Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Mr. Scot

Leadership

132 posts in this topic

Hard to say. Off the field leadership is not the same as on the field. Smitty shows alot of leadership on the field on game day. The rest of the time not so much. Harris could still have lead the defense secondary although he didn't agree with all the changes. Others likely feel the same but certainly going forward will be much less verbal about it.

go to the newspaper and bad mouth your company...then see how long you stay employed.

Harris may not have agreed with the direction the team was going. I would not have a problem with him questioning it internally with the staff. However, when he started Twittering that crap, he went from a leader to a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, there's some bad teams out there that have good veteran leadership. I'll take the more talented players anyday. Besides, Beason is the leader of the Panthers defense, and he leads by example and by his play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

go to the newspaper and bad mouth your company...then see how long you stay employed.

Harris may not have agreed with the direction the team was going. I would not have a problem with him questioning it internally with the staff. However, when he started Twittering that crap, he went from a leader to a problem.

Actually I own the company so I can say what I want. LOL

I think the Panthers thought he was a problem as well and that was a big reason he was let go. We will see if he was correct or not in a few months,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, there's some bad teams out there that have good veteran leadership. I'll take the more talented players anyday. Besides, Beason is the leader of the Panthers defense, and he leads by example and by his play.

But the inverse is rarely true. Teams without good veteran leadership are rarely successful. And Beason can't do it all himself. You need leaders at every level on defense. Who is going to run the secondary? Gamble? Godfrey? Martin??

Good luck on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the inverse is rarely true. Teams without good veteran leadership are rarely successful. And Beason can't do it all himself. You need leaders at every level on defense. Who is going to run the secondary? Gamble? Godfrey? Martin??

Good luck on that.

Who cares who leads the secondary? As long as they communicate well with each other and do their individual jobs, they will be just fine.

As far as I'm concerned, getting Martin on the field was a must for this style of defense, and they will be better for it, regardless of who the "leader" is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the inverse is rarely true. Teams without good veteran leadership are rarely successful. And Beason can't do it all himself. You need leaders at every level on defense. Who is going to run the secondary? Gamble? Godfrey? Martin??

Good luck on that.

I hate to say it....just imagine if Beason goes down.....the DL, LB, and secondary will not only be fairly weak bunch across the board but there would be ZERO leadership on the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't have the same leaders forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most people are just mad that they cant suggust Chris Harris become the secondary coach when he is about to retire.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most people are just mad that they cant suggust Chris Harris become the secondary coach when he is about to retire.

I think most people are mad b/c it is another move suggesting 2010 isn't what is being looked at. Trading away a starting S for a backup LB doesn't make loads of sense this year......I got no problem parting w/ Harris if it makes sense but Harris>Godfrey. Also, moves like this make you question draft day and picking up Pike and whatnot late.......Rolle was avaliable then if they were dumping a S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to say it....just imagine if Beason goes down.....the DL, LB, and secondary will not only be fairly weak bunch across the board but there would be ZERO leadership on the field.

So what if Gamble goes down? He may not be a vocal leader, but he is our best corner, and it will hurt the defense just as much as if Beason goes down. All any team can do is try to build as much depth as possible and hope their best players can stay relatively healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most people are mad b/c it is another move suggesting 2010 isn't what is being looked at. Trading away a starting S for a backup LB doesn't make loads of sense this year......I got no problem parting w/ Harris if it makes sense but Harris>Godfrey. Also, moves like this make you question draft day and picking up Pike and whatnot late.......Rolle was avaliable then if they were dumping a S.

I am sure Hurney is not so damned retarded that he decided to make this decision on a whim and that this is not apart of the teams "plan".

But for me, I am indifferent.

We are not being rebuilding, we are being remodeled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what if Gamble goes down? He may not be a vocal leader, but he is our best corner, and it will hurt the defense just as much as if Beason goes down. All any team can do is try to build as much depth as possible and hope their best players can stay relatively healthy.

No, Gamble will not be as big of a blow as Beason going down. Beason might be the best 4-3 MLB in the game and is the sole leader of this defense.

Gamble is a streaky and overrated CB.....but the best we got.

Carolina didn't have depth at S or proven NFL players.....they traded a starting S for a backup LB, so how is that buiding the best possible depth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites