1st Post - Sharing some perspective...

You mentioned Brady, Peyton Manning, and Eli Manning. Those guys have accounted for 10 of the past 26 quarterbacks involved in Super Bowls (past 13 years, one for each team involved). You don't see a pattern there, in terms of performance in the playoffs?

Granted, those guys have lost in the playoffs, as well, like you mentioned, but if you put the name of each playoff quarterback during that 13-year period in a hat and drew 26 names at random, your likelihood of drawing those three guys' names 10 times out of those 26 would be much lower than it's been in real life.

 

That video says very little to me. It's fun to watch, but it means next to nothing. There is a time/place component to leadership where some guys can be leaders in certain circumstances, but may be quite the opposite of a leader in another time/place/circumstance. Joey Porter is a great example. He appears to have been a leader of that Steeler team, but by his last year here he was arguably a cancer. He was insubordinate to the coaches and by most accounts a detriment to the team's psyche. That year in Pitt it may have been that the conditions were right for him to step up as a leader. That may or may not have had something to do with their SB run. But for the rest of his career, Porter's teams had a losing playoff record. And that year, they got past the 2nd round largely because Mike Vanderjagt missed a 46 yd FG at the end of the game after having made 80 of his previous 87 FG attempts over 3 seasons. That was luck at least as much as it was leadership. They also had a lot of luck in that SB against Seattle, getting several questionable calls that helped them win despite an awful game by Roethlisberger.

 

With Brady and Manning there definitely is a pattern -- they are among the best QBs of all time and QB is a really, really important position. It is their play on the field that makes their teams great and gives them a better-than-average chance of getting to the SB. Eli's 2 were a little flukey. He's not a great QB and his teams weren't great teams. But they got hot at the right time, got some good matchups and played well enough to win. I don't know Eli personally and don't know what kind of leader he is. I do know that other than those 2 SB teams, his teams have been pretty mediocre. There's not much sign of any special leadership or character on Giants of the last few years.

 

I do think team character is as "local" as you're potraying it to be. Indeed, the likes of Joey Porter can be highly inspirational on one team, and detrimental on another. I think that has something to do with the team culture and his relationship with the head coach. Notice in the video how Bill Cowher makes room for him to make the post-game speech by calling him out by name. He was designated as a leader there. I'm not sure that happened here. At any rate, you could very well have a conglomeration of leaders in one place who create a certain kind of team character there, and then assemble the same people elsewhere and have a different culture. I think what the video shows is that the Steelers had the sort of culture that year I'm talking about, where leaders among the players were very inspirational and very much helped a team win on the road multiple times in the playoffs. In contrast to you, I see the video as having a whole lot of meaning. I think it illustrates exactly the main "ingredient" that made that team so good that year.

 

are you all saying that there are no extenuating circumstances that can elevate the focus and adrenaline of a football player?

 

My work involves that kind of teamwork, but "leadership" doesn't really work the way you describe it. I do agree that team (or group) functioning is its own animal and the performance and example of the people at the top of the organizational pyramid is important to the motivation and performance of the ones below. But other factors, such as communication, are also important. Speeches and "rah rah" give a quick sugary buzz, but don't create sustained energy. A positive, can-do attitude goes much further.

 

I've seen a lot of locker room videos with fun speeches and the appearance of great cameraderie. But that doesn't necessarily translate to great performance on the field/court.

That Steeler team was not especially great that year. They were an 11-5 wild card team. But they were a good team and had some good players and a good coach. As indicated, they easily could have lost to Indy in the playoffs and Seattle in the SB, but they got a few "lucky bounces." I have no reason to think that the teams they beat that year didn't have similarly warm and fuzzy locker room speeches.

 

It may not be sustainable for 60 mins but the games results comes down to inches and fractions of seconds..

 

So your categorizing tom brady as a guy who is what exactly? quiet, great work ethic, lead by example?

 

The locker room or in-game speech is a short term high. The team might come out guns blazing, but if things don't go right early, it won't be sustained and can even backfire with a crash. I think that si part of what we saw for many years in the SB blowouts. Both teams come out oozing adrenaline, but when a critical mass of negative things happen to one team, they basically fold.

I do think there is a more subtle form of motivation that is more sustainable. It's when the players have confidence in the coaches and one another and realize that if they really band together and focus they can be special. For individual players, a coach can sometimes motivate by helping the player realize how good he can be when he focuses and works hard. Those are some of the things I'd be looking for a coach to provide -- not necessarily the fire and brimstone.

 

It may help early, but the Dolphins were fine early on Sunday. They were controlling the game early. I have no idea if that had anythign to do with speeches, but I suspect not. But even if it did, those speeches mean little by the 4th quarter (or even the 2nd). The players are well into the game and not thinking about speeches.

 

I don't think he's necessarily quiet, but I don't think it is his vocalizing that helps his team win. He plays well and his teammates have confidence in him, so even when they get down they don't give up and keep fighting.

 

he's a great player on the field, with great intangibles..his presence on that team makes players focus more, during the week, and on game day, because they know he's gonna hold them accountable if they don't, and he can do that because he works as hard or harder then all of them.

so i disagree i guess with y'all's take on this

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I don't see how you could know for a fact that his presence makes players focus more or feel more accountable. From what I recall, when Brady missed that season and Cassel stepped in the rest of that team was still pretty darn good. They didn't seem any less focused or accountable. They went 11-5. It seemed to me that the, difference between that team and the other Patriot teams of the past decade was that that team had Matt Cassel playing QB instead of Tom Brady; not any difference in team accountability or motivation.

 

There's no reason why inspiration derived from leadership has to be confined to the locker room or to "speeches." It can stem from plays made during the game, as well, hence the term "momentum." My point is that teams with good player leadership are more likely to make such plays and generate such momentum. That certainly isn't only a "locker room" thing, and in fact I'd say the on-field/sideline display of that sort of thing is far more important.

 

Even players who are at an extreme in terms of being responsible for themselves would presumably still be affected positively by the inspirational actions of other players. Just because people are inspired by others doesn't mean they're sheep who can't function unless they're being prodded by someone else.

 

I guess I don't call that "leadership". I call it playing great. By your definition, every great player is a great leader because they make great plays that inspire their teammates to also make great plays.

 

I did not see that.

 

There is a lot of overlap, sure. The leaders are simply the guys who take it upon themselves to make plays to win games, and then do. While the other players may not have the same physical talent and playmaking ability, they derive an emotional benefit from being led by those players, and therefore play just a bit better themselves. There was nobody who set that tone against the Ravens Sunday, and I don't think there is anybody on the team who can do so on a regular basis, either. Cameron Wake makes those sorts of plays at times, but not regularly enough. Certainly no one on the offense does.

 

You're too optimistic. I'm still pissed off and depressed. I want to chop these coaches junk off and burn down JRS[/sarcasm don't alert the autorities.]

But yeah, welcome to the forum. Glad to have any new Miami fans. There are much more level headed folks than me around. And I imagine some still as angry as me.

 

I know you believe this Fineas, venues are extenuating circumstances, and there's no question players are motivated to perform at higher levels by intimate venues..much more so than if they were playing at a venue that didn't provide it.

 

But I don't believe Philbin is that type of coach..

Bruce Arians yes..

 

I don't know what to say, your telling me that Tom Brady leadership has no affect on the players he plays with?

Of course another mans personality matters when it comes to players respecting and going that extra mile, pusjphing themselves harder..that's what leadership, presence, and the ability to connect and motivate do.

 

I agree and I'm lost as to what were all really debating anymore..

Leadership is what it is, it can transform and rear its head in many ways.

 

Brent grimes is that guy but flacco isn't stupid.

 

I thought Reshad Jones stepped up on Sunday. That hit on Forsett was awesome. Plus, in the fourth when Ravens broke a long rung run, Reshad chased him down to prevent a TD, on two different runs actually. RJ was a leader. (He also had game winning int against the Jets.)

 

This isn't a venue debate. But I agree that the venue is a little different because it is continuous throughout the game, whereas the locker room or sideline speech is not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'm not saying he has no effect. But none of us really know what effect he really has. And it is not as clear as you make it sound that he makes other players work harder or be more focused. It might be the case but I don't know there is any real causation evidence to that effect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I don't think it's that they take it on themselves to win the game. They do their jobs and sometimes it helps them win and sometimes it doesn't.

Wake makes as many of those types of plays as anyone at his position. Grimes too. Reshad Jones is pretty good. Jenkins too. On offense, guys like Wallace, Clay and Landry can do it. Tannehill and Miller too. They haven't been doing it as much as we'd like and they didn't do it Sunday, but they are capable. As I said nobody does it every week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Oh I don't think any of this can be quantified, and as both I and Fineas have said, it can't be proven or disproven. I think it comes down to this: when you watch games, you see former players, routinely, say that "big players make big plays in big games." Now, that could be conventional wisdom on their part that simply isn't true, but I think not. Sometimes the conventional wisdom is indeed accurate. And your closing paragraph could be accurate, as well. It may just boil down to guys who consistently set good examples, and other guys who are "permeable" enough for that to influence them positively.

 

I think it's very much that they take it upon themselves to win the game, on the other hand, and that's apparent in their emotional response after the play, hence the term "vocal" leadership. Often times you'll see a player make an important play, and have a very vivid, pronounced, and public display of emotion just afterward. And I don't mean the "staged," dramatic version. I mean the raw outpouring of emotion that's very spontaneous. That to me signals the build up and release of energy that comes from taking it upon himself to have that sort of impact on the game. If he were simply "doing his job," without realizing the gravity of the situation and his desire to have an impact on it, there would be no such spontaneous emotional expression. And that's precisely what has the effect on the players who are watching: an inspirational one for his teammates, and often a very demoralizing one for the opponent. Those displays are important in team sports. They are powerful, and they define the meaning of the event for the players involved. Again, watch the Steelers locker room video and notice the sheer force of what Jerome Bettis says. "We proved it, that we were the tougher football team today." And don't think for a minute that statement wasn't backed by how Bettis himself played in leading his teammates in the game just preceding it. That gives him weight and credibility in leading them in that vocal manner.

 

hes gonna be a great player, he's almost there..

 

I guess, from what this post tells me, you don't believe or cannot feel what kind of impact great leadership can have on a team of men..or women.

great leaders of teams, platoons, make men and women become relentless in their pursuit of team greatness..men without great leadership who are left in charge can inspire laziness.