1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!

Who Fills the Leadership Void

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by BorderRivals.com, Feb 16, 2013.

  1. DevilDon

    DevilDon Inclement Weather Fan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,391
    Ratings:
    +445
    You provide the perfect assessment there.
    Nobody expected Charles Woodson to be the leader but he became one. He was coached to be one and he was able to learn and use those abilities that define leadership. Charles Woodson wasn't always a leader, he was taught and cajoled to be one. It has no bearing whatsoever on his physical gifts. If they were so inherent in his leadership qualities then he would have been considered a leader long, long ago.
    There is no finer example than military leadership. They are in fact command and control organizations and there is less likely to be a more obvious example of leadership's impression.
    It would be impossible to define any more "new age" leadership expressions and talk about the military in the same breath. It's history is far older than our great nation and far older than any statesman can hope to have made a difference. In fact, without the military leadership one might question whether Winston Churchill would have had an impact in the world.
    Even in a silicon valley start up with any kind of hope for success will have to have leaders. And even you must admit that athletic talent is on the far end of necessities for those jobs.
    You have pointed to the worst possible example. Literally thousands of those type of businesses have gone under due to lack of leadership. Perhaps what you are trying to say is that athletic, overachievers are more likely to become leaders? Yep, I think I agree and it's also more likely that ex-military are more likely to become leaders. Why? because it is part and parcel of that job. That is why employers are more likely to employ veterans.
    That doesn't diminish the fact that any single pedestrian can become a leader.
     
    • Old Old x 1
  2. DevilDon

    DevilDon Inclement Weather Fan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,391
    Ratings:
    +445
    You want to express that this is my opinion. I wish I had come up with it Thx, but it's not mine. It's the highest order of leadership's opinion that these are the qualities that define the term leadership.
    Now you are welcome to think otherwise and I'm sure there are others who will follow you blindly down your alley of opinion but it will never change the fact that you are inherently wrong.
    You continue to define leadership in terms of athletic ability and that is so incorrect and I'd shown you how wrong it is and then you continue to argue the basis of your premise.
    I'm delighted to know you have a first hand knowledge of the qualities that made Lincoln likely the 1st or 2nd most liked presidents with Washington. History doesn't provide much in the way as I know about our presidents IQ so if you have documents that show Lincoln as a mental giant I'd love to view them.
    But just this once please recognize that nobody will remember Lincoln for his intelligence as for his perseverance. I might be wrong though, many fans here thinks TT has done a poor job.
    If you know anything about history, it's not for his famous smarts that people admire Lincoln ThxJack!!!!
    And yea, not a guy promoted from the practice squad but before he was learned in the art, Charles Woodson would be your last pick as the locker room guy based on past experience.
    It's like this ThxJack: You have no more idea than I do so pretending to speak with any kind of authority on leadership just rings untrue. What I've tried to say is that any single guy in that locker room can be the next leader and I am correct.
    If you can't see him then he's not an elite performer righto?
     
  3. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,420
    Ratings:
    +1,976
    You've distorted what I said. You're now arguing against a straw man. I can hardly get past your first line...I questioned the depth and breadth of leadership provided by somebody coerced into the role...including Woodson...that did not even require reading between the lines.

    For you to call a guy who is coerced to lead a "leader" contradicts (as best I can tell) the rest of your argument.

    You fail to recognize the internal contradictions in your arguments...the new age/self-actualization portion of your argument is viewed in the military as clap trap except perhaps for some small corners of the Academies.

    I gave you an "old". I would have clicked "futile to the point of exhaustion" if there was such a button.

    Besides, what ever happened to "brevity is the soul wit", which you mistakenly assumed "the Bard" meant unironically?

    I've done it many times before, and I'll do it many times in the future...leave you with the last word.
     
  4. DevilDon

    DevilDon Inclement Weather Fan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,391
    Ratings:
    +445
    What a waste of time. You yourself are pointing out that your theory is a theory. You quote it, you promote it and then tell me that my premise is an opinion and only my opinion. Read your quote... determination and sociability being leading qualities, tell me how determination and sociability are a born qualities?
    Further ThxJack, you knock my opinion on the basis that it's only one man's opinion and then proffer yours as an example of why we might see things your way. It does sound a bit like a one way street doesn't it?
    Last, you've given no reason to believe that a player must be a starter to be a leader when I've explained that coaches often do not have sterling athletic pasts. A bit of a quandary for your side isn't it?
    Lincoln isn't remembered so much for his intelligence than his fortitude Jack. He was a self taught man and was repulsed at the things his father was. Pretty much that puts all he did on the determination table does it not?
    You can bet all you own on whether it will be a practice squad leader who is the locker room leader. In fact, when I played football it didn't ever occur to me to look to another player for leadership. I was doing my thing and playing my game. I'd bet, and I'd bet a handsome amount, that is what drives those players. They play because they love the game and the motivation to do well has as much to do with personal pride as it does with Charles Woodson's lack or ownership of a SB ring.
     
  5. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,612
    Ratings:
    +2,691
    Obsessed much Devil? Two responses to the same post? LOL Repeatedly posting things like, “You might want to disagree but you would be wrong”, “I did and will continue to point it out to you until you get it in your head”, “…and I am correct”, and “it will never change the fact that you are inherently wrong” reminds me of posters who profess how great their knowledge of football is on boards like this. I have yet to find such a poster who was actually really well versed in football. IOW, if your argument isn’t strong enough to convince others, professing it is as you have just looks foolish.

    Because you presented your opinion as a fact I pointed to a theory which contradicts your opinion. I even underlined the relevant portion for you: “This theory postulates that people are either born or not born with the qualities that predispose them to success in leadership roles”. I believe “certain inherited qualities, such as personality and cognitive ability” underlie leadership. But I’m not so foolish as to present that opinion as a fact. That’s what you are doing – see the difference? I’m fine with each of us holding different opinions, you’re obsessed with the idea your opinion/theory is a fact.

    IMO you’ve argued yourself into a corner posting, “Nobody would dispute who is the leader in any crowded room.” And then “when I played football it didn't ever occur to me to look to another player for leadership.” OK, OK I just thought that obvious contradiction was funny – I mean apparently you would have disputed who the leader was on your team because you admit to being oblivious to the leadership of others. But seriously, in this thread you’ve confused leadership with inspiration and perseverance. You’ve signed on to the idea that every player on a 53 man NFL roster has an equal opportunity to be a team leader, no matter his status on the team. Player #53 has just as good a chance as Rodgers to be the team leader, right? (BTW, common sense and years of observation should have dissuaded you of that idea. Also, the athletic ability of a coach isn’t important because he already has a degree of leadership status on the team, but it is important to the status of players.) And you’ve posted, “It's the highest order of leadership's opinion that these are the qualities that define the term leadership.” HUH??!! “Leadership’s opinion?” :D

    How sad you don’t remember Lincoln for his great intellect. And how foolish of you to post, “But just this once please recognize that nobody will remember Lincoln for his intelligence as for his perseverance” I have studied history and I remember Lincoln for both. And of course I never alleged to have “first hand knowledge” of Lincoln – that straw man is just another example of the weakness of your argument. While I don’t “have documents that show Lincoln as a mental giant” if you’d “love to view them” you can view them online. Retrieve both of his inaugural addresses, particularly the second one. And re-read the Gettysburg Address, perhaps the most brilliantly concise speech ever given on American soil. But those are the easy ones. If you haven’t already, read his speech at Cooper Union. He brilliantly dissects Stephen Douglas’ assertion about the founders’ views on slavery. Unlike modern politicians, those are all the words of Lincoln, not a speech writer. It's no secret to those who have read Lincoln's words he was indeed a mental giant.
     
  6. DevilDon

    DevilDon Inclement Weather Fan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,391
    Ratings:
    +445
    I have never professed to be a great mind in football. I'm a regular guy who knows good and bad ideas when I see them. We're talking leadership here champ and that is something that I know quite a bit about.
    I don't care if you are comfortable with me being confident in my view. I'm not here to give you warm and fuzzies about your positions ThxJack and I am not looking to you to provide me with the same.
    Also, what makes you the end all in determining who knows football? What makes you think your thoughts are the defining factor in who knows football? Because it agrees with a sportswriter you seem to have a warm spot in your heart for?

    OK, but you're not admitting that it isn't predisposed to being a leader. It's not a requirement. My point is positive and probably, anybody, I mean anybody can become a leader, with or without certain DNA markers and you try to use science to show that it's wrong. All science can say is that it's not there to say for certain yet my premise holds water because the world is littered with leaders of underachieving physical tools.

    Not at all THxJack, it's obvious to any person who leaders are. Recognizing leadership doesn't mean you're at a void or need that leadership. Think about it, you just said because I didn't need leadership I was oblivious to it. I am here to tell you that you always recognize it.
    Yesssss, you don't have to be a starter to be a team captain. So athletic ability of player matters but not a coach? You don't seem to have all of your ducks in a row ThxJack.
    You either need the athletic ability or you don't. Coaches defy that rule so you don't have a ton of proof behind that idea.


    It's not just me ThxJack, most people in believe he set out to free the slaves. It's not a matter of what you want to believe but how it actually played out. It's not foolish to post that champ, it's the truth. People don't remember Lincoln for his speaches or his intellect. You don't have to be steady with that, it's the way that it is.
    Remember I'm a veteran so I know the Gettysburg Address and I'm familiar with the Lincoln/Douglas debates. Here's the thing that bothers me about your position ThxJack, you believe your position to the point of obsession. You cant know with any certainty that Lincoln's words were his own. What we CAN know and what we CAN be certain of it that his actions were his own and that he was a leader in action moreso than words.
    His words were only later understood for their value. It took a bullet to get that point across.
    Leaders are made, not born my friend. Lincoln didn't lead by his words nor his intellect, he was remembered for his determination and shame on you for casting aside that side of that man. Being a study of history begs you ask for more than the words and stats, you need to get inside of the mind in that day and age.
    You seem ill prepared to look outside of the box at this point THxJack.
     
  7. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,612
    Ratings:
    +2,691
    Well champ, you apparently missed the analogy I used in my opening paragraph. You repeatedly feeling the need to post “I’m right!!” reminds me of posters who … And even in your opening paragraph you again profess to knowing a lot about leadership. Again, if your posts don’t prove that, saying so doesn’t help your cause.

    My noting what you said about leaders being obvious and then your being oblivious to leadership was a joke, champ: “OK, OK I just thought that obvious contradiction was funny.” Followed by “Seriously…” was the clue.

    BTW, you really can’t distinguish between the roles of players on a team and coaches regarding leadership? “So athletic ability of player matters but not a coach?” is missing the point about as badly as one can, champ.

    Regarding Lincoln again you posted nobody will remember Lincoln for his intellect. And now you’ve added no one remembers his speeches. The guy who wrote and presented the Gettysburg Address! BTW there is a lot of historical support for the notion that Lincoln wrote that speech himself. Lincoln’s intellect was an integral part of him as a lawyer and as President. I’m not casting aside Lincoln’s determination or courage, or his generosity to the South after victory was apparent. Or the great personal pain he overcame in his life. You are the one casting aside a critical aspect of Lincoln, his intellect.

    Finally, and this is my last post on this subject, you have got to be kidding about who is obsessed here, champ. You have been the one all along insisting your opinion is a fact. You are the one posting “nobody will remember Lincoln for his intellect” (which is funny since I obviously do). Regarding being obsessed, you need to look in the mirror, champ.
     

Share This Page