D
Dcr36I would've posted this in the currently-ongoing thread, but I didn't for two reasons: First, I'm not really concerned if there are divisions in the locker room, I'm more interested in what those divisions entail. Second, it's getting kind of chippy in there.
I've heard a good number of voices (on this board, other boards, newspaper columnists and radio hosts) arguing that, if divisions do exist among the team, they represent a major failing on the part of BYU's coaching staff, and that fixing this atmosphere should rank among their higher priorities. I'm not sure how I feel about that critique.
The coaching staff in general and the head coach in particular have the responsibility to establish both the camaraderie and culture among players. That's a no-brainer. I expect the coaches to ensure that the players trust each other, that they have each others' backs on the field, that they understand that they're united in the common goal of winning and winning will only occur if players are willing to overlook differences and give their all 100%, regardless of who is getting the snaps, targets, touches or reps.
Having said that, a football team is a gathering of 105 kids with disparate interests, backgrounds, and personalities. Players are naturally going to relate and get along better with some players than others. But more importantly, I think, each player brings their own personality attributes to the table, and by virtue some players are going to be leaders, and some are going to be followers. Some are more apt to be friends, some are more apt to be mentors. Some are there to pump the other players up, others are there to act as calming voices of reason. Having these sorts of elements among a group of people working together is going to create agitation, at times, but each is a necessary component of a working whole.
If you were to ask me to play armchair psychologist to why the team seemed more "alive" in the second half, I would attribute it less to a team-wide "secret combination" (conscious or otherwise) to make Heaps fail, and attribute it more to a natural reaction when a recognized and respected leader is put in charge of a situation. I don't know Nelson, but I saw how the team was treating him in the 2nd half, both on the field and on the sidelines. What I saw was a team invigorated by a QB who they had an immense amount of respect for.
If Ogletree is on the sidelines telling Bronco, "I trust Riley to win this game for us," I don't think the between-the-lines message is "I have no trust or respect for Heaps." I do think, however, you can safely infer that Ogletree was essentially saying, "I have more confidence in Riley than I do in Heaps." And I guess, my concern with those critiquing the team atmosphere is...I don't really have a problem with the team trusting Riley more than Heaps. And I don't suspect Bronco should, or even can, fix this.
If you have two bosses working under identical conditions, and one is able to motivate his employees to accomplish more, I don't think that's either an indictment of the under-performing boss's abilities or an indication that he's lost the trust and support of his underlings. I think it's simply an indication that one, at the time of comparison, is a better leader than the other. And I think that's what's going on.
And if it IS what's going on, expecting the players to perform as well with Heaps under center as they did with Riley seems to me to be futile. As fans, we give a lot of attention and respect to the physical element of our players, but the psychological element is just as important and can be just as taxing. If the QB under center possesses stronger leadership abilities, it's not unlikely that his surrounding players are going to step their game up, if for no other reason than the confidence he brings to the position. Nelson's leadership abilities shouldn't be treated as a locker-room divider, they should be treated as a attribute in his playing ability.
As with all posts dealing with the QBs, I don't want this to be read as an indictment of Heaps. I don't agree with the widely-held belief that leadership is an intangible that can't be learned. Additionally, I don't think Riley will continue to possess the same rallying abilities if he fails to perform in the long-term. Having said that, from my point of view, the players look to Riley as more than a leader than Jake. And asking Bronco to calibrate the locker room vibe so that players don't look to these attributes in the name of equal performance seems inappropriate, as well as impossible.
I've heard a good number of voices (on this board, other boards, newspaper columnists and radio hosts) arguing that, if divisions do exist among the team, they represent a major failing on the part of BYU's coaching staff, and that fixing this atmosphere should rank among their higher priorities. I'm not sure how I feel about that critique.
The coaching staff in general and the head coach in particular have the responsibility to establish both the camaraderie and culture among players. That's a no-brainer. I expect the coaches to ensure that the players trust each other, that they have each others' backs on the field, that they understand that they're united in the common goal of winning and winning will only occur if players are willing to overlook differences and give their all 100%, regardless of who is getting the snaps, targets, touches or reps.
Having said that, a football team is a gathering of 105 kids with disparate interests, backgrounds, and personalities. Players are naturally going to relate and get along better with some players than others. But more importantly, I think, each player brings their own personality attributes to the table, and by virtue some players are going to be leaders, and some are going to be followers. Some are more apt to be friends, some are more apt to be mentors. Some are there to pump the other players up, others are there to act as calming voices of reason. Having these sorts of elements among a group of people working together is going to create agitation, at times, but each is a necessary component of a working whole.
If you were to ask me to play armchair psychologist to why the team seemed more "alive" in the second half, I would attribute it less to a team-wide "secret combination" (conscious or otherwise) to make Heaps fail, and attribute it more to a natural reaction when a recognized and respected leader is put in charge of a situation. I don't know Nelson, but I saw how the team was treating him in the 2nd half, both on the field and on the sidelines. What I saw was a team invigorated by a QB who they had an immense amount of respect for.
If Ogletree is on the sidelines telling Bronco, "I trust Riley to win this game for us," I don't think the between-the-lines message is "I have no trust or respect for Heaps." I do think, however, you can safely infer that Ogletree was essentially saying, "I have more confidence in Riley than I do in Heaps." And I guess, my concern with those critiquing the team atmosphere is...I don't really have a problem with the team trusting Riley more than Heaps. And I don't suspect Bronco should, or even can, fix this.
If you have two bosses working under identical conditions, and one is able to motivate his employees to accomplish more, I don't think that's either an indictment of the under-performing boss's abilities or an indication that he's lost the trust and support of his underlings. I think it's simply an indication that one, at the time of comparison, is a better leader than the other. And I think that's what's going on.
And if it IS what's going on, expecting the players to perform as well with Heaps under center as they did with Riley seems to me to be futile. As fans, we give a lot of attention and respect to the physical element of our players, but the psychological element is just as important and can be just as taxing. If the QB under center possesses stronger leadership abilities, it's not unlikely that his surrounding players are going to step their game up, if for no other reason than the confidence he brings to the position. Nelson's leadership abilities shouldn't be treated as a locker-room divider, they should be treated as a attribute in his playing ability.
As with all posts dealing with the QBs, I don't want this to be read as an indictment of Heaps. I don't agree with the widely-held belief that leadership is an intangible that can't be learned. Additionally, I don't think Riley will continue to possess the same rallying abilities if he fails to perform in the long-term. Having said that, from my point of view, the players look to Riley as more than a leader than Jake. And asking Bronco to calibrate the locker room vibe so that players don't look to these attributes in the name of equal performance seems inappropriate, as well as impossible.