Cal Football: Aaron Rodgers, Desmond Bishop, And The Need For Similar Locker Room Leaders

especially if you don’t have a galvanizing or motivating coach to spark the team. I may be incorrect, but Tedford doesn’t seem like that sort of coach so maybe that’s what we’ve been missing?

If the Coach is not the rah-rah type, it creates the opportunity for players on the team to step up and show the type of leadership that always galvanizes men to a cause. The Coach needs to select players on each side of the ball—that have that special gift within them to lead men. In every group, there is always someone who steps forward, and some do it better than others, and are very special, memorable people.

This roundtable post, done very well by Avi, was apparently running a bit long and so it was split into two posts. It appears that my contributions to the post were placed in part 2 (to be run soon, DONT CHANGE THAT CHANNEL).

I wanted to reiterate the points I made there, which I think are relevant to this post, also. None of us can pass informed judgment regarding the relative merits of player or coach leadership. We only get bits and pieces from the field of how the players are interacting. We respond to the more verbal guys, beating their chests and screaming. However, that does not mean they are better leaders, especially in the great volume of moments away from the field when the leadership i s just as important.

We perceive Aaron Rodgers and Desmond Bishop to be better leaders, because their teams won and because people tell us they are. However, we do not have sufficient evidence to really make that justification in my view.

I appreciate that we are having this discussion, because it is one that we have often on this website. I look forward to people’s responses and would not want to dissuade anybody from commenting on this topic. However, I just wanted to be clear that my views on this matter might differ somewhat from others.

Either way, great win last night for Cal! Biggest win for Cal in years! GO BEARS!

Most people are followers, even incredibly talented football players; yet, they intuitively look to someone to “lead” them. Most do not want to lead because that special person becomes responsible for everyone on that team, not just himself, etc., etc. In any successful endeavor, there is only one leader; the rest are followers. Rodgers is the leader of the GBP team; without him, no Super Bowl Championship. And, as long as he remains “uncorrupted,” by life’s many temptations, he will continue to retain the gravitas that allow grown men to follow him.

Kendricks and Cattouse on defense.
But really no one on offense…. Marvin? Mitchell? Anthony? they are the only key senior players and they all seem to be quiet.

With that very important QB competition this Spring, it would behoove Coach Tedford to ask Rodgers to come and give those guys a talk about how he evolved as a leader, what it takes, etc.: it could spark one of those guys.

Seems like a pretty tough nut to crack. In many instances, finding out which kids are leaders is like finding out whether Schroedinger’s Cat is still alive: you really don’t know until you need to know.

Kids that are “leaders” in HS may not end up being so in college. Different team dynamics, personalities, chemistry, pressures, etc all can either spur latent leadership or quash existing leadership.

What seems to be the case is that the character kids – the ones who realize that school is important and have a good humility about them – usually end up being the ones that can assume the leadership role. But then, that’s no guarantee either. After all, just because Aristotle is a Greek and all Greeks are men doesn’t make all me Aristotle.

These great team leaders are rare by definition, otherwise every team would be full of them. Hopefully we’ve got one or two of them in the lockerroom now. But I doubt very much that you can tell which kids will end up being the leaders when recruiting them.

1. I believe in sports leadership. Leaders in sports, particularly physically aggressive ones like football and basketball, are important to motivate teammates to train, perform, and adjust in performance. Players, young players in particular, frequently need to be pressed to excel and to stay on the edge of effort. I think the risk of injury by playing football at this level requires some temporary subversion of usual human defense mechanisms, and just as soldiers going into battle need to be inspired to face danger, players need to be inspired to play at the high level of aggression to win. This is not chess or cross-country.

2. I think leadership is also related to ability and clutch performance. I think they are related but not identical. Leaders are usually the best performers and are usually the ones teammates look to come through in the clutch. There are examples of players who are not the team’s star assuming leadership roles, but this seems to me usually guys who can fire up the team trough a good speech (see for example this rouser by James Bethea in 2003: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_fShwQlANc) which is important but not the same as setting the tone for a whole team for a whole season. Simply put, if the best player is not putting in the extra time it is harder for the rest of the team. If the best player is not calling out laggards, it is harder for criticism to take hold.

3. Missing Barry and the empiricists can give us the evidence on clutch. Having watched Michael Jordan in his prime, I believe in it. Similarly, I think leadership is as good a name to give anything to describe why one similarly talented team beats another. I think Cal basketball could have used more of whatever that is to win on Saturday, although it is impossible to fault any of the players individually (They all played great, but they made the little mistakes at the end that cost the team the W. You’d like to think a leader would have asserted himself and made the play or inspired the play that made the difference.)

I expect Cattouse to be the vocal leader of the defense. On the offensive side of the ball, I’m not so sure. I’m hoping someone steps up.

I noted much of this article’s point to elaborate on just how excited I was about a week after Chris Martin gave his verbal for us last year and began recruiting in earnest, not just talking the talk, but being forward enough to lure in other recruits drawn to his personality and aura.

It is cliche how one person can change a basketball team dramatically (being only 5 on the court), but I think few people realize how important one person can be to a football team. It doesn’t even have to be a skill position, though clearly the QB’s role makes personality that much more important. A guy who never plays can have huge impact by merely saying (or not saying, maybe just a nod) the right thing to the right guy at the right time. Confidence breeds confidence.

It’s not just a matter of believing you can do something such that others believe it too. I think it is more impactful when you find those people who make others believe in themselves (like – looking at someone such that they know you believe in them). Most good coaches are like this. When you get a player like this, a “WE are going to do this” over an “I can do this” player, you have something special.

I do wonder what would have been with Martin, especially on top of the defensive recruiting going on, damn.

Finding players like that isn’t easy, and it’s often a crapshoot. You never know how hard a player is going to work until they get here, or whether they will stay dedicated to football. You never know how well a player can inspire others until you see them in action, until you read the quotes by fellow teammates (look at how former Cal players talked about Rodgers and how current Packers talk about him now, and you can just tell that he has the characteristics of a great leader).

I’m just observing that teams with strong leadership who can back up their confidence with execution generally do not lose. Think about teams led by Rodgers, or teams led by guys like Bishop and Marshawn. We were only blown out maybe once, but in general we were in every game we played. That has changed since then.

“bended” is more of an adjective than a verb… “bent” would be a better choice.

/justfyi

If we accept the argument that teams reflect the personality of their coach, and I think to a significant degree they do, then one of the challenges Tedford faces is his brand of leadership—while strong—is not something that many guys can pull off.

There are inspiring vocal leaders in the mold of Joe Kapp, who can lead a group of young men anywhere simply with their words. And there are ironman leaders of persistence who lead by the example of their Rocky Balboa FTW determination. Then there are the guys, like Rodgers (and, I think, Tedford) who simply lead by the example of their excellence. They’re soft-spoken, not particularly charismatic to listen to, but they work their perfectionist asses off. And when their own play lives up to their high standards, they can be among the most effective leaders there are. But when times get tough, this last group can struggle. The Kapps of the world will always inspire (e.g., Big Game 1986), and so will the Rocky Balboas. Those in the mold of Rodgers, though, have a much harder time leading if their own performance is falling short of the perfection they demand.

Perhaps this is what we’ve seen of late with Cal. With a few noteworthy exceptions, I think Tedford tends to recruit guys like himself and Rodgers. This isn’t a bad thing, at all. However, I think these type of guys have difficulty picking themselves up off the mat when, for whatever reason, it’s just not working. This is all, of course, speculation, but maybe it helps explain the collapse of 2007 and the recent track record of blowout losses.

Leadership and team cohesiveness/persona is very important, and it appears Cal football, over the past few years, has lacked that. It’s not based on what I’ve heard, it’s based on observations of the team as a whole:

- the entire team shows up flat for games they should win
- team gets blown out at home but sideline demeaner suggests (“eh, we’re a 5-win team”)
- no “we’re going to dominate you now” mentality against high level opponents. No 4th and 1 go-for-its, no blowing people off the LoS, airmailing wide open receivers, etc.

I’ve played on good teams with good and bad peer/player leadership and the most fun I’ve ever had was on the team that played so soundly as a team. While there were “leaders,” they also didn’t have to get on guys for stupid shit.

I’d also say certain positions (QB, O & D-line, MLB, S) are better places for leaders. You win up the middle with a strong core who do a good job of leading. Sure there are exceptions, but this is a good place to start.