There will be people who disagree with this point of view, and that's fine. None of us, including myself, knows the inner workings of this team.

There will be people who disagree with this point of view because they believe it discounts the effect of physical talent on the way the team is playing, and that's incorrect. There is an intimate link between leadership and physical play in my opinion. Leadership affects physical play and vice-versa. Do we need more talent in some areas to become a great team? Sure, and that's not mutually exclusive with the viewpoint presented here.

What I see with this team at the present time is a vacancy in the leadership department. Prior to the Colts game I didn't believe this, but I believe this game revealed something about this team I wasn't aware of. As they say, "adversity doesn't build character -- it reveals it."

The issue as I see it is that the Colts game was a potential corner-turner for this team, one that could've established its identity as one of the NFL's truly good teams. When you can go on the road and win as a favored team in the NFL, you've reached a new level of development IMO, and it certainly would've been new for this team by its standards, given its recent history.

True leadership in such a situation would involve the following IMO:

• A player's feeling of ownership of his team
• His desire to see the team he "owns" and plays for become great
• His awareness of his team's developmental trajectory and how a "corner-turning" type of game fits into it
• His taking personal responsibility for winning such a game and helping his team reach a level of development that is essential for progress toward becoming a great team and eventually winning a Super Bowl.

When all those things are present, as they would be for a true leader of a team, the player responds by playing in a way that's atypically good by his standards. He comes out and seizes the moment and has a great game for the benefit of his team. He leads by example and inspires his teammates. He makes the statement, by the way he plays the game, that he's going to help his team move forward and reach a new level.

The issue as I see it here is that there isn't a single player on the roster about whom that can be said in the Colts game. IMO no single player had a game that was atypically good by his standards.

Were there players who played well in the game? Sure. Cameron Wake for example was his typically good self. But no player can be pointed to as having had an atypically good game by his standards. No player seized the moment for the benefit of this team's progress IMO.

I think there are players on this team who have leadership qualities, but I have to question whether there is anyone on the team who has truly assumed ownership of this team and its future direction.

In other words, there are lots of players who are contributing to this team and are certainly by no means dragging it down, but I question who exactly is going to step up and get this team over the hump. Who is going to lead the team to greatness?

When not a single player does that in a game of the magnitude of the one in Indy, I can't answer that question, and that IMO is a problem.

 

Your point is inconsistent with the Colts' 5-3 record (4-3 coming in, same as ours), the fact we were favored against them, and the fact that we lost by only three points and were in position to win at the end.

This wasn't a butt-kicking from a physical standpoint to the degree to which you've presented it IMO. In other words, there isn't a significant disparity in talent here.

Now, with regard to what you said about how we played, sure, I agree, and that could be entirely the effect of a lack of leadership.

When no single player is setting an example of taking the bull by the horns and playing atypically well by his standards in a game of that magnitude, what you have potentially is a team that's suffering from a lack of inspiration. If the team is uninspired, it probably isn't going to play well.

Like I said, there are certainly areas in which we need to improve our physical talent, and in that respect we agree, but I don't think that particular aspect of the team was responsible for the loss at Indy. What I think was responsible for the loss at Indy was that no player assumed personal responsibility for helping this team reach a new level of development by playing atypically well by his standards.

In other words, no player led it.

 

The defensive secondary played worse than normal. Look at how Sean Smith played against Arizona, for example. If he plays that way in Indy we probably win.

There is a reserve of ability Sean Smith has. He just didn't bring it to the table Sunday, and in a game of that magnitude, IMO that suggests he's not a leader.

Now, perhaps as you said, that means he needs to be replaced, but when no player on the team brings his "reserve of ability" to the table in a game of that magnitude, it also suggests there's a problem with leadership IMO.

What I suspect is that this team has leaders who can inspire the team when there is a motive in a single game, such as responding to the trash talk by the Jets, but no leaders who have truly assumed ownership of the team and its direction and can therefore provide the bigger-picture leadership that spans a whole season, where the inspirational motives week-to-week are derived from what the team is attempting to accomplish long-term.

 

You countered the point in the original post with generalities with which no one can disagree, and with nothing specific to this team, which IMO is weak and unconvincing response.

 

My larger concern is that, contract-wise, Dansby and Pouncey may be the only players of the leader ilk who are sure they'll be here long enough to take "ownership" of the team. Think of the number of other players who are in a similar position to lead who have expiring contracts.

How easy is it to take an ownership/leadership role on a team when you're not even sure you'll be on it next year?

 

This can be true and we can have the problems I mentioned with leadership as well. Both can be true.

Again, the point is that no player on our team stepped up in a corner-turning game and played atypically well by his standards.

The Chuck Pagano thing may be true, but it doesn't account for why none of our players stepped up in a game of that magnitude.

 

First, I'll analyze the situation however I'd like, thanks.

Second, if you take a deeper look at the games you mentioned I suspect you'll come away with the impression that the meaning of them them for the teams involved was different than this one was for us (i.e., a corner-turning game as a team favored on the road for the first time in a while, building on previous momentum generated this season). If you want to counter the point with something convincing and not a generality, you'll do that.

And if you decide to do that, drop the condescension as well, please. I'm no idiot, and I don't deserve to be talked to like one.

 

I've already addressed that here:

And with this hypothesis:

So I'll ask you then: what is your explanation for why, in a game that could turn the corner for this team, not a single player played atypically well? Why did seemingly no player grasp the magnitude of the situation and come out and play big?

 

This is based on only one game and for that reason is a tentative hypothesis. However, the fact that no single player played big in such a game is a stark finding IMO and for that reason deserves an explanation.

When I counter people here it may seem as though I'm more certain than I am that my explanation for that is correct, when in reality I'm simply demanding a counter explanation that takes into account all of the data specific to this team regarding this game and how it was played. A generality doesn't controvert this hypothesis because it fails to take into account the specific factors present on this team. We know this team. We can do better than that.

 

No one will ever know for sure, but I submit to you that players inspire each other. When Sean Smith is standing on the sideline watching his Pro-Bowl left tackle have a very poor game, he can hardly be inspired by it.

Now, is Sean Smith responsible for his own inspiration? Of course, but if he's watching his teammates lead the effort to win by playing very well in a game of big magnitude, it can have only a positive effect on him. This is why leaders are important. They inspire other people.

No one led the effort Sunday. No one. That's a stark finding IMO.

 

That's actually the data that disproves that we lost for physical reasons, ironically.

When you can explain why no single player played atypically well in a game of that magnitude, you'll start to disprove my stance.

 

You need to re-read the original post then.

When something is as tentative and hypothetical as this, the people who reply are typically going to be the ones who react strongly against it. You won't hear from the people who believe it may have some merit.

Now, if you react strongly against it and you can counter the idea with something logical, internally consistent, and that accounts for all the available data as I have, then we can have a real conversation and not a "rage fest" as you've called it.

 

I'll ask you then: why did no single player play atypically well in a game of that magnitude?

Wrong. A team can lose a game like Sunday's even when it has the requisite leadership, because an insufficient number of players may step up and play big, and/or the efforts of the players who step up and play big may be nullified by the game-changing mistakes of other players.

What we saw Sunday was that no player played big.

Again, explain that.

 

Well when we have no direct access to their character traits, we have to make leaps of faith based on how they play. Can those leaps of faith be wrong? Sure.

However, I submit that no player did anything in that game that represented the magnitude of the game. That game could've been a corner-turner in this team's forward progression, yet no one IMO played as though it was.

Did some players have good games? Sure, and I said that in the original post. But no player made the kinds of outstanding plays you'd expect when a team has within its mitts a chance to turn the corner as an organization.

Ironically, you saw tons of those plays the week before, when there was a situational motive (responding to the Jets' trash talk), but not against the Colts when there was a bigger-picture motive consisting of a huge leap in this organization's progression forward.

So again, the hypothesis is that we have leaders who can inspire other players when there's something to be pissed off about on a given week, but perhaps no one who has taken the kind of ownership of the team to inspire others in a game that can redefine the identity of the team from a big-picture perspective.

IMO it's quite possible that they just don't have the grasp of that big picture, and that would most likely stem from not feeling a sense of ownership of the team. Otherwise there would've been at least a single player who came out and played big.

 

And I don't have a ton of conviction about it either, but I do think you've hit on what could be at the root of why the team made tons of plays against the Jets, when there was a small-picture, situational motive (responding to trash talk), and almost none of those kinds of plays in a game in which there was the big-picture motive of redefining this team's identity.

Something has to account for that difference IMO, and personally I can't think of a better explanation than the one I've given. I'm open to alternatives, however, as long as they account for all the data specific to this team.