I am breaking a thought I had in an earlier thread into a new topic. We had mentioned Eric Mayes, one of the captains from 1997. The kid was a walk on who earned a scholorship and was elected captain. He blew out his knee and missed most of that season, but I have a great memory of him throwing down his crutches, grabbing hold of big Jon Jansen and hopping out to take the coin flip against OSU. That kid took being a captain very seriously. He was a huge part of that season even without hitting the field much. He was a vocal and enthusiastic leader and was someone the guys rallied around. I don't know if having or not having season captains is going to have an effect one way or the other, but in that particular year, I think that kid had a huge effect.
Value of captains
There is no way to back either side of the debate up with facts, it's just opinions, but why can't a game captain be a vocal leader. Being a team captain and being a leader on the team don't have to be the same thing.
You can be a leader without being a captain.
Captains didn't help much against OSU 2004-2007.
But I'm pretty sure that no matter what Big Jake said mattered. It wouldn't have mattered if he was a captain or not players like that you respect. I generally agree more with the side that you don't have to have set captains because the leaders of the team will always step up.
Umm, I don't know how anyone can think that leadership is overrated. For instance, we lost a lot of guys prior to last year but also there was a huge lack of leadership as well. There were a lot of "Lloyd Guys" and I have no doubt that it had an effect on the rest of the team.
So, yes, I used to think it was no big deal that RR didn't do captains. But if I had one thing to argue with him over, it would be to instill captains. I do think it is essential that every successful team have strong senior leadership.
senior leadership. but his "game captains" went 33-5 his last 3 years at WVU so.....yea captainship is overrated. you need team leaders, they don't have to be named pre-season captains though.
Obviously hindsight is 20/20 but if RR was going to do full-year captains rather than game-specific, last year would have been the ideal year for that (get the seniors on his side, have that extra leadership in the locker room).
Perhaps I'm too big of a Bo fan, and have read all his books. But I just think it is valuable to have certain people on the team that crack the whip and lead by example.
33-5 but his big game record was miserable. That is my knock on Long, Henne and Hart. For three guys who seemed to be good leaders, they rarely got their teams ready when it counted. 4-0 vs. iowa is nice, 0-4 vs. OSU is unacceptable. The bowl win vs. Florida is one exception, but overall, leaders need to have their teams focused and ready for the big games. When the chips were down at WVU, nobody stood up and the house of cards came crashing down. See Pitt. 2007
what was your point exactly? i don't see much of anything that paragraph. RR went 33-5 and over that span beat georgia in atlanta at the sugar bowl and his players blew the doors off of oklahoma in the fiesta bowl. yea they lost to pitt 13-7, their FG kicker also missed 3 chip shot FGs that would've won the game despite how poorly they played. USC has season long captains too and they somehow manage to lose to oregon state every year. season long captains doesn't equal better leadership, having good leaders on your team does.
not to mention pat white got hurt and missed a huge portion of the game
There were a lot of other factors in those games besides Long, Henne, and Hart's leadership abilities.
I don't think that you mean to say this but you seem to imply that they would have won those games if they were better captains. I think we can all agree that that's not the case.
i no rite n wuts the deal with the black qbs? i hope hes gun move dem to wr like llyod wud am i rite?
And the reason for negative points suddenly becomes clear to me.....
Because I'm that much better than you?
What? No. It's because your comments in this thread are not adding anything of value to the forum post, but instead are off topic, mildly annoying, slightly racist and just in general not worth reading.
My comments were entirely on topic. I replied to a stupid post with stupid content with something on the same level.
The OP made a comment on captains and "leaders need to have their teams focused and ready for the big games" and then you replied with "n wuts the deal with the black qbs?" Yup, that is TOTALLY on topic. Sarcasm has it's place in the world, but this isn't mlive.
I just assume if someone is criticizing RichRod, it's because he's a racist.
Good god man, it's because you said "wuts the deal with the black qbs?". I don't care if you are joking or not, do you really not see how that comment could be seen as racist?!
I don't know, you seemed to get that it was sarcasm.
I am not sure how posing a question about game captains vs. season captains is criticizing RR. I was really just thinking about how good of a captain Mayes was, and how I think for one year, captains really seemed to make a difference. There were a lot of things that separated that team from normal years, and is probably why they went undefeated. I also mentioned other years that had full season captains that didn't seem to go as well.
into Craven Morehead before our very eyes. What happened? You used to be a good poster.
You don't like Boytaurs?
EDIT: I once made a post on here saying nobody gave a fuck about how many games won in the days when Dartmouth was a national power... and I wrote a diary made up of American Psycho quotes. I'm the same person I always was... maybe it's MGo that's changed.
been better Michigan Men, they'd have been better leaders.
wait, did i get that backwards? oh screw it-
BOOOOOOO!!!! BE better at leadership!
I understand your sentiments Turbo because I thought just as you are thinking now. But after I gave RR's philosphy some thought it makes sense. He is trying to foster the belief in every kid taking the field that they/their leadership/their input/their play effects the game. If you play "all in" to coin the phrase for the year, then you are a captain of the team. It makes sense if it is something that the kids that play begin to covet, to be recognized as a captain for their play on the field.
It is like getting the game ball. What might be a good idea is to recognize the guy who gets the most honorary captains for the year, give him a special award. Start some new tradition.
So I am still at the wait and see approach on this one.
You can be a game captain more than one time per season, right?
Most captains are captains for a season, but if you mean RRod's weekly captains, yeah, somebody could be a weekly captain all year, I think.
I did mean RR's weekly captains.
The leaders vs captains thing to me is bizarre because in my experience the leaders were your captains. Back in my playing days I was hands down the best player on my team (and district) Junior and Senior year but didn't get to be captain either time. I was pissed my senior year and my coach took me aside and told me how it isn't the best player, it's the best leader that gets the "C". I could lead on the field but after games and school I was always out partying and getting into mischief like that so he chose a player who was a leader on and off the field (sadly, my brother). He was a great leader too, I have to be honest (far better than I would have been) and on emotion alone got us wins in games we had no business even contending in. To me (and to me only perhaps) your leaders should be your captains.
It's not provable but I agree with that. I also think year long captains are better but who really knows
I think leadership is important. Yeah, I said it.
It doesn't take being a captain to lead. If you need a C on your chest to be a leader you are not the type of leader I want to be taking the field with.
i hate jason veritek too.
and raise it a fist bump.
"There is no way to back either side of the debate up with facts, it's just opinions"
I couldn't have said it any better.