It All Starts with Murray

[slanidrac16]

Your reading comprehension needs to improve badly man.

Thanks I’ll work on that.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Just out of curiosity, not trolling, have there been any accounts of Murray being a good leader? I've heard great talent, great athlete, etc. but don't remember much on being an inspiring leader. He seems to care much more this year and putting in more work but he's probably going to be known more for having a study clause placed in his contract and more interested in video games.
First impressions are hard to change and probably not many leaders have had to have clauses put in their contract to try and make their job a higher priority.

I believe he got receivers together in the offseason this year.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I don’t think good leaders get released from a team they just won a Super Bowl with.

Sure they do. If the team is trying to upgrade the talent. Some great leaders aren’t that physically talented. By all accounts colt mccoy was considered a terrific leader but an underwhelming tools guy.

Seems some of you guys can’t understand this concept.

 

[Krangodnzr]

I believe he got receivers together in the offseason this year.

He did his own mini-camp in LA and used space at UCLA. There is a YouTube video of it.

 

[WeBlitz]

Sure they do. If the team is trying to upgrade the talent. Some great leaders aren’t that physically talented. By all accounts colt mccoy was considered a terrific leader but an underwhelming tools guy.

Seems some of you guys can’t understand this concept.

Sure they do not. I never said good leaders had to be physically talented. Where did you even get that from? I have pretty much regurgitated that a person that is bad at their job isn’t a leader because they cannot be trusted in the first place. Doesn’t matter what “tools” they have.

You know what’s funny? Thanks to you and @Krangodnzr for bringing it up, but Kyler going out of his way to work on team chemistry with his teammates and holding a camp in UCLA is something I think people would say is something a “good leaders” would do. This was probably on his dime, too. However, guess what? Nobody cares he did that because he’s bad at his job.

It’s not a realistic concept to real people. Ouchie, whatever your job history, I cannot imagine you taking your counterparts seriously who you know were bad at their job. Nobody here realistically does.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Dude was such a good leader that he played on 5 different teams and did something that has never done before which was being dropped from a team directly after winning a Super Bowl(in which he literally didn’t do much at all).

Horrific example.

You clearly don’t understand leadership. Shame.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

This conversation has dragged enough.

Point being:

It’s possible to be a good player while being a bad leader Hell, you see it all the time in the NBA.

There’s no such thing as a bad player being a good leader because that bad player is never taken seriously to begin with.


I doubt anyone would give a damn about Kyler’s leadership qualities if he was/is a still a bad QB.

This shows me that you really really don’t understand leadership. It’s not just that you don’t seem to recognize who a leader is, but it seems you don’t understand what traits make up leadership.

I’ve seen this look on some ultra talented athletes. They’re better players than the leaders on their team. They “don’t take the leader seriously,” as you state. They end up being unable to lead the team themselves due to their arrogance and they undermine the actual leadership of the team. They cause conflict and they typically end up being cancers on their own teams. These are your typical prima donnas that most people can’t stand.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Without one of the greatest defenses in NFL history, that Dilfer led team would’ve won 3 games. In the middle of that season, the Ravens went like 4 games without scoring a touchdown & they still won those games.

Agreed. I am literally saying he wasn’t a great QB. But he was a good leader. I don’t think that team wins if dilfer was both a bad QB and a terrible leader.

 

[kerouac9]

This shows me that you really really don’t understand leadership. It’s not just that you don’t seem to recognize who a leader is, but it seems you don’t understand what traits make up leadership.

I’ve seen this look on some ultra talented athletes. They’re better players than the leaders on their team. They “don’t take the leader seriously,” as you state. They end up being unable to lead the team themselves due to their arrogance and they undermine the actual leadership of the team. They cause conflict and they typically end up being cancers on their own teams. These are your typical prima donnas that most people can’t stand.

I think there's a middle ground that you're flying over. It seems to me that @DVontel is saying it's really hard for, like, Zach Pascal to be a credible leader on an NFL team. He's hung around the NFL for a minute, for sure, but he's also a bottom-of-the-roster player.

James Conner was an injury case for much of his career, but was a credible leader because he played well on the field, even if he's not an All-Pro talent. Kyler Murray is an all-pro talent, but can't or won't figure out how to connect with his teammates in a genuine way that isn't coordinated by an event manager.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Udonis Haslem wasn’t a bad player.

Lol. For the last 12 years he’s averaged 6 or fewer points. He was literally the definition of a guy who couldn’t play at a high level but was an incredible leader. Anyone playing with him during that span didn’t know the player that averaged under 10pts/game and 8 Rebs during his first 8 seasons (which also were pedestrian by nba standards). For the last 11 seasons he averaged under 3pts/game.

 

[DVontel]

I think there's a middle ground that you're flying over. It seems to me that @DVontel is saying it's really hard for, like, Zach Pascal to be a credible leader on an NFL team. He's hung around the NFL for a minute, for sure, but he's also a bottom-of-the-roster player.

James Conner was an injury case for much of his career, but was a credible leader because he played well on the field, even if he's not an All-Pro talent. Kyler Murray is an all-pro talent, but can't or won't figure out how to connect with his teammates in a genuine way that isn't coordinated by an event manager.

I do believe Ouchie is one of the more intelligent fellas on here, that’s why it is so befuddling the point continues to fly over his head.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Sure they do not. I never said good leaders had to be physically talented. Where did you even get that from? I have pretty much regurgitated that a person that is bad at their job isn’t a leader because they cannot be trusted in the first place. Doesn’t matter what “tools” they have.

You know what’s funny? Thanks to you and @Krangodnzr for bringing it up, but Kyler going out of his way to work on team chemistry with his teammates and holding a camp in UCLA is something I think people would say is something a “good leaders” would do. This was probably on his dime, too. However, guess what? Nobody cares he did that because he’s bad at his job.

It’s not a realistic concept to real people. Ouchie, whatever your job history, I cannot imagine you taking your counterparts seriously who you know were bad at their job. Nobody here realistically does.

First, you’re failing to recognize there is a spectrum of capability. It’s not as simple a binary “good/bad” scenario as you want to dumb it down to be.

And just because a player does 1 thing that indicates some leadership trait doesn’t make them a good leader. Leadership is an aggregate of skills and actions.

I have witnessed firsthand on two teams, one at the high school level and the other at the collegiate level where the clearly better QB lost their team because he was an a-hole who couldn’t lead an army outta a wet paper bag and the clearly less talented QB, but better leader, rallied the team. In neither case did the lesser QB outperform the better QB. But in both cases the team performed better under the lesser QB. Leadership is a skill. As with all skills people’s possession of same lay upon a spectrum. Some have more leadership skills than others.

I believe kyler tried to display some in the offseason, mimicking actions he’s seen, or heard of, other QBs doing in the past. Good on him for that effort. But his in-game leadership seems sorely lacking. His pouting, his throwing his hands in the air, the seeming failure to rally the troops when times seem toughest, seem to be leadership failures.

 

[kerouac9]

I do believe Ouchie is one of the more intelligent fellas on here, that’s why it is so befuddling the point continues to fly over his head.

I think using an outlier like Trent Dilfer just always distorts the conversation. I think the better and more interesting example is Nick Foles.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I think there's a middle ground that you're flying over. It seems to me that @DVontel is saying it's really hard for, like, Zach Pascal to be a credible leader on an NFL team. He's hung around the NFL for a minute, for sure, but he's also a bottom-of-the-roster player.

James Conner was an injury case for much of his career, but was a credible leader because he played well on the field, even if he's not an All-Pro talent. Kyler Murray is an all-pro talent, but can't or won't figure out how to connect with his teammates in a genuine way that isn't coordinated by an event manager.

No, I get what you’re saying. You have to still be a minimally talented player to be an alpha leader. To be the top leader. You’re correct that pascal can’t be THE alpha leader on the team. But a team typically has multiple leaders. And if you don’t think gannon brings in a guy like a pascal, or a colt mccoy, in at least part to be a leader I think you’re missing the value of some players. Haslem was brought up before and he’s an excellent example. He wasn’t kept around to be the alpha leader of the heat. But he was 100% kept around to be a leader on the team.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I think using an outlier like Trent Dilfer just always distorts the conversation. I think the better and more interesting example is Nick Foles.

That seems to be a good example as well. And I think it makes dilfer not so much an outlier. Those two seem cast out of the same cloth. If we don’t use the super bowl as the sole indicator I’m sure we could find more examples.

 

[kerouac9]

And if you don’t think gannon brings in a guy like a pascal, or a colt mccoy, in at least part to be a leader I think you’re missing the value of some players.

I think we're talking about two different types of leadership, or something that feels like leadership, but isn't.

Pascal serves as an example of how to be a pro -- how to make it in the NFL. That's critical for a young team when few guys are even going to play for long, but you want to show how bottom-of-the-roster players are expected to comport themselves in team meetings, sideline behaviors, etc.

Colt McCoy wasn't even good enough to be one of those leaders for Gannon.

 

[WeBlitz]

less talented QB

Less talented ≠ bad at his/her job.

I don’t know your life, but I bet that “less talented QB” was not a bad/awful QB. Correct me if I’m wrong? I doubt I am unless your Head Coach did not know what he was doing.


This can apply to the real world as well. I’m willing to bet nobody here has worked with subordinates that were leaders but awful in quality at the product they’re putting out. Do you want to know why? Because they would have never been in that position in the first place.



Kyler’s “in-game leadership” is lacking because the product he has displayed on the field is lacking. You don’t rally the troops by being awful at your job. How are the troops supposed to rally around that?

It’s literally as simple if you’re good at your job, people will follow and get in line. Doesn’t matter about who is more talented or less talented. It matters about what type of quality you display on a consistent bases. If you’re bad at your job, nobody will follow. This should be Life 101.

 

[WeBlitz]

Despite a few of you guys saying otherwise, I do genuinely believe it’s because Kyler is not a “rah rah” guy. Jameis Winston is also very bad at his job, but since he does a lot of the “rah rah”, you have a few people here say he’s a good leader.

A sexual assaulter being a good leader to someone is also asinine, but that’s another story for another day.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I think we're talking about two different types of leadership, or something that feels like leadership, but isn't.

Pascal serves as an example of how to be a pro -- how to make it in the NFL. That's critical for a young team when few guys are even going to play for long, but you want to show how bottom-of-the-roster players are expected to comport themselves in team meetings, sideline behaviors, etc.

Colt McCoy wasn't even good enough to be one of those leaders for Gannon.

It’s more than lead by example, though. Those guys take active roles in teaching typically. And they lift up players who are having a tough time. Or they point out nuances that help the team win.

And yeah, as I said before, you can’t zero ability. I mean, I’ve been a leader most of my life. But I wouldn’t make a professional football team based solely on my advanced leadership skills and my half a year of pre-injury division iii football. Once a player is done they’re typically out of a job (mccoy), unless your udonis haslem.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Less talented ≠ bad at his/her job.

I don’t know your life, but I bet that “less talented QB” was not a bad/awful QB. Correct me if I’m wrong? I doubt I am unless your Head Coach did not know what he was doing.


This can apply to the real world as well. I’m willing to bet nobody here has worked with subordinates that were leaders but awful in quality at the product they’re putting out. Do you want to know why? Because they would have never been in that position in the first place.



Kyler’s “in-game leadership” is lacking because the product he has displayed on the field is lacking. You don’t rally the troops by being awful at your job. How are the troops supposed to rally around that?

It’s literally as simple if you’re good at your job, people will follow and get in line. Doesn’t matter about who is more talented or less talented. It matters about what type of quality you display on a consistent bases. If you’re bad at your job, nobody will follow. This should be Life 101.

Again you’re making it binary. It isn’t. I think this board has proven over and over than kyler isn’t bad at his job. He’s mediocre. He’s inconsistent. But he’s also a seemingly poor leader. And I say “seemingly” because we really aren’t privy to what happens the full game in the huddle, on the sidelines or at practice or in the facility.

And yeah, in big cases, high school and college the QBs who lead weren’t very good QBs. They were mediocre at best. But the team responded to them unlike how they responded to the undeniably better QBs. The head coach absokutely recognized the difference that leadership made and made the right call each time. Maybe you’ve just never experienced that.

Hell, I’ve experienced it in the workplace. I had a stat employee. All the credentials possible, was great at his job. Clients loved him. Hit it outta the park. He wanted to move into management. I gave him a shot. But he just wasn’t a leader. The rest of the team wasn’t getting what they needed from him. He didn’t make them better. I had to move for the sake of the team and elevate someone else who didn’t have his glowing resume, but had a terrific understanding of people. And she blossomed as a leader. She definitively wasn’t as good at her job as he was. And everyone knew it. But she was a LOT better if a leader and the team recognized it virtually immediately and jumped back into the foxhole with her that the were abandoning with the other guy.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Despite a few of you guys saying otherwise, I do genuinely believe it’s because Kyler is not a “rah rah” guy. Jameis Winston is also very bad at his job, but since he does a lot of the “rah rah”, you have a few people here say he’s a good leader.

A sexual assaulter being a good leader to someone is also asinine, but that’s another story for another day.

I don’t believe Winston is a good leader.

And I KNOW leadership is SO MUCH more than rah rah. If anyone thinks it’s about being a cheerleader they don’t understand leadership. Do you have to be a cheerleader sometime? Yeah, a good leader should know when it’s useful. But it’s just a tool in the toolkit.

 

[kerouac9]

Despite a few of you guys saying otherwise, I do genuinely believe it’s because Kyler is not a “rah rah” guy. Jameis Winston is also very bad at his job, but since he does a lot of the “rah rah”, you have a few people here say he’s a good leader.

A sexual assaulter being a good leader to someone is also asinine, but that’s another story for another day.

It's not just this, though. Fitz wasn't a rah-rah guy and people credited him with being a leader. It's because Kyler is a bit of an introvert, yeah, but really I think it's his attitude when things go wrong. We've all worked with top performers who aren't resilient in the face of adversity. Kyler shows up his teammates on the field when things go wrong. The camera can't find him pointing fingers if he's not doing it when he thinks a wideout ran the wrong route on third down.

It’s more than lead by example, though. Those guys take active roles in teaching typically. And they lift up players who are having a tough time. Or they point out nuances that help the team win.

And yeah, as I said before, you can’t zero ability. I mean, I’ve been a leader most of my life. But I wouldn’t make a professional football team based solely on my advanced leadership skills and my half a year of pre-injury division iii football. Once a player is done they’re typically out of a job (mccoy), unless your udonis haslem.

Yes! I agree with you here. Lifting up players having a tough time especially resonates with me. They understand that if you're not a first-round draft pick, you have to do all the little things to stick around, and that includes being part of the team, contributing in the meeting rooms, coming prepared, etc., etc.

That's important -- maybe even essential -- when you're trying to instill and maintain a winning culture. I'm not sure Kliff really understood that, or didn't have the will to impress it upon Keim, and so a lot of these "little things" are/were missed.

I think the problem for Gannon is that the folks you bring into the building, especially the young people, have to see it work sooner or later and convert to wins, or they'll fall into bad habits or start looking for other ways to compete.

 

[kerouac9]

I don’t believe Winston is a good leader.

And I KNOW leadership is SO MUCH more than rah rah. If anyone thinks it’s about being a cheerleader they don’t understand leadership. Do you have to be a cheerleader sometime? Yeah, a good leader should know when it’s useful. But it’s just a tool in the toolkit.

I don't believe that Winston is a good leader in being part of the program. I believe that Winston is good at getting people to follow him. He had the entire Saints offense mutiny against the head coach last year!

 

[Stout]

Less talented ≠ bad at his/her job.

I don’t know your life, but I bet that “less talented QB” was not a bad/awful QB. Correct me if I’m wrong? I doubt I am unless your Head Coach did not know what he was doing.


This can apply to the real world as well. I’m willing to bet nobody here has worked with subordinates that were leaders but awful in quality at the product they’re putting out. Do you want to know why? Because they would have never been in that position in the first place.



Kyler’s “in-game leadership” is lacking because the product he has displayed on the field is lacking. You don’t rally the troops by being awful at your job. How are the troops supposed to rally around that?

It’s literally as simple if you’re good at your job, people will follow and get in line. Doesn’t matter about who is more talented or less talented. It matters about what type of quality you display on a consistent bases. If you’re bad at your job, nobody will follow. This should be Life 101.

Wow, no. Not at all! This does not in the least encapsulate leadership. Not in the NFL nor in life. The number of people that are good at their job but can't get a single person to follow them is legion. The number of people not at the apex of their job or just okay at their job but with excellent leadership skills is also legion.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

It's not just this, though. Fitz wasn't a rah-rah guy and people credited him with being a leader. It's because Kyler is a bit of an introvert, yeah, but really I think it's his attitude when things go wrong. We've all worked with top performers who aren't resilient in the face of adversity. Kyler shows up his teammates on the field when things go wrong. The camera can't find him pointing fingers if he's not doing it when he thinks a wideout ran the wrong route on third down.


Yes! I agree with you here. Lifting up players having a tough time especially resonates with me. They understand that if you're not a first-round draft pick, you have to do all the little things to stick around, and that includes being part of the team, contributing in the meeting rooms, coming prepared, etc., etc.

That's important -- maybe even essential -- when you're trying to instill and maintain a winning culture. I'm not sure Kliff really understood that, or didn't have the will to impress it upon Keim, and so a lot of these "little things" are/were missed.

I think the problem for Gannon is that the folks you bring into the building, especially the young people, have to see it work sooner or later and convert to wins, or they'll fall into bad habits or start looking for other ways to compete.

Agree with all this