Importance of leadership and cohesion on NFL teams (1 Viewer)

[Portis 26]

This is quite a broad point, so please bear with me. It was prompted by various pieces of draft analysis pointing out that we won't know how players will turn out for years.

The fact is that how a player turns out is not predetermined, and nor is it entirely dependent on his own character. It is also depends on the team environment he ends up in, if he is surrounded by motivational figures or by layabouts, for example.

Let me spell this out. NFL teams invest millions of dollars in highly-paid professional football players, who often turn out to be busts, whether they were drafted by the team or signed as a UFA.

Obviously when an individual player does turn out to be a bust teams lose a lot of money they have invested in him.

Now, why does a player become a bust? It is usually not because they don't have athletic ability. Nearly all the top players drafted have the ability. Usually, it is because they won't dedicate themselves enough to improving themselves as players through training or study, because they make poor lifestyle choices.

In a sense, it's not surprising they make poor lifestyle choices or are lazy or undisciplined or whatever. These guys are in their early 20s. They are kids, really. Look at their peers, how many college students behave and the dumb stuff they get up to.

Factor in the fact that they are getting paid mega bucks, and the fact that many come from deprived backgrounds, and no wonder they do dumb stuff.

If you take a random 21 year old kid off the streets and give him several million dollars in cash, you wouldn't be surprised if he is later arrested in a crashed limo or whatever. Yet this is exactly what NFL teams do when they sign kids out of college.

But with that having been said, teams with strong veteran leadership and strong programs to establish team cohesion seem to do better at integrating players, keeping them out of trouble and getting them to realise their potential.

And I wouldn't mind betting that these teams don't even spend that much on these programs, certainly not compared to the multi-million dollar contracts players are signed for. In simple economic terms, investing a little to try to look after your players is a very wise investment.

Those teams that are famous for not having much leadership and having a laissez faire approach towards their players act outraged when said players are involved in various criminal or anti-social behaviour, but they should have been smarter.

I even think there's more teams could be doing, in terms of lifestyle coaches, motivational speakers, mentoring etc, to protect their investments.

 

[Q-Bert]

Where is your evidence that teams aren't already doing this?

I think it is just a very hard thing to do for all of the reasons you laid out in your post. I work for a large multinational corporation that has a great reputation for developing leaders. We invest many millions of dollars per year in training, mentoring, and coaching for our identified top talent. These aren't spoiled dumb athletes, and yet we still make mistakes, have bad quarters, underperform at times. Developing strong leadership and a team that stays focused and dedicated to its goals is extremely hard to do.

 

[Portis 26]

Where is your evidence that teams aren't already doing this?

My point was that the teams that do already do this are the ones that tend to be more successful, and conversely, those that don't appear to focus on this are the ones that tend not to be so successful.

 

[Q-Bert]

Where is your evidence that teams aren't already doing this?

My point was that the teams that do already do this are the ones that tend to be more successful, and conversely, those that don't appear to focus on this are the ones that tend not to be so successful.

OK, but are there really teams that are not trying to develop leaders, a culture of hard work and dedication, or cohesive teams?My team is the Green Bay Packers. I know they do something because for years former players like Edgar Bennett and LeRoy Butler were given titles like Player Liason or something. They would work with young guys to help them transition to the NFL. Things like don't blow all your money, how much should you work out in the offseason, how to study the playbook. Are other teams really not doing this kind of stuff? I'm not saying that it is out of the realm of possibility that teams like the Bengals, Cardinals, and Lions are really that stupid but it does seem unlikely to me. So, unless you can actually prove that teams are ignoring leadership development of their players I'm going to continue to believe that it is just a very hard thing to do and some teams are either better at it, better at scouting talent, or just plain luckier.

 

[Q-Bert]

This reminds me of a post from a while back that asked why teams don't just take people from the business world who are great charismatic leaders and train them in the nuts and bolts of NFL strategy. Then they would have super coaches who would be able to out lead and out motivate the competition.

This sounds nice but I think in practice it is just silly.

Coaches, front office staff, and players are all exposed to training, mentoring, and coaching on how to be leaders. The importance of dedication to the team and total commitment to team goals is stressed by every coach from grade school on up to the NFL. Players can be provided with all the training and development in the world but some of them are still going to turn out to be selfish, or greedy, or stupid, or not as talented as everyone thought.

 

[perry147]

I remember years ago i was watching a show and Bill Walsh was on their giving some tidbits about the upcoming draft, and he said "Their are many bad QB's in the league but there are also many bad coaches and coordinators." If Steve Young stayed in Tampa Bay IMHO he is just another draft bust, if Brett Farve stayed in Atlanta he is just another bust, look at Vinnie Testaverde also, and many others.

 

[massraider]

These players may be 'kids', but they are treated, and paid, as men.

I really wonder how much affect a speaker, programs etc. actually help. These players in most ways, are really on their own. They are rich, they have their own entourage, friends, advisers, and families. It's tough for a team to get through to the players, and let's be honest, a player can't really trust a team. The team will always do what is best for the team, not necessarily the player. I think some older players and coaches can affect a players career for the better, but for the most part, I think these players make their own way.

I think it's more likely that the teams with good leadership, and solid character, draft players with those intangibles, and take players off their board that have red flags, or show immaturity.

 

[T Bell]

First, of all, this needs to remain as a better-worse discussion rather than a discussion about absolutes that implies that certain teams don't do this at all, and others are perfect at it.

Second, it seems like you need to differentiate team chemistry/leadership from individual integrity and drive to succeed. I would figure that teams that are good at finding players with good integrity and drive, also tend to have good chemistry and leadership. They're probably both sides of the same coin.

This is an important concept here IMHO because most players with good integrity and drive will work hard virtually whereever they end up as players. I have a feeling that Jerry Rice would have worked his tail off all of those years whether he was winning Super Bowls in San Francisco, or was stuck in then-NFL wastelands like Indianapolis, Seattle, New England, etc.

On the flip side, I've seen with my own team - the Redskins - who have had a superb lockerroom since Gibbs arrived, that there are still examples of guys who just don't get it. Rod Gardner couldn't get motivated to use his considerable talent, and is now out of the league. I think there are fewer examples of this, though, with the Redskins during that time, but it's hard to tell whether that's because of the Redskins' emphasis under Gibbs of finding players' with character in the way they handle their own preparation, or due to many of those same players' being leaders in the lockerroom for their teammates to follow.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

If you gave me $100 I would probably crash a limo and get arrested.

 

[Portis 26]

Where is your evidence that teams aren't already doing this?

My point was that the teams that do already do this are the ones that tend to be more successful, and conversely, those that don't appear to focus on this are the ones that tend not to be so successful.

OK, but are there really teams that are not trying to develop leaders, a culture of hard work and dedication, or cohesive teams?My team is the Green Bay Packers. I know they do something because for years former players like Edgar Bennett and LeRoy Butler were given titles like Player Liason or something. They would work with young guys to help them transition to the NFL. Things like don't blow all your money, how much should you work out in the offseason, how to study the playbook. Are other teams really not doing this kind of stuff? I'm not saying that it is out of the realm of possibility that teams like the Bengals, Cardinals, and Lions are really that stupid but it does seem unlikely to me. So, unless you can actually prove that teams are ignoring leadership development of their players I'm going to continue to believe that it is just a very hard thing to do and some teams are either better at it, better at scouting talent, or just plain luckier.

Your final point is actually my whole point. I am not saying teams do not attempt to do this. I am saying that some teams are much better at doing it than others. They are probably better at it than others because they take it more seriously and invest more money in it.To take your point about training, of course every large company claims that it believes in the value of training its workforce. But some are actually much better at it than others. I am sure you will have found this too.

 

[GregR_2]

If you gave me $100 I would probably crash a limo and get arrested.

Promise to post the video on youtube and we could probably get up a collection to make that happen.

 

[Afro Samurai]

Where is your evidence that teams aren't already doing this?

Do they, or is it just a mirage?We tend to bestow qualities of "leadership" on successful teams/athletes even when there is no proof of it. Conversely, you never hear of a 3-13 team having great leadership, or hear anyone praise a player on such a team as a "leader".The whole leadership/character/cohesiveness thing is a huge crock IMO. We are a winner-oriented culture and as such we only perceive "winners" as having those qualities.

 

[Portis 26]

Where is your evidence that teams aren't already doing this?

Do they, or is it just a mirage?We tend to bestow qualities of "leadership" on successful teams/athletes even when there is no proof of it. Conversely, you never hear of a 3-13 team having great leadership, or hear anyone praise a player on such a team as a "leader".The whole leadership/character/cohesiveness thing is a huge crock IMO. We are a winner-oriented culture and as such we only perceive "winners" as having those qualities.

What you're basically saying is leadership or management has no value and that's somewhat of a questionable argument, to say the least. For example, does the quality of your boss at work have no bearing at all on you?

 

[Bri]

The teams with poor reputations all have good guys. The press hears gripes that they only cover the less desirables. We do the same thing on FF boards. Compare the number of lineman threads vs the Chris Henry threads. Sure there's alot of amazing talent in the NFL that things might come easy for them, but there's a ton of hardworking determinned types that would be a fine example of a great work ethic.

 

[Afro Samurai]

What you're basically saying is leadership or management has no value and that's somewhat of a questionable argument, to say the least. For example, does the quality of your boss at work have no bearing at all on you?

Actually, no, that's not at all what I'm saying. To expand on your example: You could have a terribly lazy and incompetent boss who just happens to have a group of hard-working, talented people under him who ensure a good product. (this would be the case in my particular company). Conversely you could have a tremendously smart and capable boss who has incompetent morons working for him, thus making it impossible to put out a good product. What I'm saying is that our perceptions in identifying "leadership" are skewed by results which may or may not be indicative of its presence. Particularly in the U.S. where people seem to put more stock in "winning" and "success" than other places (this is not a value judgement, just an observation).