Jameer Nelson - Leadership

[For the love of the game 56]

That's just nonsense. There's lots of examples throughout history of guys that were great leaders that weren't successful in their ultimate goal.

 

Robert E Lee is widely regarded as the best general in the United States during the Civil War.....a war that he lost. The South losing the war doesn't diminish the fact that he was a great leader. The same can be said for Jameer Nelson...you can't discount his leadership ability simply because he's on a team that doesn't have the talent to win consistently. You can't quantify something intangible like leadership with tangible results because there is no way to prove one way or the other just how much of an impact those intangibles had.

 

I agree with you for the most part, since if Nelson was the "leader" of a loaded team like say the Lakers and the team sucked he would not be considered a good leader. As he is not and is instead a member of a rebuilding Magic team, I think he has shown his leadership well by keeping them in games they should otherwise not be in. Also, looking at the games he has missed and some of the games were flat out ugly (wins or losses).

 

However, while your example of Robert E Lee is a good one for your arguement, you could easly point to countless others to agrue the otherside.

[For the love of the game 56]

You also have to look at his actions and comments off the court. I have not heard of one instance were he has bashed the team or demanded a trade like some ex magic player did. Part of that is surely just a love for the game, but his actions seem to reflect leadership as well.

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

I think it would be a bit dishonest to completely disregard the role the media played in that fiasco and place the blame squarely on Dwight's lack of leadership skills or whatever.

 

But for the sake of argument, let's go with that and say it was at least mostly due to Dwight not being a leader. Jameer and JJ and Glen Davis were also on that team. Why were they incapable of taking leadership roles last year and softening the impact of that situation? Were they obligated to defer to Dwight because of his talent? Would a good leader not put his foot down and take care of a situation like that, even if it did involve the team's star player?

 

If leadership is a real thing that's important, and if Jameer possesses it (or JJ or Glen or whoever), this disparity must be explained.

 

It seems to me that we're talking about a concept that's at best poorly defined and even more poorly identified, and at worst a complete load of feces sprinkled with confirmation bias and glory-fetishism.

 

Who's disregarding the part that the media played? We aren't talking about it because we aren't discussing last year in detail as it isn't the point of this conversation. My only point about last year in general was that Dwight handled himself in a manner that I felt displayed a lack of professionalism, a lack of leadership ability, and a distinct lack of respect for his team and fellow team-mates. Did he have the ability to stop the media from talking about his pending free agency? Certainly not, but he wasn't content to brush off their attempts to get more information and carry on with the rest of his season. I contend that, if Dwight were a decent leader, he would have continued to honor his commitment to the team both on and off the court, instead of dragging the team down to suit his personal desires.

 

As far as the other guys on the team stepping up, no, a good leader in this case wouldn't necessarily be able to "put his foot down and take care of a situation like that". I think the gravity of the situation, the fact that the entire team was built around Dwight, that he himself was put into a leadership role by the team, and the fact that circumstances basically forced him to be included as part of the team played part in that mess. I would love to know more about the locker room incident though were the rumor was that Dwight and Jameer got into it and almost came to blows. However, I think you saw the impact of the other leaders on this team once Dwight was removed from the situation.

 

As far as leadership being a murky concept or complete bull, all I can tell you is that leadership isn't always easy to define in the context of a conversation like this. Not everyone will agree on what makes a quality leader. Personally, I think it's a group of traits that combined, propel a person into a position of respect and high regard by their peers, and the ability of that person to use that status to help guide others, to make them better people, and to help keep them realize their goals both on an individual and group level. If you or anyone else wants to inquire more, I would be happy to share and discuss those traits in more detail.

 

Certainly the coach of every team is in a leadership position, and teams place players in a leadership role as team captain, but some players become leaders on their team without being placed in those roles, without being placed into any type of authoritative role.

 

Now, I will agree with JEC a little here in that a lot of this conversation is speculation. No, we don't know everything that goes on behind closed doors, but we can gauge our positions based on what we do see. Sure, we might miss the mark, but it can still be an interesting conversation, albeit with no real resolution to speak of.

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

I never said the team can't have a leader. You can say Nelson is a leader for us (in a way he is, I never denied that) but why not just go to the source (Vaughn and Hennigan)? I look at Nelson as an extension of Vaughn; he's more of a mentor and father-like figure for the players. Which makes sense because Nelson has been through the best and worst, so he has something to give to the team that's unique.

 

You look at Nelson as an extension of Vaughn because they are both in a leadership role. You keep saying Nelson isn't a leader, or Nelson isn't a real leader, but then you keep describing qualities that make him a leader.

 

When you think of a leader in the NBA, you don't think of Nelson. You think of Kobe, Duncan, Durant, or other guys who lead their team to victory every night. Nelson was that player for us when Dwight was around, but his role is changed now.

 

Talent and success does not equal leadership, though they all play some part and can intermingle. Sure, Durant might "lead the way" in terms of scoring for his team, but that doesn't mean he is a leader. If that's the case, then you could just look at the race for the scoring title as a "Who's Who" guide of NBA leaders.

 

I define leadership as purely results driven. It might be harsh, but how else are you going to quantify and measure success?

 

We aren't trying to quantify and measure success, we are talking about leadership, they are not the same thing.

[Ibn Battuta 127]

You look at Nelson as an extension of Vaughn because they are both in a leadership role. You keep saying Nelson isn't a leader, or Nelson isn't a real leader, but then you keep describing qualities that make him a leader.

 

I never say he isn't a leader! I am simply questioning the magnitude of that role.

 

Let me put it this way. Nelson is a leader of a rebuilding team. In real terms what exactly does that mean? what kind of distinction does that mean for Nelson?

 

 

Talent and success does not equal leadership, though they all play some part and can intermingle. Sure, Durant might "lead the way" in terms of scoring for his team, but that doesn't mean he is a leader. If that's the case, then you could just look at the race for the scoring title as a "Who's Who" guide of NBA leaders.

 

I never mention anything about scoring, I never say they score the most points. But if you take those guys out of those teams suddenly the team is worse, probably much worse. Those guys make the team better. Like I've said before, Nelson WAS that player for us (to me at least) but not anymore.

We aren't trying to quantify and measure success, we are talking about leadership, they are not the same thing.

 

okay then, what is your definition of leadership. Because if we can't measure it, then how are we ever going to know who is a good or bad leader?

 

edit nvm I see your post above, i'll add something later

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

okay then, what is your definition of leadership. Because if we can't measure it, then how are we ever going to know who is a good or bad leader?

 

How do you quantitatively measure a man's character? Is it impossible to identify character in a man because it's not a simple thing to measure? There is no hard and fast measure, no scale to compare in terms of a metric. It's open to discussion and interpretation.

 

How are you going to know what is a good or bad album? Are you simply going to look at sales? You can't boil everything down into a metric for easy comparison and analysis.

[Soul Bro 1,421]

I think it would be a bit dishonest to completely disregard the role the media played in that fiasco and place the blame squarely on Dwight's lack of leadership skills or whatever.

 

But for the sake of argument, let's go with that and say it was at least mostly due to Dwight not being a leader. Jameer and JJ and Glen Davis were also on that team. Why were they incapable of taking leadership roles last year and softening the impact of that situation? Were they obligated to defer to Dwight because of his talent? Would a good leader not put his foot down and take care of a situation like that, even if it did involve the team's star player?

 

If leadership is a real thing that's important, and if Jameer possesses it (or JJ or Glen or whoever), this disparity must be explained.

 

It seems to me that we're talking about a concept that's at best poorly defined and even more poorly identified, and at worst a complete load of feces sprinkled with confirmation bias and glory-fetishism.

 

Seems to me leadership is influence (amongst other things), which breeds respect. From a basketball perspective, Meer and those others were not respected by Dwight anymore. He no longer believed they could help him win a championship, and I don't blame him for believing that. Where Dwight blew it was how he handled his frustrations, not that he was frustrated. Contrast that lack of influence by Meer and Redick then with the situation with the young guys now. Dwight had shut these guys out in a very unprofessional manner, whereas these young guns seem to be hungry, moldable and in it together.

[Soul Bro 1,421]

As far as leadership being a murky concept or complete bull, all I can tell you is that leadership isn't always easy to define in the context of a conversation like this. Not everyone will agree on what makes a quality leader. Personally, I think it's a group of traits that combined, propel a person into a position of respect and high regard by their peers, and the ability of that person to use that status to help guide others, to make them better people, and to help keep them realize their goals both on an individual and group level.

 

Well summarized, Captain. Quite a thoughtful response. I believe the beauty of leadership is that it is hard to easily define but so easy to identify when experienced. Put another way, the presence of a great leader simply changes you.

[TrueMagicFan07 675]

I think it would be a bit dishonest to completely disregard the role the media played in that fiasco and place the blame squarely on Dwight's lack of leadership skills or whatever.

 

But for the sake of argument, let's go with that and say it was at least mostly due to Dwight not being a leader. Jameer and JJ and Glen Davis were also on that team. Why were they incapable of taking leadership roles last year and softening the impact of that situation? Were they obligated to defer to Dwight because of his talent? Would a good leader not put his foot down and take care of a situation like that, even if it did involve the team's star player?

 

If leadership is a real thing that's important, and if Jameer possesses it (or JJ or Glen or whoever), this disparity must be explained.

 

It seems to me that we're talking about a concept that's at best poorly defined and even more poorly identified, and at worst a complete load of feces sprinkled with confirmation bias and glory-fetishism.

 

They were chicken. . .scared. (They didn't want to be traded) :lol:

[CTMagicUK 1,491]

Every NBA/college coach I've ever known has spoken highly of leadership as a quality. All those great basketball minds can't be wrong.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Who's disregarding the part that the media played? We aren't talking about it because we aren't discussing last year in detail as it isn't the point of this conversation. My only point about last year in general was that Dwight handled himself in a manner that I felt displayed a lack of professionalism, a lack of leadership ability, and a distinct lack of respect for his team and fellow team-mates. Did he have the ability to stop the media from talking about his pending free agency? Certainly not, but he wasn't content to brush off their attempts to get more information and carry on with the rest of his season. I contend that, if Dwight were a decent leader, he would have continued to honor his commitment to the team both on and off the court, instead of dragging the team down to suit his personal desires.

 

As far as the other guys on the team stepping up, no, a good leader in this case wouldn't necessarily be able to "put his foot down and take care of a situation like that". I think the gravity of the situation, the fact that the entire team was built around Dwight, that he himself was put into a leadership role by the team, and the fact that circumstances basically forced him to be included as part of the team played part in that mess. I would love to know more about the locker room incident though were the rumor was that Dwight and Jameer got into it and almost came to blows. However, I think you saw the impact of the other leaders on this team once Dwight was removed from the situation.

 

As far as leadership being a murky concept or complete bull, all I can tell you is that leadership isn't always easy to define in the context of a conversation like this. Not everyone will agree on what makes a quality leader. Personally, I think it's a group of traits that combined, propel a person into a position of respect and high regard by their peers, and the ability of that person to use that status to help guide others, to make them better people, and to help keep them realize their goals both on an individual and group level. If you or anyone else wants to inquire more, I would be happy to share and discuss those traits in more detail.

 

Certainly the coach of every team is in a leadership position, and teams place players in a leadership role as team captain, but some players become leaders on their team without being placed in those roles, without being placed into any type of authoritative role.

 

Now, I will agree with JEC a little here in that a lot of this conversation is speculation. No, we don't know everything that goes on behind closed doors, but we can gauge our positions based on what we do see. Sure, we might miss the mark, but it can still be an interesting conversation, albeit with no real resolution to speak of.

 

We're definitely all flying blind here, no question. I have no problem admitting that I have no idea what I'm talking about. But I don't think anyone else does either.

 

The main problem I have with this is the assertion that this loose idea of leadership provides value, yet we can't reliably identify either leadership itself or the value it provides. If it really does provide value, we should be able to demonstrate that value. You can't quantify the benefits of playoff experience either, but you can at least point to a mound of evidence that supports the idea that there is value in playoff experience.

 

Another thing I don't like about it is what it implies about the majority of NBA players. If leadership is important, we have to assume that those players who aren't leaders are incapable of sustained success in the absence of another player on the team who is a leader. I see no reason to believe that's actually the case, mostly because as Ibn has demonstrated, some of those players will simply be labeled leaders after they have success and only because they had success.

 

If we were talking about some new stat and I told you I can't really explain what value it demonstrates and it's calculated differently for every player and team, but it shows a benefit that I just know when I see it, you'd question that and you'd be right to do so.

 

The only difference with this discussion is that instead of a number, we're talking about a vague designation of "is a good leader" or "is not a good leader".

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Every NBA/college coach I've ever known has spoken highly of leadership as a quality. All those great basketball minds can't be wrong.

 

They also speak highly of both teams playing hard and everyone giving 110%. That doesn't make those things any more meaningful.