on only one game and for that reason is a tentative hypothesis. However, the fact that no single player played big in such a game is a stark finding IMO and for that reason deserves an explanation. When I counter people here it may seem as though I'm more certain than I am that my explanation for that is correct, when in reality I'm simply demanding a counter explanation that takes into account all of the data specific to this team regarding this game and how it was played. A generality doesn't controvert this hypothesis because it fails to take into account the specific factors present on this team. We know this team. We can do better than that.
No one will ever know for sure, but I submit to you that players inspire each other. When Sean Smith is standing on the sideline watching his Pro-Bowl left tackle have a very poor game, he can hardly be inspired by it. Now, is Sean Smith responsible for his own inspiration? Of course, but if he's watching his teammates lead the effort to win by playing very well in a game of big magnitude, it can have only a positive effect on him. This is why leaders are important. They inspire other people. No one led the effort Sunday. No one. That's a stark finding IMO.
Leadership is very, very important, but it is not a snake oil tonic that cures everything. Sometimes you lose and a lack of leadership wasn't the reason. You're doing the opposite of what the BMarsh apologists do. Where as they think the ONLY thing that matters is talent, you act as if the ONLY thing that matters is leadership. You both are wrong. Again, I think the most compelling evidence against what you're saying is that despite the yardage numbers we had a chance to win the game. That shows leadership. It does show we need some more talent too. My fear, is that you are merely asking some questions to create conversation, but people have reacted strongly against it, so you're going to double down on it like you did earlier in the season and we'll have a 20 page rage fest.
That's actually the data that disproves that we lost for physical reasons, ironically. When you can explain why no single player played atypically well in a game of that magnitude, you'll start to disprove my stance.
You need to re-read the original post then. When something is as tentative and hypothetical as this, the people who reply are typically going to be the ones who react strongly against it. You won't hear from the people who believe it may have some merit. Now, if you react strongly against it and you can counter the idea with something logical, internally consistent, and that accounts for all the available data as I have, then we can have a real conversation and not a "rage fest" as you've called it.
Crisis is "chicken littling" Concern is a better word. It is not like the team came out bad and played completely flat. They lost to a team that played really well and were still close.
Horse****. You've made up the requirements of what it would take to disprove your stance. The only logical result from your stance is that with great leadership a team will go undefeated.
That is a good point. Joe Montana is one of the greatest leaders of all time. He isn't undefeated in big games.
I'll ask you then: why did no single player play atypically well in a game of that magnitude? Wrong. A team can lose a game like Sunday's even when it has the requisite leadership, because an insufficient number of players may step up and play big, and/or the efforts of the players who step up and play big may be nullified by the game-changing mistakes of other players. What we saw Sunday was that no player played big. Again, explain that.
I thought Ryan Tannehill played very well. I think Hartline played very well. I think Soliai played very well. I think Wake played very well. How are you coming to the conclusion that NO player was able to grasp the supposed magnitude of this past game? (which, I completely disagree with anyway. The Jets game had a far greater magnitude IMO. That in itself is very subjective on your part.) If Sean Smith didnt lose the ball in the air on that bomb to Avery and properly incercepted it... or if he held onto that ball at the end, and we drove 25 yards and won the game... would our team be considered to have had leaders at that point? The problem IMO is that you are not judging the players leadership ability based on their actual leadership skills or their character traits. You are judging it by the outcome of a game, b/c in your opinion... no players "went off" in a game whos outcome has a ton of variables.
Well when we have no direct access to their character traits, we have to make leaps of faith based on how they play. Can those leaps of faith be wrong? Sure. However, I submit that no player did anything in that game that represented the magnitude of the game. That game could've been a corner-turner in this team's forward progression, yet no one IMO played as though it was. Did some players have good games? Sure, and I said that in the original post. But no player made the kinds of outstanding plays you'd expect when a team has within its mitts a chance to turn the corner as an organization. Ironically, you saw tons of those plays the week before, when there was a situational motive (responding to the Jets' trash talk), but not against the Colts when there was a bigger-picture motive consisting of a huge leap in this organization's progression forward. So again, the hypothesis is that we have leaders who can inspire other players when there's something to be pissed off about on a given week, but perhaps no one who has taken the kind of ownership of the team to inspire others in a game that can redefine the identity of the team from a big-picture perspective. IMO it's quite possible that they just don't have the grasp of that big picture, and that would most likely stem from not feeling a sense of ownership of the team. Otherwise there would've been at least a single player who came out and played big.
I think it's a well thought out thread, and consistent with the OP's POV.. This is how the man thinks, I tend to appreciate that..Especially when the OP has demonstrated accuracy on some particular subjects.. I was going to mention the free agent contract angle, but I see you did that, We have a lot of players not knowing for sure what's going to happen to their future, and all of them know that if they stay healthy their gonna get paid..Not sure how one could own their stake in the team if they don't know if the team truly wants them.. Isn't it pretty rare for your #1 overall pick to reach free agency?. Starks is our best player on D, and he doesn't know at this point, Reggie, who sets the example for work ethic, doesn't know, We don't know how Sean Smith feels, I wouldn't be suprised if he wants to see what's out there for himself.. I can see those things tugging on the core of unity,mbut I can't claim that I have conviction about it.. What I do have conviction about, Andrew Luck kicked our ***, and would of kicked everyone else's *** if he played them.
And I don't have a ton of conviction about it either, but I do think you've hit on what could be at the root of why the team made tons of plays against the Jets, when there was a small-picture, situational motive (responding to trash talk), and almost none of those kinds of plays in a game in which there was the big-picture motive of redefining this team's identity. Something has to account for that difference IMO, and personally I can't think of a better explanation than the one I've given. I'm open to alternatives, however, as long as they account for all the data specific to this team.
The bold contradicts the italics. And please, show me in what dictionary where leadership is defined by players playing better than they normally do? Again you're flat out making stuff up.
See... first, I disagree that there was some unbelievable magnitude to this game. This was 1 of 10 non-division games we play this year. 2nd, we did make those plays. Vernon blocked another FG. Wake with a strip sack, etc... I pretty much disagree with the entire premise of both your thoughts on this game... as well as how the outcome reflects on the leadership. I dont think there is any corrolation... and I know I'm not going to convince you otherwise. Our secondary played like crap. That isnt a leadership thing... its a lack of talent. And as I've always said... talent dicates results far greater than any leadership feel-good mumbo jumbo...
So... we are the only team that has good players at the end of their contracts? Of course not. But how do those teams manage to not be effected but we do? Not buying that...
