"Lack of Leadership"

Submitted by LKLIII on
Since I've never played on a football team, and since I certainly don't know anybody in or around our football program, I am largely ignorant and have a general question. Hopefully the board can help me out here:

Over the past year or two, we've heard general euphemisms regarding a "lack of leadership" in the team. What---specifically--does this mean?

The reason I ask is because although I haven't been around our program and I haven't been on a football team, I have been on other sports teams. And the successful ones had just the right balance of chemistry between work ethic, encouragement, but then guys keeping each other accountable also, but in a way that doesn't generate resentments and cliques within the team. Obviously with a large team some closer groups of friends will form, but at least you don't want animosity between groups. But at the same time teams need to keep things loose and fun so it isn't merely a brutal grind day in & day out to the point where people get burned out or dread every day of practice.

It's a complex balancing act, which means when people say "a lack of leadership" it could be a whole host of issues.

Is it a lack of work ethic? Are the guys partying too hard, not holding each other (including themselves) accountable, and suffering from BMOC disease? Or is it the opposite? Are guys taking things too seriously, wound up too tight to the point where there's no comradarie and team pride, and back-biting, blame shifting, practices are just grinds where everybody is on edge, etc?

Again, I'm by no stretch an insider, nor do I know the dynamic of the team currently. But I kept hearing the "lack of leadership" euphemism over last year, once in a blue moon you get hints from certain players in the media that we didn't "play like a family" but otherwise the euphemism stays just that--a euphemism.

And I don't want to air dirty laundry or stir things up regarding specific players on this board. I'm just wondering what people were referring to specifically with our team over the past year or two when they say "lack of leadership". Is it one or two common problems we keep having? Or just a hodgepodge of small reasons? Could people use concrete examples--even if specific player names are not used (example: player X does this; player Y and Z respond by doing that).

ijohnb

June 16th, 2014 at 9:50 AM ^

guess is that some of those designated for leadership roles (possibly one specifically) were not conducting themselves in a manner to be modeled after.  I also think that you saw those players recruited by RR and those recruited by Hoke kind of fracture.  Different coaches expect different things from their players and recruit different kind of kids for reasons specific to them.  I don't think there was a lot of cohesion between the old guard and the new last year.  I think some of those issues will be eliminated this year. 

yossarians tree

June 16th, 2014 at 11:48 AM ^

Teams in the same program are going to be different, year to year. Guys leave, new guys come in, guys mature. Read Bacon's book on Bo Schembechler. Bo knew what leadership was, when he had it and when he didn't. I don't think we, from the outside, can really know what "it" is, but the guys inside do. You bet your ass they do, and they can't have a great team without it.

MGoGrendel

June 16th, 2014 at 5:14 PM ^

I've coached many 8U through 12U teams over the years. Some have more talent, but worse results than those that seam to be on a mission. If the leaders don't care about winning, no one will. If a couple of kids are encouraging and pushing the rest, we seam to always get that clutch hit for the winning run.

Mattavious

June 16th, 2014 at 9:52 AM ^

It's probably a mix of everything you talked about.  If you are considered a leader in a football setting, it means that when you walk out on the field, everyone pays attention to what you are doing.  They look to you to lead by example because you take initiative, you hold yourself as well as others accountable, and you have confidence in yourself and show confidence in the team.  

jBabyFlightSchool

June 16th, 2014 at 9:55 AM ^

The media loves to report that there was strong leadership when a team has a winning season and a lack of leadership when a team has a less than satisfactory season. I don't really buy it either way; it's an easy article to write.

ijohnb

June 16th, 2014 at 10:00 AM ^

usually because teams with leadership have good seasons and teams without it don't.  It is an easy article to right because it is almost universally true.  Leadership is usually not about what player gives the most badass pregame speeches or keeps morale high, it is about how those in leadership roles conduct themselves on and off the field.  A team takes on the identity of its best players, for better or worse.

reshp1

June 16th, 2014 at 10:09 AM ^

It's chicken and egg. It's easy to be positive when things are going well, just about anyone can be a good leader when the situation is easy. All you have to do is not rock the boat. When things start going south, that's when bad leaders start showing their lack of leadership skills, which manifests in things like yelling at other people, embarrassing teammates, playing the blame game, etc.

ijohnb

June 16th, 2014 at 10:18 AM ^

argue that the lack of effective leadership is there the entire time even during the good times before things start going south.  When things go poorly on a team with good leadership, the team is able to redefine its goals, identify and play for worthwhile silver linings, and make a "good" thing out of less than ideal circumstances (aka everything about John Beilein).  We had a complete all systems leadership failure last year including the coaching staff.

4godkingandwol…

June 16th, 2014 at 10:21 AM ^

... Lack of leadership is usually a lazy catch all excuse for failure. Was it on field leadership, was it discipline, was it inability to motivate, was it bad game planning, bad training, etc... Leadership is too broad a term to pinpoint exactly what the problems were that led to poor performance, but it is a convenient general term that people too lazy to dig deeper or unwilling to admit the truth use as reasoning.

Avon Barksdale

June 16th, 2014 at 9:58 AM ^

I truly think last year's team felt like after the Notre Dame game they were serious contenders. We had just dominated a team on national television that played for the BCS Championship nine months prior. When we barely scathed by Akron and Uconn, the team lost its confidence. After the PSU and MSU losses, it was clear the B1G title was out of reach.

Personally, from playing on teams, when you set a goal in the beginning of the season, and that dream is dashed before November rolls around, it's easy to see a team become fractured. I truly believe that's what led to the demise of the 2013 team.

JTrain

June 16th, 2014 at 10:09 AM ^

Add all of the above to our rotation of young linemen, OC that, in my opinion, called some "stiff games" , flat out inability to run the ball and we've got serious issues. A lot of things have to fall in place to have a great season. After Akron last year it was pretty obvious, regardless of locker room rah rah leadership stuff, that it was going to be a growing year. I understand your question though. Why is it that teams like auburn come out of nowhere and just "click"? Frustrating for sure.

LKLIII

June 16th, 2014 at 9:59 AM ^

I could be wrong, but the "lack of leadership" talk was coming straight from coach or player sound bites, not something conjured up by the media. For reasons that are understandable, those players & coaches didn't get into specifics with the media. But as a fan who cares deeply about team, I am wanting more specifics if I can dig them up.

In reply to by ijohnb

SECcashnassadvantage

June 16th, 2014 at 10:06 AM ^

Hey, he didn't want to name names or stir up shit. But we have a winner Bob.

MFanWM

June 16th, 2014 at 1:42 PM ^

There were comments about many things, but I think that the concept that someone gets respect simply by becoming a senior can definitely lead to a sense of entitlement.  There were comments in the past about both a LT and QB who had struggled not with ability, skill or desire, but the ability to maintain their own leadership and understanding the personality and dedication to the position they should bring to the table.  

It is hard to change opinions that have been ingrained by years of your own example by simply saying "now this is important" and believing your past actions are going to be forgotten because now you are a "leader".  One was even quoted as saying he needed to "babysit" fellow lineman in an article a week or so ago...does not exactly inspire a lot of confidence or understanding of how to lead.

I am also guessing from the sounds of it, there were some divisions between recruiting classes and which players were playing and on top of it throw in a heaping helping of random as hell offensive schemes and you end up with infighting, losses and pointing fingers and the joy of rinse, repeat and recycle over the course of the season as it got worse.

BJNavarre

June 16th, 2014 at 10:06 AM ^

It only takes a few bad apples to really create a hostile environment in a large group. If your team doesn't have leaders that can keep the bad apples in check, then you're going to have problems. If your leaders are the bad apples, then everyone is going to be miserable, and you'll likely have mutinous behavior, etc.

GoWings2008

June 16th, 2014 at 10:07 AM ^

I never really played football, 9th grade was the last year I had any organized football experience.  However, I was on some very good swim teams in my HS and college years, and player/senior leadership meant that the members of the team did what they had to do in order to be successful when the coaches weren't around.  So, it touches on all of the things you mentioned and when the coach isn't there, he has confidence that the members of the team are focused and doing the right things without supervision.  Considering the limits on "organized practice time" the NCAA has implemented (scoff), this is an important factor in college sports.  Compound that by the continual raising of expectations on success by fans, university leadership and us the fans.  We are expecting a lot from these guys.  Which may bring to light how the perception of the Alabama's of the world are *maayyyybeeee* skirting a few rules?     Nahhhhhhh.....

AC1997

June 16th, 2014 at 10:13 AM ^

A close family member of mine got to attend an event with a few of the parents of the players last year.  Gant's dad was there, who is a former player himself, and said that there were some bad influences in the locker room that he was looking forward to being gone this year.  That's all he said and obviously it is unconfirmed third-hand information, but it adds to this speculation.  I also believe that Leadership-vs-Winning is a Chicken-vs-Egg debate that is impossible to figure out.  Winning teams supposedly have great leaders and losing teams don't, but which comes first? 

reshp1

June 16th, 2014 at 10:14 AM ^

The coaches only have so many hours to interact with the players, per NCAA rules. So much of the teaching and preparation is led by the captains and other upperclassmen players. This is especially true during the summer and offseason. A lack of leadership could mean the team isn't working as hard in S&C, or the young guys aren't being taught the things they need to transition to college football, or they aren't watching film on their opponents, or they aren't getting it done academically, etc. When Hoke says "this is the Seniors' team," it's not just coach speak. They really are the ones that have the biggest role in shaping the team's identity.

Ron Utah

June 16th, 2014 at 12:57 PM ^

There is only so much motivation a coach can provide.  Championship teams have players that hold each other accountable; what this means specifically is that practices are intensified enough that they help players become play-makers in pressure situations.

The best teams--in every sport--have practices that are harder than their games.  Coaching is a big, big part of that, but the players must take it on themselves to create that atmosphere and commit to sacrificing personal comfort, time, and desires in order to maximize every minute you're on the field.

My all-time favorite coaching quote: "Practice doesn't make perfect.  Practice makes habit.  When you practice well, you get better at playing well.  When you practice poorly, you get better at playing poorly."

LSAClassOf2000

June 16th, 2014 at 10:20 AM ^

"Didn't play like a family" is actually precisely what Frank Clark said back in the closing days of 2013, I believe, which would suggest that the comeraderie was definitely not where they would have liked it to be if that is indeed true. In the full interview, Clark put some of the blame on the players for what he termed as a "loss of will" to play as a team in essence. I know that Hoke has also said that he perhaps delegated things he shouldn't have to the team leadership in retrospect and would re-examine his own approach as well. 

Profwoot

June 16th, 2014 at 12:02 PM ^

If we're going to use generic catch-all concepts, this seems like a better one than lack of leadership. I've been on teams that had plenty of leadership but no one who wanted to follow, which bred resentment. Sometimes a team just doesn't get along, and "lack of leadership" doesn't accurately capture the problem.

HAIL 2 VICTORS

June 16th, 2014 at 10:21 AM ^

A combination of a select few players making some really bad decesions off the field (nothing to do with keeping a pig as a pet or riding the a bicycle built for two) and Al Borges chaotic and inflexible tactics might have been the much ado last year.

I am hoping and suspect Devin Gardner on the field and off as well as Coach Nuss on game day and in perperation will right the ship.

Blue in Yarmouth

June 16th, 2014 at 10:52 AM ^

I want to be up front and say that I have never played on a football team, but I went pretty far in hockey so I do know something about locker rooms and leadership on teams etc. 

I don't want to sound as if I'm tooting my own horn but in my hockey career from the time I started until I hit the CHL I was the best player on every team I played on (call it a big fish in a small pond if you like). The funny thing is, I was never a leader until my last year in the CHL. Leadership is a funny thing and just being the best at something doesn't make you a leader.

All of the leaders in the locker room that I played with over the years had one thing in common, they all took on the identity of the coach. Most times that was good, but occasionally it leads to problems. What I found was if you had a coach that was a great leader, you would almost always have a great leader in the locker room as well, who very closely mirrored the head coach whenever he wasn't around. I was only unfortunate enough to have a poor coaching staff  once in my career and the leadership in that locker room was toxic.

I guess what I'm saying is in my experience the coaching staff is where the leadership starts and ends really. Sure players take on the role of leaders at times when coaches aren't around, but when they do they typically will mirror the staff's example. If a player doesn't fit the same mold it's the staff's job to make sure that those individuals don't become the leaders (one way or another). 

If you look at what we have witnessed over the past couple of years and are honest in your assessment I think what you'll see is a staff that doesn't always take responsibility for the teams performance. Whether it is truely their fault or not, great leaders don't play the blame game in public, they accept the blame themselves and then behind closed doors straighten things out. That's not what we saw here. It was always "a lack of execution" and the like when things went wrong.

Now if you ask me, whether it was or wasn't a lack of execution a good leader would say (in my opinion) that they didn't prepare the team well enough or something along those lines. Then your players trust you, and the leaders emulate you. When they see a staff who are willing to point the blame at the players they lose that trust, but they still emulate what they see, which is not being accountable and shifting blame etc. 

Many people will disagree with what I've said and that's fine, everyone's entitled to their opinion. I'm just offering what has been my experience over a 20 year hockey career and that experience showed that player leaders take on the identity of their coaches and at the end of the day the "job" of leadership falls on the coaches. 

SECcashnassadvantage

June 16th, 2014 at 11:04 AM ^

A bad senior leader does hurt, and it is the coach who has to fix it. Hoke takes accountability after most every game saying "We have to do a better job of coaching the kids." The problem is he says this over and over. When the team comes out prepared and fired up I will believe him. Hoke knew about Gibbons and Lewan and lied. I think he was forced to, but could have said no comment. I do think coach will turn it around, and this is just a hunch. Go Blue!

Blarvey

June 16th, 2014 at 10:57 AM ^

Have you ever worked with somebody who is always sighing, blaming others, and/or carries a cynical attitude? That is an example of bad leadership. People need to be held accountable to themselves and their team (or co-workers, etc.) and if they are too quick to lose control from a leadership position, this can affect the rest of the team. 

Positive leadership involves encouraging and mentoring the younger members of your team, setting an example for conduct, lifting the spirits of your teammates when they face adversity, and of course excelling on the field. Off the field it would include keeping teammates away from bad off-the-field influences, doing non-requisite workouts and drills, and discouraging anything that may reflect poorly on the team.

ontarioblue

June 16th, 2014 at 11:01 AM ^

Someone famous once wrote "winning cures all".  That would be so true of this program once we turn around the trends towards mediocracy and start to win consistently, especially against our bigeest rivals.

TESOE

June 16th, 2014 at 11:22 AM ^

Leadership starts with the coaching staff - after that it's hard to pin down.  Chemistry... I don't know where that comes from... but you know it when you see it.

Gardner was a huge leader last year.  Replay the OSU game.  The bowl game was an interesting juxtaposition.  This year is going to be special... and we may not win them all.   

We need some football... 

maizemama

June 16th, 2014 at 12:25 PM ^

in 2013 DG said he had a lot of trouble being a leader, especially on game days because he often likes to have some quiet introspection before games. He found he was needing to be more "out there" and verbally supportive of his teammates and he found that difficult. Hopefully last season gave him more experience and he's better at it now.

mackbru

June 16th, 2014 at 11:06 AM ^

Well, given how few key players graduated last year -- maybe a half-dozen or so important contributors -- that's a rather specific accusation.

HTV

June 16th, 2014 at 11:07 AM ^

I remember Lloyd Carr talking about the 1997 season and saying the team was trying to come up with goals for that season.  After some time deliberating, he said Charles Woodson, a guy who rarely says anything, stood up and said "why don't we just win".

From that day forward, everyone on that team took it to another level, and if someone was loafing, they were told about it.  They said if Charles was going 1 vs 1 in a drill, and the guy he was going up against was not giving full effort, he would tell him about it.

Basically, if the WR he was going against was going less than 100%, how was he to prepare himself to go up against guys that were going to give 100% on Saturday.

So, Charles was not a person who said a lot, but when he did, people listened because he was respected.  So either those teams are missing leadership, or the leadership is coming in the form that people aren't going to take to it. 

Somebody on this team, that is a hard worker and well respected, needs to step up and get everyone on the same page.  Hopefully we'll see that this coming season.

I dumped the Dope

June 16th, 2014 at 11:29 AM ^

A leader first has to have respect first, whether that's due to their herculean size & strength, dedication to the game, mad skills, etc.  More or less someone who is on top of their game and is obvious to others.

After that its a windy road.  One can lead with a carrot or a stick and neither is a 100% answer for every situation.  Some athletes are "head cases" and overblame themselves for a personal failure, other people play better when they are mad, some people overthink things (prob a field goal kicker) and fail at the task.  I think a team leader knows something individually about his teammates and knows how to get them off a "flat day" or to put a mistake behind them.

I recall hearing when I was in high school in Ann Arbor about one of the captains (think it was one of the Mallorys but can't recall) but the coaches setup orange cones on the goal lines in the stadium to run laps for conditioning (older school conditioning).  And so rather than run the shortest route, the captain ran his laps right next to the first row of the stands, taking the longest route possible and exceeding rather than just meeting the coaches requirement, and shortly thereafter, the team observed and this became the expected standard.  Myth or fact I'll never know but it impressed the heck out of me.

GoBluePhil

June 16th, 2014 at 11:28 AM ^

Did not embrace the younger guys last year. Lots of yelling and screaming and not a lot of guidance. That in itself would polarize a team and Hoke got the message and did not allow the seniors on this team to feel elite. No training with the Seal Teams, etc. This is a step in the right direction. Teams can't survive unless leaders lead by example. Leaders don't yell and scream at other players unless they are holding themselves accountable also. Once you are on a team you find out real quick who the good leaders are and who the wannabe leaders are. No matter. Teams can't survive a divided atmosphere.

BiSB

June 16th, 2014 at 11:30 AM ^

Leadership is a wholly case-specific thing. It is a real thing, and an important one.

But when people outside a group talk about leadership (or a lack of leadership), it tends to be in the same vein as "momentum," "desire," and "will to win": it's a post hoc rationalization. It is whatever a team is doing or not doing while winning, or doing or not doing while losing.  When Bill Parcells was winning, it was because he was a disciplinarian. When he was losing it was because he was a taskmaster.

A team that wins has good leadership because teams that win have good leadership. Teams that lose didn't want it bad enough because teams that want it bad enough find a way to win.

Njia

June 16th, 2014 at 12:13 PM ^

If I understand correctly, is that while "leadership" is a real thing, it is too often described in platitudes to account for its existence or lack thereof because it can only really be qualified not quantified.

If that's the case, I completely agree. The best "leaders" with whom I have ever worked or associated - and whom I attempted to emulate while serving in my own leadership roles - had a few definable tenants:

  • A willingness to serve the needs of others
  • Set the appropriate example of hard work and integrity
  • Balance carrot and stick to encourage the right behaviors and outcomes
  • Create an environment where failure is not the end of the world
  • Never let your team feel like their back is to the wall - always be standing behind them

None of those things can really be measured and media talking heads don't really bother trying.

white_pony_rocks

June 16th, 2014 at 11:50 AM ^

I feel like a leader in the locker room is somebody with 2 things, determination and charisma.  They have the determination to do whatever it takes to make themselves the best football player they can, they put in the time and energy, working out hard, lots of tape watching, etc.  They need charisma to make the other players to follow in their footsteps. They can't physically force the other players to spend their free time working on becoming better football players, so they need that special something that makes people want to follow them.

MGoStrength

June 16th, 2014 at 8:23 PM ^

Leadership is the catch-word that everyone says, but it's not so much leadership as it is team chemistry and it's very difficult to generate.  I've played college baseball and been a strength coach with two college football programs as well as many other college sports.  I've been an athlete and/or coach my whole life.  As a coach we try to instill qualities, language, and behaviors that are in line with leadership such as not allowing athletes to sit during strength workouts, never allowing athletes to say "I can't" and think of something else like "this challenges me, but I'm not going to quit", having shared experiences such as team functions, challenges such as setting up team competitions...anything that is a memorable shared experience.  This bonds people together and is basic group dynamics 101.  

 

Anyways, there are all sorts of things you can do as a coach to foster leadership and good team chemistry, but ultimately it depends on the unique personalities of the team.  And, no 2 teams are the same.  It happens all the time when a team with good chemistry performs better than a team with good talent but not as good of chemistry.  Beleif is a very powerful thing.  When you believe in yourself and you believe in the person competing next to you that is a fantastic feeling.  It's like Tony Robbins idea of synergy.  One plus one is more than 2.  The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.  Think of it like this.  You're watching a UM football game on your coach.  There is a great play and you get excited, but that's about it.  You watch the same play live at Michigan Stadium and you are on your feet screaming your head off, your heart is beating super fast, you feel like a million bucks.  That is synergy.  You feed off the other people at the stadium to create something that none of you could do on your own.  That is what leadership and team chemistry is all about.  And, although coaches can foster it, it's very dependent on players not only getting along, but liking each other, being willing to put each other ahead of themselves, and buying in.  

 

It also helps when you're best players are seniors because seniors get it.  They played on the road, they've played in all those difficult situations before, they've been through all the experiences before and have learned from their experiences.  Not only that but seniors are invested in their legacy and winning now.  They don't have any time left so they are willing to do anything to win every game...there is not next year for them.  Underclassman are not because they have time to create their own legacies so they don't have the same sense of urgency.  This is one of the challenges of the past 2 UM teams is that the majority of the talent was younger.  I think this will start ot shift as guys like Countess, Clark, Pipkins, Ryan, Morgan, Ross, Wilson, etc. are all upperclassman now.  The majority of starters on defense are upperclassman.  They will still be challenged on offense for another year though.  Anyways, I could write a book, but it's all along those lines.