Landry / Beckham Receiving Show

So this really just comes down to your hyper-sensitivity about Ryan Tannehill?

Who specifically argued that leadership didn't win games, then made the argument that leadership is as important as talent?

WTF mentioned Ryan Tannehill not being a leader?

 

Being quiet or reserved does not mean you are not a leader. Some of the best leaders are quiet and reserved. You can lead through actions and by example.

 

I thought the question was primarily about whether you needed to be highly paid to be a leader. Landry was the specific player being discussed since he's not highly paid (relatively) but was being mentioned as a leader.

 

Great place to start:

http://www.amazon.com/Management-Secrets-New-England-Patriots/dp/0976203952

Goes pretty in-depth into what the Patriots look for, how highly they value leadership, and how they expect every player to be a leader.

 

Someone is being hyper-sensitive. I made an off-hand comment/joke, and you seemingly have your panties in a bunch.

For the record, Greg was the one acting like leadership doesn't win games. The Tannehill comment was more of a joke.

 

The only thing the patriots value is finding new ways to cheat the game. They should have listed Bernie madoff as a leader

 

Agree.

 

Let's just be honest Res....you log on here daily to defend any RT criticism, even when he isnt being criticized.

 

Lack of morals doesn't preclude leadership IMO.

 

Nonsense. You spent several posts misrepresenting Stringer's point until you finally got it after Stringer explained it like 10 more times.

He said that it is problematic when your team leaders are not the highest paid, and the highest paid are not team leaders. It causes resentment. Then you go and cite several examples where team leaders are not the highest paid. That is so offbase I don't even know how you come up with it. Now you're even trying to deny you ever said that! Hilarious.

Read what you wrote in bold here, vs what you are now trying to say in bold at the top. Complete 180. If you addressed Stringer's point as he made it, and not the invented one you came up with, I wouldn't have chimed in. I just can't resist it when someone misconstrues another point, which is like almost always for you. Seriously. It's a daily occurrence.

 

Yes, pointing out how, in the actual NFL leaders, aren't always the most paid, in no way goes along with me saying in the NFL, leaders aren't always the most paid. I'm crazy for thinking that supported my stance.

Keep up your MO.

 

Possibly the most ridiculous thing I've seen you post. Ever.

 

How are those bolded quotes opposite of each other??

 

Na.

 

I'm gonna chime in into this leadership discussion because maybe there's a way to move it towards something more productive than the back and forth going on right now.

First of all, I do agree that Fin D was misrepresenting SB's argument, but I think he makes an important point regardless.

Why was it a misrepresentation? SB is saying that the highest paid players should be leaders because otherwise there will be resentment. Pointing out many of the highest paid players aren't leaders is on its own logically speaking irrelevant to refuting that point. Now, if one can show that many of the highest paid players are not leaders AND there is no resentment, then yes that refutes SB's argument.

Which brings us to why Fin D's point is important. Look at the highest paid players in the NFL. Let's just say for 2015: http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap3000000478529

We can assume that salaries represent how valuable teams think the player is. Because QB has such outsized importance, the top 6, and 15 of the top 20, salaries are QB's. The rest are guys like Suh, Watt, Calvin Johnson, Mario Williams, and McCoy. Basically, what you see is that while some of those on the list may be regarded as having good leadership qualities, most are NOT. They are simply the best players at their position, weighted by how important the position is (esp. for QB), and of course when they signed the contract (the rankings would look closer to "merit-based" if all players negotiated contracts at the same time).

Now.. we don't have any independent measure of "resentment" on a team, specifically for salaries to the top players, but one can argue that this reward structure (the salaries) would not exist if whatever resentment it created (if any) was seriously detrimental to team performance. In other words, it seems like the primary determinants of salary are: 1) relative importance of the position the player plays, and 2) how well the player plays that position. Considerations like how good a leader that player is seem to be relatively speaking much less important (that is.. you'd expect a different top 20 list if leadership was that important).

 

I'm not misrepresenting his point. I was pointing out that the NFL, as a whole, doesn't agree with SB.

 

In post #162, you said this:

"There is no scientific fact at all, that the leader of an NFL team is always the highest paid. That's your premise and it is wrong."

There is no question that is a misrepresentation of SB's argument. Either way, like I said, your point is still important.

 

I admit, that wasn't my most articulate post, but it actually fits with the post I was responding to.

 

I take offense.

That's a gross misrepresentation of what I brought up.

In fact, my point was to pose interesting questions--how doesn't leadership tie to wins? Where does it factor in? Where do you need it most on your roster? How does it weigh against talent? Is a good leader worth more than equally good followers?

Those are deep philosophical questions that could be debated. I really take offense at the way you expressed my point to make it seem dumb and short-sighted.

 

ah Fin, don't sell yourself short bud, your a tremendous slouch.

 

I thought that I was opening this post to read about Landry and Beckham's receiving competition that they are talking about doing when the Giants are down for the game? If so, and this is that thread, I cannot imagine that their teams allow them to pull this off, due to injury risk....Thoughts?