Who Fills the Leadership Void

[BorderRivals.com]

Now that Woodson and Driver are no longer on the squad, we have a huge leadership void to fill. Already a young team, the Packers only got younger with both departures. And with their departures goes the two most veteran leaders on the team. Read more here: http://wp.me/p29VCs-g9

In Woodson's place, I think Burnett steps up into a bigger leadership role. He played every snap last season and makes the pre-snap adjustments. He's reliable and steady.

JJ needs to step up in DD's place. He's the elder statesman of the group. And he's a lead by example type that will be looked to by the young and new 4th and 5th WR's.

Overall, Rodgers and Clay must step up. Rodgers is now the 4th oldest Packer - crazy to think about! He will step up and take over the overall team leadership. And assuming Clay signs an extension, he must assume greater responsibility. He'll inspire play through his own relentless play. But he also needs to become a vocal leader.

Who do you think fills the leadership void?

 

[Poppa San]

Now that Woodson and Driver are no longer on the squad, we have a huge leadership void to fill. ............
Who do you think fills the leadership void?

If Hawk is retained. I expect him to lead the defense. He already wears the radio. Picket, CM3, and Tramon are also candidates for the def.
After Rodgers on offense, I expect Lang / Sitton to speak for the OL, and maybe Jones for the receivers. The job is tailor made for a mouth like J-mike except his immaturity will get in his way.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

Rodgers and Matthews are the faces of the franchise. They should be the leaders on/off the field too.

 

[Kitten]

I'm going with Rodgers and Clay as the next generation of players to fill that gap. Woodson and DD are legends and they leave some big shoes to fill. But I see both Rodgers and Clay as ready to assume that role on the team. They kind of already do.

 

[HyponGrey]

Think about this, Pickett, Hawk, and Kuhn will likely be gone next year, possibly JJ and Burnett too. That leaves Bishop as the only known leader on D. Clay and Aaron need to step up to the plate, and IMO so do Tramon (though he needs to get his act together first) JJ and Burnett. I actually see Shields and Hayward being the kind of guys who develop leadership roles on D. Sitton leads our OL, but somebody needs to lead the targets and our RB (Kuhn for the moment). This year we really need to draft the next crop of leaders on our team. We got athletes last year, now we need players, high effort, bootstrap, passionate football players. Only a few spots where athletes would be welcome this year (ILB, WR, maybe TE or S)

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

If Hawk is retained. I expect him to lead the defense. He already wears the radio. Picket, CM3, and Tramon are also candidates for the def.
After Rodgers on offense, I expect Lang / Sitton to speak for the OL, and maybe Jones for the receivers. The job is tailor made for a mouth like J-mike except his immaturity will get in his way.

okay ! real ignorance on my part here, but I always thought the QB wore a radio in his helmet. There are more ???

 

[Poppa San]

One on offense

okay ! real ignorance on my part here, but I always thought the QB wore a radio in his helmet. There are more ???

One on offense. Few years later one on on defense. Denoted by green sticker on helmet.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...alls-new-coachtodefense-communications-system

 

[FrankRizzo]

Raji is a leader on defense too.
We need his swagger over there.. He, Matthews, and Bishop are the only guys who seem to have it.

 

[7thFloorRA]

Bishop is going to be the leader on defense. Clay just isn't that guy. He plays great and he leads by example but Bishop is a guy that will command the room and rally the troops.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

One on offense
One on offense. Few years later one on on defense. Denoted by green sticker on helmet.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...alls-new-coachtodefense-communications-system

Thanks Poppa.

 

[JBlood]

Raji's no leader until he decides to dominate every play. Matthews and Bishop are the leaders on defense. Rogers is the leader of the team, and something needs to be done to the offensive line to protect him. TT has drafted 15 offensive linemen, 11 of them still in the league, and the same coach has been unable to turn those picks into a dominant group. Maybe a new coach might have some success. Or I guess we keep drafting offensive linemen, hoping for the best, while the best QB in the game is getting pummeled.

 

[El Guapo]

Raji's no leader until he decides to dominate every play

This is incorrect. There are many ways to lead but domination on the field is only one way. In fact, there are many guys, such as Revis, who dominate on the field but I would not consider a leader. Conversely, we're all talking about losing leaders in Woodson and Driver. Those guys haven't dominated for years. Leadership is so much more than just your play on the field. It's also your demeanor, your intensity, your maturity, your poise under pressure, and your character to name a few.

This team may be younger, but there are a lot of strong leaders. Some people think of leaders as only the salt & peppered veterans hanging on for one last championship run. I think that there is already a good list of all the quality players/leaders on this team listed above.

I'm not worried one bit about leadership.

 

[TJV]

I agree dominance on the field doesn't necessarily equal leadership in the locker room. IMO you usually have to know the dynamic in the locker room to know who the leaders are on the team and that's difficult for outsiders. Having said that, I don't have any doubt about Woodson's leadership, particularly in 2010 because we read about, saw, and heard him address the team and we could somewhat assess that for ourselves. I also agree there are different forms leadership can take: For example in addition to being a vocal team leader, Woodson showed himself to be a leader by how he mentored the young DBs on the team. We weren't there to see it but we read report after report about it and those he mentored also spoke about it.

I would guess everyone reading this has come into contact with a natural leader in business, sports, or life in general. One can work on his or her leadership qualities but mostly IMO that trait is innate: To paraphrase Justice Stewart's comment on a certain subject, you know it when you see it. Rodgers is clearly the leader on O and IMO Woodson was clearly the most important leader on D. Who will take that over? I don't know and I don't think it's an automatic that someone will. There may (just) be leaders in each of the position groups that don't transcend into becoming leaders of the whole D or team.

 

[Southpaw]

Rodgers and Matthews are the faces of the franchise. They should be the leaders on/off the field too.

Just because a player is the face of the organization doesn't make them the leader. The face of the franchise is something you can work towards being. Leadership is more or less a quality that you either have or you don't and can't really be acquired.

To answer the original question, I honestly have no idea. I don't really see any one player that sticks out of having great leadership qualities.

Worthy possibly. Maybe Raji. But to answer definitively, I really can't

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

Just because a player is the face of the organization doesn't make them the leader. The face of the franchise is something you can work towards being. Leadership is more or less a quality that you either have or you don't and can't really be acquired.

To answer the original question, I honestly have no idea. I don't really see any one player that sticks out of having great leadership qualities.

Worthy possibly. Maybe Raji. But to answer definitively, I really can't

Ok?

 

[The Drew]

Rodgers.. that is a no brainer

 

[DevilDon]

Just because a player is the face of the organization doesn't make them the leader. The face of the franchise is something you can work towards being. Leadership is more or less a quality that you either have or you don't and can't really be acquired.

To answer the original question, I honestly have no idea. I don't really see any one player that sticks out of having great leadership qualities.

Worthy possibly. Maybe Raji. But to answer definitively, I really can't

Every single person on earth has innate leadership abilities and they can be developed more than athletic abilities.
You may or may not be blessed with a superior athletic body but every human on earth can develop those qualities that allow you to lead men and women.
Nobody questions the person with perseverance, wisdom, justice, dependability, initiative, enthusiasm, bearing, courage, loyalty and endurance.
Those are not natural traits, they are as learned as speaking and walking. It comes easier to some more than others but it is not ever a defining part of your DNA. Every person is born a leader in the making. You just have to recognize it and decide that is what you will be. It's the only characteristic all humans share regardless of race, creed, color, sex or physical makeup.
Great leaders aren't born, they are grown. Lincoln was raised in a log cabin!

 

[HardRightEdge]

Every single person on earth has innate leadership abilities and they can be developed more than athletic abilities.
You may or may not be blessed with a superior athletic body but every human on earth can develop those qualities that allow you to lead men and women.
Nobody questions the person with perseverance, wisdom, justice, dependability, initiative, enthusiasm, bearing, courage, loyalty and endurance.
Those are not natural traits, they are as learned as speaking and walking. It comes easier to some more than others but it is not ever a defining part of your DNA. Every person is born a leader in the making. You just have to recognize it and decide that is what you will be. It's the only characteristic all humans share regardless of race, creed, color, sex or physical makeup.
Great leaders aren't born, they are grown. Lincoln was raised in a log cabin!

I'd like to see Oprah and Tony Robbins in an Octagon death match.

 

[DevilDon]

I'd like to see Oprah and Tony Robbins in an Octagon death match.

Does MTV still do those celebrity death matches? I loved that stuff.
I'd like to see Chris Rock and Louis Black.

 

[TJV]

Every single person on earth has innate leadership abilities and they can be developed more than athletic abilities.

I agree. However:

It comes easier to some more than others but it is not ever a defining part of your DNA. Every person is born a leader in the making.

Assuming that is true, as it relates to leadership on the Packers IMO it's not very important since the learning regarding leadership traits has already taken place - or it hasn't. Also with regard to a pro sports team, athletic ability plays an important part in a players' ability to be a team leader. For example, even if Jamari Lattimore has all of the leadership qualities you mentioned, he will not be THE leader of the defense because his athletic and football abilities - and therefore his status on the team - don't command the respect that Rodgers' does or Woodson's did, for example.

Beyond that I am not sure if you are alleging that every person can achieve the same level of leadership abilities - that we are all born "blank slates" all capable of achieving the same level of leadership ability. If you are, I disagree. But that's not a discussion for a Packers' board.

 

[DevilDon]

I agree. However:Assuming that is true, as it relates to leadership on the Packers IMO it's not very important since the learning regarding leadership traits has already taken place - or it hasn't. Also with regard to a pro sports team, athletic ability plays an important part in a players' ability to be a team leader. For example, even if Jamari Lattimore has all of the leadership qualities you mentioned, he will not be THE leader of the defense because his athletic and football abilities - and therefore his status on the team - don't command the respect that Rodgers' does or Woodson's did, for example.

Beyond that I am not sure if you are alleging that every person can achieve the same level of leadership abilities - that we are all born "blank slates" all capable of achieving the same level of leadership ability. If you are, I disagree. But that's not a discussion for a Packers' board.

You might want to disagree but you would be wrong.
Even the least of us has the ability to learn and develop leadership. It's not an innate ability. In fact, I might argue that those who have the least of gifted skills are at an advantage to become leaders as their handicap in that area are an inspiration.
People admire determination and perseverance in any form and that is a terrific foundation for leadership.
Let's look at one case in point: Charles Woodson. Nobody wanted him, he came to the Packers because he had no choice. Club footed as a child he overcame that obstacle to garner a Heisman. Disoriented and misdirected he didn't' have a stellar career at Oakland. He became a leader in Green Bay when he understood what it meant to be a leader and to act as a leader. He got focused, he became professional about his job.
It wasn't in place when he got here ThxJack, he developed it. He often argued with MM but he learned what it meant to be an inspiration. He learned about his job by observing others, probably, notably Aaron Rodgers.
As for Lattimore, it doesn't matter if he succeeds as a football player, every single man in that locker room would note if he was on time for each session, spent time looking at film and working above and beyond what was expected of any other LB. You're really, really missing something if you think leadership means success in a given field. It's not how it works... leadership is more often defined by the ability to overcome shortcomings. And there is not one single way to know if an unknown is the inspiration for the others.
It's what defined Charles Woodson and Donald Driver.
A person can become a leader at 10 or 100. It's never over Thx. It's the one defining characteristic of the strength of oneself. We arent' all blank slates, but we can all become leaders.

 

[TJV]

You might want to disagree but you would be wrong.

That's one for the Know-It-All Hall of Fame; and to think you accused someone else of pontificating!

The nurture/nature argument is not as settled as you pretend. For example, what if Woodson's genetics prevented him from being as fast as he was/is? What if the peak of his "football potential" was to be an average high school or college player? Or in the context of the Packers, an average STs player? You mentioned Lincoln. What if he was born with the maximum capability to have an IQ of 90? Or do you believe every brain has equal potential? We are all the product of nuture and nature and no one - not even you - knows the exact consequence of either.

As for Lattimore, it doesn't matter if he succeeds as a football player, every single man in that locker room would note if he was on time for each session, spent time looking at film and working above and beyond what was expected of any other LB.

So you think Lattimore could be viewed as a leader of the team on the same level as Rodgers even if he were inactive for half the games? IMO that's nonsense. Rudy Ruettiger was an inspiration for his Notre Dame teammates but he wasn't a team leader.

You're really, really missing something if you think leadership means success in a given field. It's not how it works... leadership is more often defined by the ability to overcome shortcomings.

First, what I posted was, " with regard to a pro sports team, athletic ability plays an important part in a players' ability to be a team leader". You incorrectly conflated that to apply to all fields.
Second, you seem to be making up your own definition of "leadership". The basic definition is the ability to guide, direct, or influence people. Here's another definition from businessdictionary.com: "Leadership involves (1) establishing a clear vision, (2) sharing that vision with others so that they will follow willingly, (3) providing the information, knowledge and methods to realize that vision, and (4) coordinating and balancing the conflicting interests of all members and stakeholders.

There are different theories regarding what makes a leader so in contradiction to your opening sentence what makes a leader is not a "fact" or anything close to "settled science". However IMO leadership does not equal "the ability to overcome shortcomings" or being an inspiration. Those qualities may be possessed by a leader but they aren't required IMO. As I previously posted, IMO a person's leadership abilities can be improved upon, but just like athletic ability some of us have a head start. For example many leaders exhibit the quality of charisma. To me that is something one either has or doesn't; one can't learn to be charismatic.

 

[DevilDon]

That's one for the Know-It-All Hall of Fame; and to think you accused someone else of pontificating!

Be that as it may I'm correct.

The nurture/nature argument is not as settled as you pretend. For example, what if Woodson's genetics prevented him from being as fast as he was/is? What if the peak of his "football potential" was to be an average high school or college player? Or in the context of the Packers, an average STs player? You mentioned Lincoln. What if he was born with the maximum capability to have an IQ of 90? Or do you believe every brain has equal potential?

I cited those examples to show that the potential is inherently there. Charles Woodson might have grown to be an influencial businessman if not for his physical abilities. What is certain is that his leadership skills were acquired or learned. Same with Lincoln. It wasn't his mental capacity that people remember him for, it was his steadfast refusal to bow to an opinion even though it was unpopular and split the union. He determined that no matter what, his goal was to preserve the union and he was successful. It was his perseverance we remember.

We are all the product of nuture and nature and no one - not even you - knows the exact consequence of either.

No I don't and never professed to know. What I DO know is that we all have the ability to be leaders.
So you think Lattimore could be viewed as a leader of the team on the same level as Rodgers even if he were inactive for half the games? IMO that's nonsense. Rudy Ruettiger was an inspiration for his Notre Dame teammates but he wasn't a team leader. First, what I posted was, with regard to a pro sports team, athletic ability plays an important part in a players' ability to be a team leader". You incorrectly conflated that to apply to all fields. [/quote]
I did and will continue to point it out to you until you get it in your head that leadership is not in any way tied to physical or mental acuity. Most head coaches were not exemplary athletes. Vince Lombardi certainly serves as an example and Mike McCarthy is another.[/quote]

Second, you seem to be making up your own definition of "leadership". The basic definition is the ability to guide, direct, or influence people. Here's another definition from businessdictionary.com: "Leadership involves (1) establishing a clear vision, (2) sharing that vision with others so that they will follow willingly, (3) providing the information, knowledge and methods to realize that vision, and (4) coordinating and balancing the conflicting interests of all members and stakeholders.

I'm not making anything up, as you stated it's open to discussion. So may I define leadership as the ability to guide men into combat and risk their lives? It's the ultimate sacrifice so let's use my choice of organization's opinion on it:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmc/leadership_traits.htm

There are different theories regarding what makes a leader so in

contradiction to your opening sentence what makes a leader is not a "fact" or anything close to "settled science". However IMO leadership does not equal "the ability to overcome shortcomings" or being an inspiration. Those qualities may be possessed by a leader but they aren't required IMO. As I previously posted, IMO a person's leadership abilities can be improved upon, but just like athletic ability some of us have a head start. For example many leaders exhibit the quality of charisma. To me that is something one either has or doesn't; one can't learn to be charismatic.

Theories or otherwise doesn't negate the fact that more military men have been considered leaders than sports figures. It would stand to reason wouldn't it? Running for a touchdown is far less an accomplishment than rescuing an injured man under heavy opposing fire.
Regardless of where people work, everyone recognizes the leader, they're the person everyone is looking to and it doesn't matter if you are a brick layer or engineer, every field has it's leaders and it wasn't just handed to them.
Leaders aren't born ThxJack, contrary to your beliefs, they are developed and yes, absolutely we all have the ability to be one regardless of mental of physical ability. The reason you are having a hard time putting concrete facts on this is that there is not one single entity that defines a leader. But we all know them when we see them and they are as different as humanity itself.... because we can all be a leader.
Nobody ThxJack would dispute who is the leader in any crowded room.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I know I shouldn't, but I can't help myself.

The fact that Woodson started life with a club foot only to become a 4.45 runner is a function of god-given physical ability. No amount of will or work gets you to that speed without what you were born with, club foot or not. Thousands and thousands of players without any physical impairment have worked harder and "willed" harder, and failed, and never had an opportunity to be a leader on the football field, though no fault of their own.

Second, it's only in retrospect that Woodson is viewed as a clubhouse leader. He was always characterized as a somewhat introverted guy, a man of few words, a man playing out on the the island metaphorically and literally. That's not a criticism; elite individual playmaking is often the marginal difference between winning and losing.

Late in the 2010 run it was reported that MM had to prod Woodson to take a more vocal role. I believe it was at that time he addressed the clubhouse for the first time. I also wonder if MM's prodding had more to do with the affect it would have on Woodson than the affect on the team...if he was forced to assume a leadership position it might temper his gambling and freelancing which was on the razor's edge between playmaking and defensive disruption. He was the centerpiece of 2010's organized chaos, on the edge of spinning out into something less effective (see 2011).

This is not to say Woodson was not a leader on the field. That would be hard to determine without some kind of insider commentary beyond "he's a leader". When things are going badly, confidence is flagging and confusion is entering the equation, the guy who can step in that huddle, interject a firm and confident focus, and then back it up with performance qualifies as a leader. The next time circumstances go against the team, the prior performance backs up the new words.

I've got a real problem with these new age definitions of "leadership", at least in the real adult world. There is certainly nothing wrong with thinking everybody should strive to maximize their potential, and that the will and effort to do so will be respected by thinking individuals, be they subordinates, peers or superiors. But that's not leadership. Further, being an example to others (bosses certainly value this highly in their subordinates) does not make a person a "leader" either...it makes them an example.

And while it can be argued that everyone has the potential to be a "leader" to one degree or another, it is impossible for everybody to do so. If everybody is a leader, then there are no followers, in which case there are no leaders. It's something of zero sum game.

DevilDon's military example is the worst he could have possibly chosen. These are command-and-control organizations like no other, with the possible exception of special forces actively engaged in a mission. There are leaders giving orders, there are followers following them. A Silicon Valley start-up with a very flat organization would make for a better argument...but even these organizations typically are steered by charismatic founders and their visions.

Leaders actively influence the behavior of others, and back it with personal performance.

 

[TJV]

I ... will continue to point it out to you until you get it in your head that leadership is not in any way tied to physical or mental acuity.

You are stating something as a fact that is only your opinion. No matter how many times you insist your opinion is correct, it's just and only that: An opinion. For example, in my opinion for a player in the Packers (or any team pro sports) locker room to be a leader of the team as a whole or one of the units (O, D or STs), he must at a minimum be a starter on that unit. A second or third string player can't lead from the sidelines. And being a starter requires a certain amount of physical - and mental - acuity. If you are consistent you have to argue that the last player on the roster - #53 has the same chance to be the leader of the team as Aaron Rodgers and that IMO is foolish on its face.

(BTW, IMO Lincoln "was Lincoln" first because of his mental acuity: His innate intelligence was a necessary prerequisite to his ability as a leader.)

I agree there are several factors that go into making a leader but IMO some are innate. With regard to leadership theory one is called "Trait Theory".

This theory postulates that people are either born or not born with the qualities that predispose them to success in leadership roles. That is, that certain inherited qualities, such as personality and cognitive ability, are what underlie effective leadership. There have been hundreds of studies to determine the most important leadership traits, and while there is always going to be some disagreement, intelligence, sociability, and drive (aka determination) are consistently cited as key qualities.

I added the underline.
http://managementhelp.org/blogs/leadership/2010/04/21/leadership-theories/

BTW, here's a learned trait that separates us: I won't "continue to point it out to you until you get it in your head that" you continue to pretend your opinion is a fact. It's apparent to anyone here who cares to know. And back to the subject of this thread: I don't know who, if anyone, takes Woodson's spot as a team leader. But I'll bet it won't be a guy promoted from the practice squad in mid-season no matter how much time he's devoted to improving his leadership abilities.