Draft Winds

"Two Tacos wrote:

There are leadership schools that you go to in the Navy as you become a noncom. I'm sure the Army was the same way. It is something that can be learned, even If you don't have it naturally. Like most things some people have to work harder at it than others do, and those people sometimes become better than those that have it naturally, as they do work harder.

You can learn the nuts and bolts and theory of leadershinp.

You don't learn how to BE a leader out of a book.

"Garryowen wrote:

You can learn the nuts and bolts and theory of leadershinp.

You don't learn how to BE a leader out of a book.

You can learn the nuts and bolts and theory of <blank>.

You don't learn how to BE a <blank> out of a book.

Blank can equal hairdresser, mechanic, massage therapist, computer programmer, Taco Bell employee, or anything else that takes a minimal amount of skill.

"Garryowen wrote:

You can learn the nuts and bolts and theory of leadershinp.

You don't learn how to BE a leader out of a book.

Well no, it's like anyother craft, you have to practice and do it to truly learn it. I don't see where that doesn't apply to Newton though. Even if he started out as a piss poor leader with no natural skills, it is fairly apperent that he has worked on those skills at Auburn and is a leader now.

"padre31 wrote:

All of which very much reminds me of a young lad who wanted a Red Ryder BB Gun, "I want it!!!"

Means absolutely nothing at all, this line of thought "mortgage everything to draft Newton!" could very easily be "mortgage everything to draft Luck!"

The reality is, Newton will be long since off of the board, and Ireland will have his fingers and toes crossed that he can recoupe a 2nd rd draft pick nevermind "trade up because I am convicted about such and such a Qb!".

Tilting at windmills D22 if a Qb is on the board it will be Mallet, Locker, or Kaepernick.

I'm sure you know exactly what Jeff Ireland is going to do on draft day.

I would agree that you don't learn to lead from a book, but you can learn to from being in leadership situations and from watching others lead.

I also agree with Padre that trading up to #2 is not simply a matter of desire. We simply don't have the assets to get there. Thinking that we will is Don Quixote stuff.

"finsincebirth wrote:

I'm sure you know exactly what Jeff Ireland is going to do on draft day.

He has said he wants to recoupe that #2 pick, he has -0- history of trading up in the draft, he will trade back, he will swap draft positions, but top 2 rds..all trade backs, in fact he has done so that last two drafts.

"I want a red ryder BB gun!!!!!"

"rafael wrote:

I would agree that you don't learn to lead from a book, but you can learn to from being in leadership situations and from watching others lead.
I also agree with Padre that trading up to #2 is not simply a matter of desire. We simply don't have the assets to get there. Thinking that we will is Don Quixote stuff.

Yep, experience is the best teacher.

"Garryowen wrote:

You can learn the nuts and bolts and theory of leadershinp.

You don't learn how to BE a leader out of a book.

Exactly...... and the statement by Two Tacos isn't valid, no disrespect to him.

Most of the guys entering the NAVY are kids out of high school. The likelihood is slim that their leadership traits were apparent at 18.

His statement is almost saying that no one who enters the NAVY has leadership skills, but they're put through training and develop it better than those who naturally have it. I disagree.

The people entering the NAVY deal with a normal sample size. Out of this sample, some are born leaders and some are not, just as some are better at math, and some are better with weapons, and so on, which is why they have the ASVAB test to begin with--- to establish what a recruit's strengths are. Leadership skills are no different than any other type of skill or natural talent. For example, Kim Chi isn't better at math b/c he works harder at it; he's better at math b/c the neural pathways in his brain allow him to excel at it. Organization skills, leadership skills, analytical skills, risk assessment skills, etc are no different. People like MLK didn't take a class to become a leader. He was born a leader. It was in his blood. It was a part of his mental make up. If we all had equal abilities in these regards, then we'd have a planet of identical people who were all capable of doing the same things to the same level of expertise, but that would be impossible.

The fact that some of these NAVY guys become greater leaders than others <despite having the same training> only back up what we're saying--- that leadership is an innate characteristic. They all take the same class but have different results. Hence, the guys with true leadership skills will rise to the top as they're allowed to develop those skills. This honestly isn't a debatable subject.

Actually it is debatable. And most information I've found on the topic leans towards the conclusion that leadership can be learned. Here's a couple of examples:

UT Study: Charismatic leadership can be measured, learned

KNOXVILLE -- How do you measure charisma? That's the question UT professor Kenneth Levine seeks to answer.

Much has been written in business management textbooks and self-help guides about the role that personal charisma plays in leadership. But according to a newly published study co-authored by Levine, a University of Tennessee, Knoxville, communications studies professor, until recently no one was able to describe and measure charisma in a systematic way.

Levine said the large amount of academic literature on charismatic leadership never defined what it means to actually communicate charismatically.

"There's this illusion that we know what charismatic communication means, but in the research I reviewed, no one had ever really looked at that," he said.

Levine and his co-authors, Robert Muenchen of the UT Statistical Consulting Center and Abby Brooks of Georgia Southern University, surveyed university students and asked them to define charisma and pinpoint the behaviors of people they thought were charismatic.

"Everyone has a leadership capacity in something," Levine said. "But we found that if you want people to perceive you as charismatic, you need to display attributes such as empathy, good listening skills, eye contact, enthusiasm, self-confidence and skillful speaking," he said. Those are the attributes social scientists can measure to more fully understand charismatic communication.

Levine says the most surprising result was that the students felt that charisma was not just something you are born with, but something you can learn. "We asked the question 'What is charisma?' and their answers tended to start with 'the ability to…' Well, abilities are believed to be acquired attributes rather than inbred traits, so a lot of people believe that charisma can be learned."

Levine says the research makes the case for incorporating these concepts to better measure the level of charisma of individual leaders.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-02/uota-usc020811.php

http://www.intlalliance.org/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/ialei_magazine/leadership/education_alliance_quarterly_vol.2_p5-7.pdf

The second URL has quotes from a variety of experts that generally reach the conclusion that leadership can be taught/learned.

"padre31 wrote:

He has said he wants to recoupe that #2 pick, he has -0- history of trading up in the draft, he will trade back, he will swap draft positions, but top 2 rds..all trade backs, in fact he has done so that last two drafts.

"I want a red ryder BB gun!!!!!"

You are going off of history of 3 drafts? That's a nice large sample size you are working with there. And so what if he said we wants to recoup that 2nd round pick? GM's say things they don't mean this time of the year all the time. Anything should be taken at face value. Wasn't giving up two second round picks for B Marsh something that he would never have done? It got done. There is still plenty of time before the draft, and it is perfectly possible that Cam does something that will make this team extremely enamored with him and they will do whatever they can to pull the trigger.

"ToddsPhins wrote:

Exactly...... and the statement by Two Tacos isn't valid, no disrespect to him.

Most of the guys entering the NAVY are kids out of high school. The likelihood is slim that their leadership traits were apparent at 18.

His statement is almost saying that no one who enters the NAVY has leadership skills, but they're put through training and develop it better than those who naturally have it. I disagree.

The people entering the NAVY deal with a normal sample size. Out of this sample, some are born leaders and some are not, just as some are better at math, and some are better with weapons, and so on, which is why they have the ASVAB test to begin with--- to establish what a recruit's strengths are. Leadership skills are no different than any other type of skill or natural talent. For example, Kim Chi isn't better at math b/c he works harder at it; he's better at math b/c the neural pathways in his brain allow him to excel at it. Organization skills, leadership skills, analytical skills, risk assessment skills, etc are no different. People like MLK didn't take a class to become a leader. He was born a leader. It was in his blood. It was a part of his mental make up. If we all had equal abilities in these regards, then we'd have a planet of identical people who were all capable of doing the same things to the same level of expertise, but that would be impossible.

The fact that some of these NAVY guys become greater leaders than others <despite having the same training> only back up what we're saying--- that leadership is an innate characteristic. They all take the same class but have different results. Hence, the guys with true leadership skills will rise to the top as they're allowed to develop those skills. This honestly isn't a debatable subject.

Honestly, every subject is debatable, especially when it comes to human traits. To say it is not debatable is laughable, because there are many people who do debate this subject all the time. There isn't even close to consensus.

They haven't found a "leadership gene" and if they did, they would also have to prove that the gene is unable to be turned on after it is off. Since they are discovering more and more that genes are not static blueprints.

What he said does not back up that leadership is an innate characteristic, unless you can pinpoint how exactly it is an innate characteristic. How do you know if someone is a great leader and has training, that the person is a great leader because of the training or because of the innate characteristic?

"finsincebirth wrote:

You are going off of history of 3 drafts? That's a nice large sample size you are working with there. And so what if he said we wants to recoup that 2nd round pick? GM's say things they don't mean this time of the year all the time. Anything should be taken at face value. Wasn't giving up two second round picks for B Marsh something that he would never have done? It got done. There is still plenty of time before the draft, and it is perfectly possible that Cam does something that will make this team extremely enamored with him and they will do whatever they can to pull the trigger.

He also ran the drafts in Dallas..no trade ups, that was a Jerry Jones move after Ireland left the Cowboys for the Dolphins.

"rafael wrote:

I would agree that you don't learn to lead from a book, but you can learn to from being in leadership situations and from watching others lead.

I also agree with Padre that trading up to #2 is not simply a matter of desire. We simply don't have the assets to get there. Thinking that we will is Don Quixote stuff.

Exactly, if anything a mock draft this yr will be fairly accurate as teams just do not give up much to move up and select defensive players, add in in the uncertainty with the CBA and the draft being the only certain way to add the guys a GM will want and teams giving up ransoms in draft picks just is not likely (though not impossible).

A really good example of how locked in everything is this yr is the market in offensive tackles, 5 are carrying first rd grades, but over the last 3 drafts some 20+ Tackles have been drafted in rd #1 or rd #2, chances are good there will be more than a few Tackles sliding back as they just do not match needs in this draft.

"ToddsPhins wrote:

Exactly...... and the statement by Two Tacos isn't valid, no disrespect to him.

Most of the guys entering the NAVY are kids out of high school. The likelihood is slim that their leadership traits were apparent at 18.

His statement is almost saying that no one who enters the NAVY has leadership skills, but they're put through training and develop it better than those who naturally have it. I disagree.

The people entering the NAVY deal with a normal sample size. Out of this sample, some are born leaders and some are not, just as some are better at math, and some are better with weapons, and so on, which is why they have the ASVAB test to begin with--- to establish what a recruit's strengths are. Leadership skills are no different than any other type of skill or natural talent. For example, Kim Chi isn't better at math b/c he works harder at it; he's better at math b/c the neural pathways in his brain allow him to excel at it. Organization skills, leadership skills, analytical skills, risk assessment skills, etc are no different. People like MLK didn't take a class to become a leader. He was born a leader. It was in his blood. It was a part of his mental make up. If we all had equal abilities in these regards, then we'd have a planet of identical people who were all capable of doing the same things to the same level of expertise, but that would be impossible.

The fact that some of these NAVY guys become greater leaders than others <despite having the same training> only back up what we're saying--- that leadership is an innate characteristic. They all take the same class but have different results. Hence, the guys with true leadership skills will rise to the top as they're allowed to develop those skills. This honestly isn't a debatable subject.

You missed my point. Leadership is like anything else, while some have it more naturally than others, it can also be taught. Just because something can be taught doesn't mean that anyone can learn it. The Navy trains everyone that gets a leadership role in leadership skills, and you’re right people succeed or fail from there. I have seen guys that were natural leaders not be as effective of leaders as guys who weren’t. This happened because the guys that weren’t worked harder at it. This doesn’t mean that anyone can be an effective leader just because they want it, but that wasn’t the issue. The question was whether leadership could be developed and it can.

A naturally fast person that doesn't work on his speed can be outrun by someone that would be slower than him if the slower person trains while he does not, or if they train harder than he does. Is that a debatable subject?

"padre31 wrote:

He also ran the drafts in Dallas..no trade ups, that was a Jerry Jones move after Ireland left the Cowboys for the Dolphins.

He was a scout. That wouldn't have been his call to make.

"finsincebirth wrote:

He was a scout. That wouldn't have been his call to make.

In 04 or 05 he became Director of Player Personnel and has taken credit for the 2005 home run draft numerous times.

"padre31 wrote:

In 04 or 05 he became Director of Player Personnel and has taken credit for the 2005 home run draft numerous times.

"In 2001, Ireland became a national scout for the Dallas Cowboys. During Ireland's time as a college scout, the team drafted four future Pro Bowl selections - safety Roy Williams, offensive lineman Andre Gurode, cornerback Terence Newman and tight end Jason Witten. Ireland served in that capacity until 2005, when he was promoted to the position of Vice President of College and Pro Scouting."

That to me sounds like he went from Scout to Head Scout

He still wasn't the GM, that was Jerry. If Jerry had wanted a guy bad enough trade up, Jeff Ireland disagreeing wouldn't have stopped him. He went behind Bill Parcells back and signed T.O. anyway, what makes you think Ireland would be a road block.

"bamadolphin wrote:

didnt have to read it. I watched him in every game this year. He is a run first qb. You gonna answer the question?

None. But I don't agree that Cam Newton is a run-first quarterback either. How do you personally define run-first quarterback? In your opinion, what percentage of pass plays does a quarterback need to run on to be run-first?

PS. I think you're really doing yourself a disservice by not reading the Sentinel piece. It's excellent.

"padre31 wrote:

The Bills have the #3 overall, the Bengals have the #4, either one will take Newton, the #2 overall would literally break the bank to acquire, this is Don Quixote stuff Boom.

(not to many Dolfans have read Cervantes Boom, visual aid )

Don't be so sure that the Bills are set to give up on Fitzpatrick.

"Boomer wrote:

Don't be so sure that the Bills are set to give up on Fitzpatrick.

Especially if they could add Green! If I were the Bills, I'd snatch up Von Miller with a quickness...

"Boomer wrote:

Don't be so sure that the Bills are set to give up on Fitzpatrick.

Nix drafted CJ Spiller at #9, he was useful as tits on a boar, yet they still took him, that is why my speculation is they draft Newton, let Fitz play out his option and become a FA for 2012 with Newton playing later in the season, if not sooner.

Bengals also have to come to grips that Palmer is leaving one way or another, Brown is a putz but his dictum is "never pass up a franchise Qb", he has done exactly that going all the way back to Esiason/Jack Thompson being taken with high picks with Ken Anderson on the roster, when he took Klingler, Esiasion was on the Roster and so on.

"Two Tacos wrote:

You missed my point. Leadership is like anything else, while some have it more naturally than others, it can also be taught. Just because something can be taught doesn't mean that anyone can learn it. The Navy trains everyone that gets a leadership role in leadership skills, and you’re right people succeed or fail from there. I have seen guys that were natural leaders not be as effective of leaders as guys who weren’t. This happened because the guys that weren’t worked harder at it. This doesn’t mean that anyone can be an effective leader just because they want it, but that wasn’t the issue. The question was whether leadership could be developed and it can.

A naturally fast person that doesn't work on his speed can be outrun by someone that would be slower than him if the slower person trains while he does not, or if they train harder than he does. Is that a debatable subject?

I agree that people can work hard enough to become proficient at any skill. The problem lies in the assumption that an individual will have enough training/practice to become a leader. For instance, a rookie NFL QB who's just had an NFL playbook plopped in his lap has enough to worry about w/o added stressors. It's no different than becoming an actor. There are naturals at it who can earn a part w/o any background...... and there are people who can practice day in & day out and never get a call back.

Is a team going to send a player off to leadership camp for 6 months to hone his abilities? I hope I don't have to answer that. lol. I agree you can learn from watching others; however, does that mean a team can afford to wait a few years for a 22 year old <with questionable leadership skills> to acquire them by watching the veteran leaders around him?

Also, some individuals require more practice to become proficient at something than others do...... so we can't even make the assumption that, if it's learned, that it will be learned in a timely manner, and that has to be taken into consideration. What's the point of becoming a great leader of a team if it takes the player 6 years and potential trial and error to get there?

Matt Ryan wasn't sent off to leadership camp when he was at BC. It's in his blood..... or pre-wired into his brain. Assuming that someone will just "acquire" leadership skills (or any important skills to their career) is a mistake if that person doesn't have the necessary time to dedicate to it.

"ToddsPhins wrote:

I agree that people can work hard enough to become proficient at any skill. The problem lies in the assumption that an individual will have enough training/practice to become a leader. For instance, a rookie NFL QB who's just had an NFL playbook plopped in his lap has enough to worry about w/o added stressors. It's no different than becoming an actor. There are naturals at it who can earn a part w/o any background...... and there are people who can practice day in & day out and never get a call back.

Is a team going to send a player off to leadership camp for 6 months to hone his abilities? I hope I don't have to answer that. lol. I agree you can learn from watching others; however, does that mean a team can afford to wait a few years for a 22 year old <with questionable leadership skills> to acquire them by watching the veteran leaders around him?

Also, some individuals require more practice to become proficient at something than others do...... so we can't even make the assumption that, if it's learned, that it will be learned in a timely manner, and that has to be taken into consideration. What's the point of becoming a great leader of a team if it takes the player 6 years and potential trial and error to get there?

Matt Ryan wasn't sent off to leadership camp when he was at BC. It's in his blood..... or pre-wired into his brain. Assuming that someone will just "acquire" leadership skills (or any important skills to their career) is a mistake if that person doesn't have the necessary time to dedicate to it.

Where is the proof?

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

Honestly, every subject is debatable, especially when it comes to human traits. To say it is not debatable is laughable, because there are many people who do debate this subject all the time. There isn't even close to consensus.

They haven't found a "leadership gene" and if they did, they would also have to prove that the gene is unable to be turned on after it is off. Since they are discovering more and more that genes are not static blueprints.

I mean this with the utmost respect--- every subject is debatable only b/c there will always be someone too ignorant to realize that the non-debatable subject shouldn't be debated. lol.

What he said does not back up that leadership is an innate characteristic, unless you can pinpoint how exactly it is an innate characteristic. How do you know if someone is a great leader and has training, that the person is a great leader because of the training or because of the innate characteristic?

Lets clear a few things up.
First off, this deals with the brain and how our brains are wired. Most great leaders are great leaders b/c they're natural at it. This stems from the fact that it's human nature to do the things that we're good at and come easy to us.

Secondly, doing things that we're good at make us happy...... where as, conversely, attempting to do things that we're not "naturally" good at can make us unhappy b/c no one likes facing failure. That's one aspect of separating the two sides.

The other aspect is: It's human nature to take the path of least resistance in anything that we do b/c that involves the least amount of stress. We will ALWAYS be dealing with avoiding pain or seeking pleasure. This means that people will be deterred away early on from things that they are not naturally good at..... and will seek to continue doing things that come easy to them. Would you enjoy becoming a mathematician if math isn't your strong suit and it required you to put in LOTS of extra time to achieve as well as potential failure? I seriously doubt it.

The same goes for true leadership. Will someone, who isn't a born leader, enjoy spending the extra time trying to become a leader when there ARE other aspects of their being that come naturally to them? Usually, that answer is also a "no".

Thirdly, there's a reason that some people are good at some things while others are not.... and that's because if everyone were equally as good at everything, then our brains would go into complete overload b/c they wouldn't be able to handle such a massive amount of neural networks. It would be like plugging 100 electrical appliances into 1 socket. You'd fry it. We'd never be able to learn how to walk. So in essence, our brain makes sure that we're NOT good at everything so that we CAN excel at some things and function properly.

This is all established early in life. We're all born with more neurological networks than we have now..... a lot more!! Our brains keep the stronger ones and basically shut down or limit ones that are weaker, not used, or used less frequently. The stronger networks become our "natural abilities". They're natural, or easier for us, because the stronger networks allows better transmission; where as, people with a limited network in a particular area will be less natural at it b/c the connection is weaker. It's like comparing high speed internet to dial-up.

Someone with a more limited pathway can become proficient at something through practice, but they will never become "gifted" at it b/c our brain limits how strong the neurological networks become. When you compare this "non-natural" person to a "natural" who has a strong network in the areas of the brain that deal with leadership, the natural's neural networks can be increased a good deal more b/c the pathways are already open.

An analogy is like a highway during rush hour. Non-naturals might have 1 lane roads that are attempting to funnel 500,000 automobiles, which greatly limits the rate in which cars get from point A to point B. Naturals might have 4 lane highways that allow the automobiles through with less delay. With practice, a non-natural might be able to expand the highway to an effective 4 lanes b/c the potential is limited......... where as the natural could expand it to 10 lanes b/c the space is already designated for it so to speak.

So leadership, like every other human ability, most certainly is affected & influenced by natural ability. For the same reason I can't hit 5000 golf balls daily and become Tiger Woods is the same reason a non-natural will never exceed a natural regarding leadership if they both put in the same effort. I'm sorry, but this isn't debatable.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

Where is the proof?

Between football and school, do you honestly think he had the time to spend at "leadership camp"? :lol:

He probably spent no more time devoted towards "leadership building" than any other dedicated QB who displayed poor to average leadership traits.