Players-Only Meeting Called

[HuskerShark]

IMO, real good vocal leadership is the thing that has been missing during the last couple of years on the defensive side of the ball. Not enough fire in the guys' stomachs.

 

Hopefully that changes soon.

[Nebula]

I think that was the point of this meeting if you read the quotes. I know this, you know this, the fans know this, as well as coaches, and players. Not everyone is on the same page. Some players acting like leaders, giving direction on the field, when it should be coming from one person on both sides of the ball. When that one player is out, you need to know who is in charge. Something that has not been going on, and has caused tons of confusion on the field. Mental errors more than physical errors. As Pelini said, accountability. Be accountable for your OWN actions. Something the team is obviously not doing, and its better to hear it from the ones who are looking at the picture first hand, because in the end, your hurting yourself and the team.

 

Meetings at work are much different than player meetings in my opinion. Players have a sense of "brotherhood" and most have a huge line of respect. Business meetings are for what they are called, business.

I've been on a lot of teams in my life. Some teams were great, and some were god awful. All of my football teams, from 5th grade on, were horrible. On the bad teams, we had player only meetings, and nothing really changed. I still had terrible blocking in front of me, and made way more tackles than a CB should. And I sucked at tackling, btw. The good teams never had those meetings. There was a group of leaders, and those always seemed to be the players who worked the hardest while also having the most talent. That's the key. Your best players have to do grunt work. Then no one bitches about status or duties.

 

Morale is morale...it translates in my personal experience. A good work environment functions like a team in a lot of ways. I see where you're coming from, though. It's not the exact same thing. But...in some ways, it kind of is. My old workplace folded because the person who was supposed to be in charge used a lot of venomous words, and very little action. They never worked alongside the people they were supposed to lead. The most effective leadership, in my opinion anyways, is by example, not by announcement. I guess I'm just jaded by personal experience. Talking about turning things around and spending extra hours putting work in to actually turn things around are two entirely different things.

 

But the bigger point is, we definitely do need player leadership on this team. And this makes me feel like it might be time to start identifying who those people are in the Spring and Fall camps, and make them permanent captains for the season. Just my personal take, but I'd sure like to see set captains and Blackshirts handed out before the opener.

 

And you can maybe even see the captain selection and Blackshirt handouts as a special meeting where leaders are selected. I'm not saying that would be a cure-all. I'd just prefer that to our current methods regarding those two issues.

[Saunders]

Pretty sure we've had players only meetings the last 4 years. It's obviously worked wonders.

[Vizsla1]

Bo "wants an angry team, and that's what I got now"- angry coach and an angry team. I don't see anything going wrong here on out

[kchusker_chris]

Pretty sure we've had players only meetings the last 4 years. It's obviously worked wonders.

[Undone]

To the point about the need to elect yearly captains vs. not electing yearly captains:

 

Is there really that much of a difference? Whether the team votes for yearly captains, or whether the team collectively perceives/accepts/acknowledges indirect leadership, it's basically the same concept.

 

Even if yearly captains are elected, those captains can potentially suck at that title. I don't have a problem with the system we have now.

[Hooked on Huskers]

"The guys that are perceived as leaders

That concerns me a little.

Me too. Worst scenario, McCoy vs Hatfields thing.

[Nebula]

To the point about the need to elect yearly captains vs. not electing yearly captains:

 

Is there really that much of a difference? Whether the team votes for yearly captains, or whether the team collectively perceives/accepts/acknowledges indirect leadership, it's basically the same concept.

 

Even if yearly captains are elected, those captains can potentially suck at that title. I don't have a problem with the system we have now.

Fair question, and I honestly don't know. I'd tentatively say yes, it can potentially make a difference. If you are challenged to be a leader as a captain, I think for the right kind of kid, that can push them to take it more seriously than they might have otherwise.

 

Buuut...pure conjecture. Holes in that argument, acknowledged.

 

Really, I guess the idea is that the leaders emerge themselves in camp, and they're the obvious picks for captain because they've forced the issue through their effort and dedication and performance. So it's kind of an organic thing, not a manufactured title. I do think that having a permanent captain position would mean a hell of a lot more to most kids than a fleeting one game deal. If it's something only four guys get, and you've been bleeding on that field for 3-5 years with those guys, yeah, I think that could potentially add something into the mix.

 

But at the end of the day, leaders are leaders whether they're given the title or not. We've all seen instances where someone is supposed to be in charge, but someone supposedly beneath them is charismatic and competent and their lead is followed, not the declared head person.

[GSG]

"We need more leadership from the players"

 

-Players call a "players-only meeting"-

 

"This is the worst thing that could happen!"

 

 

I mean, WTF guys? WTF do you want?

[Count 'Bility]

"We need more leadership from the players"

 

-Players call a "players-only meeting"-

 

"This is the worst thing that could happen!"

 

 

I mean, WTF guys? WTF do you want?

It's derpachology. Nothing is ever good enough.

[Ratt Mhule]

We did this after a 3rd game loss in high school, didnt lose again until deep in the playoffs. Sometimes a group of guys need confronted by their peers as opposed to coaches to get the message through. This is a positive all the way. Though it's something that should be happening all the time.

We did this in highschool as well....I believe we lost 4 games in a row, our first 4. Well....we went on to win our next 4 against some decent opponents I might add. It meant a lot coming from guys I play with rather than my coach who I admired. I stood up and had a few words to say since I was the starting FB on the team. I guess it helped gel the team together more and brought a sense of urgency and ownership to the team. Not to brag....but I had a few 100 yard games after that player meeting. Take it for what it's worth.

 

[GSG]

Also, in my experience with rotating captains, it's been both good and not as good.

 

In high school, it was whatever. I think our coach just randomly picked guys. We all knew who our leaders were, whether they were vocal leaders or leading by example on/off the field.

 

In college, we had weekly captains and I honestly think it made the team better. Guys were busting their asses to every snap of every practice, getting guys into the film room, etc. to earn the honor of being captain for that week's game.

[HuskerNationNick]

"We need more leadership from the players"

 

-Players call a "players-only meeting"-

 

"This is the worst thing that could happen!"

 

 

I mean, WTF guys? WTF do you want?

It's derpachology. Nothing is ever good enough.

 

:laughpound Couldn't have been stated any better.

 

Everyone, and I mean everyone, including myself sees we need a change, now that there is change, some people question whether its good or not?

 

As long as we are doing something to try and improve where we are now, I am willing to accept it.

[HuskerNationNick]

Also, in my experience with rotating captains, it's been both good and not as good.

 

In high school, it was whatever. I think our coach just randomly picked guys. We all knew who our leaders were, whether they were vocal leaders or leading by example on/off the field.

 

In college, we had weekly captains and I honestly think it made the team better. Guys were busting their asses to every snap of every practice, getting guys into the film room, etc. to earn the honor of being captain for that week's game.

 

I am a firm believer on weekly Captains, even if its the same player consecutive weeks, its earned not given. Especially not given by seniority.

[papersun87]

I'm actually not wild about stuff like this. I hate to point to an extreme as an example, but I remember reading an account from Wistrom about his first year on campus.

 

Every practice, every meal together, every meeting in the "pit," or whatever they called that secluded place where those guys would meet and gladiator out on each other, was a player only team meeting. Those guys constantly policed themselves. There was no special gathering. Any time they were together, leaders were marking life hard on the newcomers. You had to earn what you got.

 

So, whenever a special meeting is called, my antenna goes up. It's basically an admission that things are not working. I distinctly remember having a big "employee" meeting at a place I used to work at. People were harangued, and there was this big statement about how "things were going to change." Well, as often happens, words were not supported by action, and nothing in fact changed at all. Except for my employment. That went from active to temporarily non-existent when the place shut down.

 

I don't know...maybe it will have a great impact on everybody. I just get wary when I hear about these deals. Then again, sometimes a certain oration or event can galvanize people. It's certainly happened before.

 

On these particular deals, though, I generally have a natural uneasiness.

Stop the presses.