Players-Only Meeting Called

[walksalone]

I guess I'm a little surprised this didn't occur after UCLA...

 

[lo country]

I think that there is also the inherent belief (IMO) that a permanent Captain allows people to continually "hold others accountable" in a model set at the beginning of the season. Permanent captains would be on guys a$$es from the jump. Like a poster stated above, Peter described an almost "Lord of the Flies" atmosphere. Those guys policed themselves and were probably more scared of each other than the staff. There was an incredible amount of holding each other accountable.

Again, IMO, it seems like if a guy is captain this week, he won't speak up the following week because "it is not my team anymore". I like permanent guys, maybe throw in additional "game captains" to walk on for the coin toss. That would give motivation to other kids to excel during games and practice to walk out as a coin toss game captain.

 

[Nebula]

Stop the presses.

Hahahaha! That made me laugh pretty hard.

"Enlightening insight, great sage! What Daedalus-esque bewildering puzzle did you solve to bring us this great gift of wisdom?" :lol: , +1

 

[FriendlyLurker2007]

good, hope the meeting wakes em up and they play harder

 

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

"The guys that are perceived as leaders

That concerns me a little.

It shouldn't.

It does and here's why. People can perceive themselves as leaders all they want, but if the people they attempting to lead don't buy into it, it's worthlesss. You may perceive Players X,Y and Z as team leaders while I perceive Players A, B and C as leaders on this team.

 

[Count 'Bility]

"The guys that are perceived as leaders

That concerns me a little.

It shouldn't.

It does and here's why. People can perceive themselves as leaders all they want, but if the people they attempting to lead don't buy into it, it's worthlesss. You may perceive Players X,Y and Z as team leaders while I perceive Players A, B and C as leaders on this team.

May perceive themselves, but in this case, I think that statement is in reference to the select few that the rest of the team perceieves as leaders. Now they're just standing up and being heard. Again, we as fans need to cool with the microcritiquing of every word spoken. This meeting is a big plus. Obviously the team has figured out there's some psychological issues or they wouldnt have done this.

 

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

"The guys that are perceived as leaders

That concerns me a little.

It shouldn't.

It does and here's why. People can perceive themselves as leaders all they want, but if the people they attempting to lead don't buy into it, it's worthlesss. You may perceive Players X,Y and Z as team leaders while I perceive Players A, B and C as leaders on this team.

May perceive themselves, but in this case, I think that statement is in reference to the select few that the rest of the team perceieves as leaders. Now they're just standing up and being heard. Again, we as fans need to cool with the microcritiquing of every word spoken. This meeting is a big plus. Obviously the team has figured out there's some psychological issues or they wouldnt have done this.

That'll never happen in our lifetimes ^_^

 

[krc1995]

I believe in yearly Captains. The relationship the Captains build with their teammates and coaches is constantly evolving as the year progresses. Why start from scratch each week? They really need continuity and consistency that spans the entire season.

 

[SuperBigFan69]

Bottom line is, yearly, weekly, daily captains won't change a slow kid into a fast kid and won't make a bad tackler a good one. So, sure it is nice to "glorify" it one way or the other and mention that "in the past Wistrom and Peter blah blah blah, but, it really doesn't work that way. Look at all those amazing players that Wistrom and Peter were playing with, being a captain was easy because you did not have to do anything except make sure the guys on the team did not get totally wasted at the bars on the weekend or at the very least, just not get caught.

 

[I am I]

I think that there is also the inherent belief (IMO) that a permanent Captain allows people to continually "hold others accountable" in a model set at the beginning of the season. Permanent captains would be on guys a$$es from the jump. Like a poster stated above, Peter described an almost "Lord of the Flies" atmosphere. Those guys policed themselves and were probably more scared of each other than the staff. There was an incredible amount of holding each other accountable.

Again, IMO, it seems like if a guy is captain this week, he won't speak up the following week because "it is not my team anymore". I like permanent guys, maybe throw in additional "game captains" to walk on for the coin toss. That would give motivation to other kids to excel during games and practice to walk out as a coin toss game captain.

As long as we're all throwing our glory years out there I'll say from my experience, which includes college football and a dad as a coach:

There are inherent leaders everywhere in life. Especially a "mans game" like football. My teams were always good (except my senior yr of college, we were AWFUL, after a coaching change, no less) and everyone pretty much knew who the BMOC were.

Captains were elected after 2-a-days at every level except that senior yr of college, which was a week to week basis. Starters were named a week before the 1st game. It was a "c$%k-of-walk" attitude. The starters and especially the captains were on players EVERY day in practice. When a starter got after someone, they listened. When a Captain spoke or got after someone, EVERYONE listened.

Respect was earned and new guys/underclassmen had to work twice as hard. When they earned the respect, it was real and they became "future leaders" of their class peers.

My bro and I were just talking about all this today actually. I kind of have a theory that the brand new guys coming in get iPads at their locker. They get acess the the pool table. They have all the gear and swag that veterans get.

I remember when there was a crappy section of the lockerroom where underclassmen were. We got the 1st pick of numbers, the best seats on buses, etc. Those things were earned and everyone knew right away who had been there long enough and actually performed to earn them. Some veterans hadn't earned it. They didn't get the 'choice' stuff.

So, why not hand out Blackshirts to those who earn it? How badass for a freshman like Banderas to come in next year and see guys like Ciante, Green, Ankrah wearing a blackshirt?

Make the freshman and soph who aren't in the three-deep be in a lockerroom that doesn't have all the bells and whistles. Make these kids EARN stuff, and let the veterans have some ownership and captaincy and blackshirts, giving the youngs someone to look up to and somehting to aspire to.

 

[scarletNcream]

I think that there is also the inherent belief (IMO) that a permanent Captain allows people to continually "hold others accountable" in a model set at the beginning of the season. Permanent captains would be on guys a$$es from the jump. Like a poster stated above, Peter described an almost "Lord of the Flies" atmosphere. Those guys policed themselves and were probably more scared of each other than the staff. There was an incredible amount of holding each other accountable.

Again, IMO, it seems like if a guy is captain this week, he won't speak up the following week because "it is not my team anymore". I like permanent guys, maybe throw in additional "game captains" to walk on for the coin toss. That would give motivation to other kids to excel during games and practice to walk out as a coin toss game captain.

As long as we're all throwing our glory years out there I'll say from my experience, which includes college football and a dad as a coach:

There are inherent leaders everywhere in life. Especially a "mans game" like football. My teams were always good (except my senior yr of college, we were AWFUL, after a coaching change, no less) and everyone pretty much knew who the BMOC were.

Captains were elected after 2-a-days at every level except that senior yr of college, which was a week to week basis. Starters were named a week before the 1st game. It was a "c$%k-of-walk" attitude. The starters and especially the captains were on players EVERY day in practice. When a starter got after someone, they listened. When a Captain spoke or got after someone, EVERYONE listened.

Respect was earned and new guys/underclassmen had to work twice as hard. When they earned the respect, it was real and they became "future leaders" of their class peers.

My bro and I were just talking about all this today actually. I kind of have a theory that the brand new guys coming in get iPads at their locker. They get acess the the pool table. They have all the gear and swag that veterans get.

I remember when there was a crappy section of the lockerroom where underclassmen were. We got the 1st pick of numbers, the best seats on buses, etc. Those things were earned and everyone knew right away who had been there long enough and actually performed to earn them. Some veterans hadn't earned it. They didn't get the 'choice' stuff.

So, why not hand out Blackshirts to those who earn it? How badass for a freshman like Banderas to come in next year and see guys like Ciante, Green, Ankrah wearing a blackshirt?

Make the freshman and soph who aren't in the three-deep be in a lockerroom that doesn't have all the bells and whistles. Make these kids EARN stuff, and let the veterans have some ownership and captaincy and blackshirts, giving the youngs someone to look up to and somehting to aspire to.

I agree. Coming from a business aspect, I worked for a company for about 18 years and we went through upper management every 8 months. Do the math, I had over 20 bosses in my tenure. Only a few of us shrived to do our best, the majority ran and hid, profits were all over the place and NOBODY wanted to be a market manager. Most got the attitude, "He'll be gone in 6 months" and just didn't produce to their potential.

 

[The Dude]

"We need more leadership from the players"

-Players call a "players-only meeting"-

"This is the worst thing that could happen!"

I mean, WTH guys? WTH do you want?

 

[I am I]

^

i want bo to have the players elect permanent captains. 4 of them per year. have 1 guy elected per week, each game.

give out 11 blackshirts and add the players later who contribute heavy the week before the 1st conference game

 

[True2tRA]

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

:wasted

I miss KcHuskers old avatar. Damn that girl was hot!

 

[True2tRA]

"We need more leadership from the players"

-Players call a "players-only meeting"-

"This is the worst thing that could happen!"

I mean, WTH guys? WTH do you want?

I wouldn't mind some of this................