Jack’s Blog

Many times I have heard the statement, “There’s no such thing as a born leader.”  Technically, this is true.  Otherwise, there would be an article in some paper saying, “Yesterday, a leader was born to Mr & Mrs.——.”  Leaders are people who climb the proverbial ladder of success and don’t give up until they get where they want to go.  Unless it’s inherited success, the entire ordeal takes quite a bit of time, often measured in decades.

For football players, once they get to the top, they have to compete with others in their field, or, rather, on the field.  The ultimate goal in football is the National Football League and, if the majority of people in the world were polled as to who the leader of an NFL team is, the answer would most likely be the quarterback.  People love arguing about sports.  Therefore, if the leader of the team is the quarterback, the majority of those disagreements are going to be about the QBs.

Many fans will claim that quarterback is the toughest position of any in any sport.  Especially during football season.  Then it’s the point guard (but that’s a blog for another time).  In any discussion where there’s no true way of measuring what’s right, it’s impossible to have a “winner.”  Case in point: I asked a friend of mine who played Division I football and coached on the college level to give me the three best quarterbacks in the NFL.  After some thought, his reply was, “Aaron Rodgers and the two Mannings.”  When I said, “Not Tom Brady or Drew Brees?” he smiled and thought about changing his answer until I brought up how many other regional fans would put on their list: Ben Roethlisberger, Phillip Rivers, Matt Ryan, Cam Newton, Joe Flacco, Robert Griffin III, Andrew Luck, Sam Bradford, Alex Smith, Mark Sanchez, Tony Romo, and probably others.  After last week, maybe not Sanchez or Romo but a good performance - and a win - next week and they make their way back into the discussion.

These guys are the best of the best at their position.  Are they successes?  Everyone who’s chasing success because they want to be happy ought to heed the advice of Albert Schweitzer:

“Success is not the key to happiness.  Happiness is the key to success.  If you love what you’re doing, you will be successful.”

From Kobe Bryant several years ago, who he said he was disgusted with himself for having an affair, to Tiger Woods, years later, who also held a televised apology, to the unfortunately named Anthony Weiner, who was forced into resigning his position, the public has seen high profile individuals paraded before them, whether on TV or in print.  There are others - Ben Roethlisberger, Plaxico Burress, Terrell Pryor, Chris Brown - who appeared before cameras and expressed remorse for their actions.

In nearly every case, the scenario is identical: a humbled man who wishes he were anywhere else, sincerely apologizing for past transgressions.  Usually the way it plays out is with, initially, an indignant denial, followed by additional, irrefutable evidence that finally results in a statement that sounds like “I’d like to apologize to my family, those who believed in me, my (team, owner, constituents), yada, yada, yada.”

The only thing missing is what all of us know each truly means.  “I’d like to apologize . . .

“ for getting caught.”

Michael Vick and Ben Roethlisberger made mistakes.  Who among us haven’t?  What makes their errors in judgment especially egregious is not that they’re high profile athletes (although that is something that ought to cross their minds when they’re out).  What their major errors were (giving them the benefit of the doubt by using the past tense), was being out with the same cats who were with them in their previous scrapes (once again, using a word that gives the benefit of the doubt).

Loyalty is an admirable quality - until those to whom you’re giving it to are assisting you in wasting God-given talents and screwing up what you’ve always wanted to do.  I’m not sure but I think it was John Maxwell who said:

“If you can’t change the people around you, . . . change the people around you!”

Magic Johnson and Michael Wilbon do a good job on television, whether they’re together or with others, with Wilbon being the better of the two, but not by the same margin Magic was the better of the two at basketball.  However, yesterday’s breakdown of the NBA playoffs, using a giant screen and modern technology (tap the screen twice to enlarge, slide your finger to the right for the team on the right to appear, to the left for the team on the left) was far from riveting for one major reason.

Although what I know about modern technology can be put on the head of a pin (and still have room left over for love Terry Bradshaw has for Ben Roethlisberger), the giant screen wasn’t what made this segment useless.  The absurdity of the entire piece was that both Magic and Wilbon (as each are known) picked every higher seeded team to win.  Not just in the first round, but the second round, the semis and, to cap it off, when the mega screen showed the finals as the #1 in the West Lakers vs. the #1 in the East Cavaliers, they picked the team who led the NBA in wins, Cleveland, once again, the “higher seed.”

Unless the network needed to show off its new purchase, why not just say, in less than a minute, “While we think the playoffs will be good basketball, each of us thinks the higher seeded team will win each series and, ultimately, the Cavs will dethrone the Lakers  - and then use the rest of the time to do one of those short pieces on an individual that shows another side of a guy the fans know only as a basketball player?

I wonder how many other people feel this way - or if anyone else even noticed.  While the two guys were enthusiastic about their selections and even claimed a couple of uncertainties (I’m not too sure about this one; it will be a great series, . . . ), they always went with “the chalk.”  Novelist Edgar Watson Howe made the statement that sums up the Magic/Wilbon piece:

“Half the time men think they’re talking business, they are just wasting time.”

Yesterday, we heard from Ben Roethlisberger and Santonio Holmes about off-the-field problems they encountered - a rape case that was dropped and a suspension for violating the league’s substance abuse policy, respectively - and how each of them is putting the problems behind them and getting on with their lives.

These were things we never heard of years ago.  Players had more privacy, the public saw them only for what they did on their playing surface.  That was before the Age of Information and the public’s right to know.  Being a card-carrying member of the public, I never knew I possessed the right to know, nor did I want it.

Yet, we can’t pity these guys because years ago, players (many of whom were superior in talent and character to today’s athlete - and possibly, inferior in both as well) were working for a fraction of their wages, wages which now include salary and ancillary income.

The mantra today runs from “deny, deny, deny” and “I’m sorry for my actions and the embarrassment I’ve caused my family, teammates, franchise” (naturally, the owner or owners, i.e. the guy who signs the mega-check) “and all my fans who’ve been so supportive through these troubling times” (that, pretty much, I caused and am the only one to blame, so it’s a wonder people, especially those who barely, if at all, know them, are so supportive in the first place). 

Fans deify them, then are astonished when they’re exposed as human (although not all humans, independent of their financial state, act in the same manner).  The Internet and ensuing information explosion have done one thing for the economy that politicians, try as they might, continually promise but have difficulty delivering - the creation of jobs.  There was never a need for some of the stalking “journalists” of today.  Now, it seems a good one (define that as you will) is in high demand.  Also, the number of talk show hosts has risen exponentially in the past two decades.  I often wonder what did these guys do prior to their current gig?

It’s just change and we all have to deal with it.  People get paid more now (in certain fields) but their lives are also more highly scrutinized.  Others can’t understand how the world as it is currently doesn’t implode.  Being someone in his sixth decade, I find myself struggling to deal with the philosophy imparted from Al Rogers, founder of GlobalNet, although I have more than a sneaking suspicion he’s got it exactly right:

“In times of profound change, the learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.”

If an athlete scores the winning touchdown, kicks the winning field goal or makes the game-winning tackle or interception, undoubtedly, there’s a feeling of jubilation.  Similarly, if, on the last play of the game, a player’s performance (this blog will deal only with football players, but this topic is true for any athlete in any team sport), is the cause of his club’s defeat because: a defensive lineman or linebacker had a ball carrier in his grasp, but didn’t “wrap him up,” only to see him break free for the game-winning TD, a DB got beat deep for a score when his team was up 6 or less, an “O” lineman was guilty of a holding call on the game-winning play, a running back fumbled inside the five going in for the game-winning TD, a receiver dropped the game-winner in the end zone, a QB threw a “pick-6″ or a kicker missed a chip shot after his team, down 1 or 2, drove the ball the length of the field.  Usually, there’s no consoling this poor chap.  These situations are the extreme and have a great effect (grow stronger or deflate and go away) on the person involved.  

But it’s during the other games, the ones that are competitive, but maybe not nail-biters, in which we can find out so much more about our teammates, those we coach or those we watch.  For all intents and purposes, there are four situations that can occur.  First, there’s the game the team wins and the player plays well.  Next is playing poorly and losing.  As far as emotions go, the former elicits feelings somewhere between contentment and elation, depending on the individual’s makeup, while the latter usually runs the gamut from disappointment to distraught.

It’s the final two scenarios which define the athlete’s character.  When the team wins, but the individual peforms below his skill level, what’s his reaction?  Can he separate the team achieving its goal despite the fact he “didn’t get his job done?”  Or does he put himself first and make comments derogatory to the game plan, or make excuses for his lackluster effort?  Is it OK to refer to the player as a “competitor” or could it be it the beginnings of dissension?  It’s a sad case when, in a team sport, where the goal is to defeat your opponent, that there are times you can’t even celebrate after you do. 

This is the time for the team leaders to step up.  The major dilemma for a coach is his goal ( or mandate) is to win.  Coaches don’t face the same issues as players.  Sure, there are some coaches who, deep down, know that, even though they won, they but did a poor job of preparing or, in their mind (and probably of their counterpart’s) feel they were out-coached.  But, there are so few people who are aware of this, it’s almost as if it didn’t happen.  Not so with players.  There will come a day - for even the superstars - when the team won despite them rather than due to their efforts.  The leaders need to intervene when a disgruntled player pops off or shows a negative attitude following a win.

Players understand and think like players much more than coaches do.  Coaches think like coaches. (And media members think like media members, but that’s a story for another time).  Empathy is the operative word and the right amount, shared at the right time, can defuse a potentially toxic situation.

The final option might be the toughest to deal with - for all concerned.  When the team loses, but an individual plays well - maybe even has a career day.  Is a running back supposed to be upset after he scored five touchdowns, ran for 250 yards but his team lost?  Yes!  Because that was the goal when the team took the field.

Difficult, sure, especially if it’s a coming out game for a back up.  The nature of the “team player” is to think, “What else could I have done to insure us a victory?”  The nature of humans, tough, is to think, “Man, what a game I just had!”  And if it is a breakout game for a sub, there might even be little thoughts of revenge or resentment, e.g. “I knew I could do that . . . if they only gave me the opportunity.”  Understandable, but still, after the game, it’s not like individual sports like wrestling, tennis, swimming, or track & field, when someone asks the athlete how’d you do and the answer is “Do you mean me or the team?”  The competitor may have won, but the team lost (or, naturally, vica versa), but after a football game (or any other team sport), everybody in that lockerroom has the same record. 

Think of the following names and see what images you conjure up: Peyton Manning (although it’s not too often he has a bad game, nor does his team lose very often), Terrell Owens, Ray Lewis, Eli Manning, Adam Vinateri, Jay Cutler, Tony Gonzales, Ben Roethlisberger, Teddy Bruschi, ________ fill in the blank with your favorite or least favorite ballplayer.

A quote that takes a little thought, but is interesting when you do think about it (in relations to sports - and life) is from Oscar Wilde:

“A red rose is not selfish because it wants to be a red rose.  It would be horribly selfish if it wanted all the other flowers in the garden to be both red and roses.”       Â

Today’s entry is one that explains how to be an effective in one of the most difficult leadership jobs in the country - that of an NFL quarterback.  After listening to the likes of Jay Cutler, we get a lesson in how to make football’s hardest position in which to excel, infinitely harder.  Complaining about anything distances a player from his teammates - especially the ones he needs to be closest to and command the respect of - the offensive lineman.

There are stories of a quarterbacks taking their offensive linemen to dinner at swanky restaurants and picking up the tab.  Sure, the QB makes boatloads of cash but have you ever seen what those “hogs” can eat?  Buying each one of their “O” linemen a Rolex (and not one of those knock-offs, either) can be expensive but, in case you haven’t heard, health insurance is quite costly these days - and a motivated offensive line can do wonders to increase the life expectancy, not to mention the job performance, of a quarterback.

All the tangible gifts aside, what must be at the forefront of every signal caller’s mind is a rule that was adopted about ten or so years ago that negatively affected his “boys up front.”  Apparently, the NFL decided it was time to hold all their players who weren’t playing by the rules accountable.   No, it had nothing to do with steroids or HGH.  This rule requires referees to, not only announce penalties, but to single out to the viewing audience, both at the game, and to the millions of fans watching at home or in sports bars, exactly which player committed the infraction.  This gave the offensive linemen, or as the legendary Keith Jackson refers to them, “The Big Uglies” (I’m sure, endearing Keith to the hearts of their moms) some publicity - and if there’s one thing that “O” linemen don’t want, it’s publiciity.

As if it’s not a thankless enough job, offensive linemen now have another goal to strive for, i.e. going through an entire game without getting their name mentioned.  So, to hear a quarterback complain about anything, especially lack of time to throw,  is not exactly going to strengthen the QB/O-line bond.

That’s why it was so impressive to hear Ben Roethlisberger, when questioned about how many times he’s been sacked, say it was his fault for holding the ball too long, waiting for the play to develop.  The word “sack” has a negative connotation for an offense and fans, since they’re not particularly educated (but think they are), immediately pin the blame on the guys who are supposed to allow the quarterback as much time as he needs to make the play. 

Big Ben spoke of his days in college days at Miami (not the “U” but the one that has an (O) after it) and how he was told he needed to get rid of the ball sooner, even if it meant “just throwing it away.”  He said he tried that strategy (although, admittedly not too long), but it just wasn’t in his nature.  If it meant he was going to take more hits, so be it.  He had the size (6′5″, 240) to absorb a hit if by taking it, a seemingly lost play could turn into a big gainer.

Most impressively of all was Roethlisberger publicly apologized to his linemen for making them look bad because he knew the average fan, once hearing the sack figures, would be critical of the “O” line - and “It wasn’t their fault; it was mine!”  Forget Rolexes and dinners - that statement alone created such loyalty toward their leader that Pittsburgh’s offensive line takes ownership for their leader’s safety and well-being.  Besides, a ring beats a watch anyday as the preferred choice of jewelry for an NFL player - especially for those whose only goal is anonymity.

Lenny Wilkens won a lot of basketball games - as a player and a coach.  After hearing the Steelers’ QB apology, he might have put him on one of his NBA teams, since Lenny is the one who once said:

“The most important quality I look for in a player is accountability.  You’ve got to be accountable for who you are.  It’s too easy to blame things on someone else.”

The opening game of the professional football season is always a thrilling time, even if it’s on a Thursday and this year’s opener did nothing but leave the fan wanting more.

First of all, the defending Super Bowl Champs were one of the teams involved and although they (the Pittsburgh Steelers) won, they did so only after being behind late and blowing a golden opportunity to win it in regulation.  The blunder was committed by three-time team MVP and four-time Pro Bowl wide receiver Hines Ward, not only a talented, but highly intelligent player.  It was the classic Cardinal Sin (one so bad, that, had Pittsburgh lost and he’d have tried to go to confession for it, he might have found a “Closed” sign on the confessional door).  The game itself was an overtime thriller, exactly what the true football fan wants (you’ve seen the commercials, “We’re not ready for this game to be over yet“). And it carried a couple sub-plots - one going into it and the other after taking a look at some stats.

Expanding on Ward’s miscue: with under a minute to go in the contest, after rallying to tie it at 10 with a field goal, Mr. “I’m Totally Cool And In Charge” (after being nervous as all get out at the beginning of the game and playing a horrible first half) QB Ben Roethlisberger directed an apparent game winning drive, (nearly) capping it with a strike to Ward.  The Titans (oh, yeah, they were the other team in the game) forced a fumble when Michael Griffin stripped the ball from Ward with a great effort, hammering it loose from the wideout.  Tennessee regained possession inside its own five and ran out the clock, sending the NFL’s season opener into OT.

Sub-plot number one involved announcer Cris Collinsworth, a very good player in his day and an even better color commentator, attempting one of the most difficult jobs (in terms of scrutiny and achieving success): taking over for a legend.  If you’re not sure of which legend I’m referring to, just go out and buy an NFL video game.  The answer will quickly be apparent.  If CC had to be graded on his first performance, it’s too early, as well as unfair, to assign him a grade.  But if it were a Pass-Fail arrangement, he clearly passed.

Near the end of the game, with Pittsburgh driving for the winning score (until Griffin swiped Ward), Collinsworth pointed out that all the time Big Ben had in the pocket was due to the Titans refusing to change their strategy of rushing only four men.  Their inability to put pressure on the Steelers’ QB was mainly due to how gassed their D-linemen were, the commentator noted.  He did seem to belabor the point but, in all fairness, the Titans never did try another tactic - until Pittsburgh went to the run.

Then, the “rookie” Collinsworth commented after two straight running plays, which netted the Steelers basically nothing, that they should just stick with the pass since they were having so much success with it.  On the “I’m not sure if he gets a positive or negative grade for this observation,” Cris did tell the viewers that Ward should have wrapped up the ball and fallen down, not only to avoid the fumble but because the Steelers didn’t need a touchdown - especially that soon - because it would have given the ball back to the Titans.  The problem?  He didn’t make mention of this until the game was into the OT period.  And he never once said “Boom!” like John Madden did.  Just in case you were stumped for that legend reference. 

This game also produced one of the most eerie statistics you’ll ever see.  In the Steelers last game (last year’s Super Bowl), Santonio Holmes won the MVP award with the following stats: 9 receptions, 131 yards, 1 TD.  His numbers last night?  9 receptions, 131 yards, 1 TD.  That’s just for those readers who don’t believe in coincidences - or people who are looking for consistency in players.

After last night’s opener, the NFL seems to have nothing to worry about when it comes to entertaining their fans, especially in relation to Michael Gerber’s comment on businesses:

“If they don’t fail outright, most businesses fail to fully achieve their potential.”  Â