jMaL305
☠️ Banned ☠️
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.
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.
