The Law of Threes
What on earth does that have to do with football? Lots.
I would also find a similar principle in business theory called the 'Law of Threes'. It said that on any given team or in any given organization there would be three kinds of players/participants:
Group 1 - The first are the ones who will do anything that is asked, willing to help the program. They buy into the system, work hard to manifest success in it and are positive and vocal within the organization. Theirs is the energy of Yang, Rajas, activity and power.
Group 2 - The second group are the undecided players, the players who are not completely sure what to do. They can be influenced, molded by the other groups (Sattwa, the 10,000 things). This is a natural state for groups of people - they are looking to be led, consciously or subconsciously. If the effects of Group 1 are strong enough, this group is a benefit for the organization.
Group 3 - The third are the malcontents (Tamas, Inactivity, Yin). These are the players who manifest negativity. They want to buck the system, run to complaints and will, intentionally or subconsciously, try to influence those in Group 2 and to counteract those in Group 1. They usually act through foot-dragging and holding back, although some of the worst are vocal (the Me First syndrome). They will, whether directly or indirectly, create opposition to the system they are in and they can reduce the enthusiasm in Group 1 if not dealt with appropriately. They are a cancer on the spirit of your team.
If you are a leader, you are already (or should be) acting with the best qualities of those in Group 1. You have to model the best behavior, expect the best behavior from others and make the outcomes of inappropriate behavior clear. As a leader, you are working with the players in Group 1 to benefit the organization and the system and you must be stimulating those in Group 2 towards right action. You do this directly, by talking to them and motivating them and indirectly, by modeling appropriate behaviors and techniques. The greater the number of players in Group 1 the better. It's also fair to say that the stronger the spirit of the players in Group 1, the more influence they can wield over those in Group 2. And, you have to deal with those in Group 3. It's your job to motivate them as well, to offer them an alternative to their behavior and an outcome if it persists.
But there is a danger, here. There is often a tendency to try to win over the players in Group 3 by trying to make them happy. What we've found, over time, is that all this does is move the players from Group 2 into Group 3 since the Group 2 people see the Group 3 players getting positive attention. This weakens the effect of your Group 1 players. This can also cause you to start to lose the players in Group 1. It takes valuable time away from the things that matter and weighs on the time and spirit of all concerned by demanding more energy be spent on players who don't want to be better and on things that really don't matter. And that's a trap.
Enter Josh McDaniels.
McDaniels may be young, but he clearly understands the essence of how to build a team as a business organization. The very first thing that he did was to remove some players who just couldn't play or who weren't good values to the team on a contractual basis. These situations would have been a drain on resources. McDaniels - and I'd add GM Brian Xanders here, whose role is constantly underestimated or ignored - understood the trap in that.
The second thing the Xanders/McDaniels team did was to bring in the best veteran leaders they could find. If Brian Dawkins and Andra Davis don't fit that mold, I think that it's fair to say that no one does. They are outright Group 1 individuals; born leaders, even though they could not be more different from each other. From all accounts, Andra Davis is a quiet, humble man of great personal inner strength and dignity. From his first interactions in the clubhouse, he began to mentor Wes Woodyard and others by modeling appropriate effort, hard work and action and by explaining techniques and insights into the linebacking position. Dawkins, on the other hand, is a fiery and outspoken leader who will demand the best from all in the organization, and he demands nothing of anyone that he doesn't require of himself. There is nothing more beneficial than having players of that kind in Group 1. Denver has lacked that ever since Al Wilson went down. It was time to get it back. You also have a player like Kyle Orton who has a history of being the first to arrive and last to leave, and whose teammates like, look to and respect him and who models his own brand of Group 1 behavior.
Let's consider more players:
Group 1 - The Broncos have a solid list. It is headed it up with new leaders Brian Dawkins, Kyle Orton and Andra Davis, covering both offense and defense. You have the hard-working Chris Simms, who has handled his situation with more than grace - he has done so with enthusiasm. Add Andre' Goodman, Champ Bailey, Eddie Royal and Daniel Graham.
You also have Group 1's in waiting like Peyton Hillis, Spencer Larsen, Wesley Woodyard, David Bruton and Knowshon Moreno. I'd add DJ Williams, although he has been tested to his limits by the last management and he nearly faltered last year. He's buying into the picture completely this year, though, and has been vocal about that in interviews. Ron Fields modeled Group 1 behavior when he posted a blurb praising Josh McDaniels' leadership on his own website. I'm sure that there are more, but I cannot know who without being in the locker room. Spencer Larsen tried to provide Group 1 behavior last year, and it's a note about the state of that team that the group refused to accept that from 'a rookie'.
Group 2 - My own belief is that the list is much longer than I can place here. I haven't seen enough of many of the players to place them here with certainty, but Alphonso Smith, Robert Ayers, The Entire Offensive Line (who wouldn't say anything on pain of violating the Code of Linemen), Brandon Stokley, Jabar Gaffney and a host of others seem to fit into Group 2 at the very least. Tom Brandstater. Lee Robinson. Elvis Dumervil. Jarvis Moss, who has lived with disease, pain, injury and being a round peg in a square hole and being chastised for it. Kenny Peterson. Marcus Thomas. There are certainly many more. In all, my impression is that the Broncos are laced with such players, both Group 2's and those who aspire to Group 1 behavior. That says a great deal about what McDaniels has done and has brought into the team's realm of being. Other than the rumors started by those like Jamie Dukes, all I hear are good things. That's not unheard of, but it places a huge weight on what is best for and about the team.
Group 2 people can become drawn to either Group 1 or Group 3, depending on which exerts the greatest influence. In Yin/Yang theory, one always predominates, but which one changes constantly. The principle appears the same.
Group 3 - Brandon Marshall. But I believe that this is about to change.
My assessment is that, despite his clumsiness in his personal life, Brandon Marshall wants to be in Group 2. Because of a lack of inner direction, he vacillates between Group 2 and Group 3 and currently is something of a malcontent. Like most people, though, he wants a reason to commit to a cause or a course of action. Here, we have a chance for him to relearn the ways of winning, to ascertain why others have achieved a more enjoyable existence, to renew a commitment to achievement and to embrace the future; rejecting the past and the things that, ultimately, didn't win and didn't work. Marshall often doesn't follow through well, but he does want to. Due to his contract requirements and the power of the Group 1's in the locker room, It will probably be enough - at least for a while. What he has been told and shown by the team is that he has to accept that which is true and abide by it. From a leadership viewpoint, it's important to set high standards and refuse to deviate from them.
The Past: This breakdown explains a great deal about the passing of the Jay Cutler situation and about Marshall's situation right now. Jay Cutler is a player who has all of the physical tools. Despite his sometimes-childish behavior in the offseason, he is usually a good and respected leader on the field. I'm not close enough to the situation to talk about him emotionally. I can say with certainty that he made multiple statements that were not true and that his feelings seemed easily hurt. He and Head Coach McDaniels are a bad fit and that's not going to change.
Jay Cutler fit into Group 3 in one key way: He made demands that were unreasonable. He insisted on having a say in choosing coaches, something which is not, under any circumstances, his role on the team. He needed to be told that he was not just wanted but needed, even that he was irreplaceable. From a leadership viewpoint, you have to accept that if anyone had faltered and told him those things, it would not have been true.
It's not his place to demand that, because in professional football, it isn't and shouldn't be true. I understand the perspective of those who say that you should give in and tell him those lies just to keep his services - he's very talented and I hated losing him. I also understand the perspective of those, including McDaniels and Bowlen, that chose to usher him onward. As a business model, telling those lies is one of the worst things that you can possibly do, because those in Groups 1 and 2 will see you telling those lies and they will notice. It will affect how they see the organization and you never want that to happen. He was traded and the team received good value in return. That's all you can ask out of that situation. In life, you cannot usually change how another person views the world. That is their own choice.
The Present: What is most important to the organization is the leadership of those at the top (Xanders/McDaniels, Mike Nolan and Mike McCoy) and the number of players who are vocally in Group 1. Those Group 1 players have to be strong enough to cancel out the Group 3 people and to actively draw those in Group 2. In the Broncos' case, they have to offset the issue with Brandon Marshall.
The fact is that Brandon, although a very good player, is one of those whose potential remains unlimited and untapped. Part of that is because he doesn't fully see the value in being in Group 1, or even Group 2. At heart, I wonder if he ever has, even as he tried to manifest those qualities. At least Cutler did, at one point, and does in Chicago (currently). But Brandon never was a Group 1 guy and that has led to a loss of potential, lack of development and sometimes poor professionalism. I only wish good things for Brandon Marshall. But, in this sense, he really is in a class all by himself. I don't know of any other Group 3 on the team. If one exists, he won't be with us for long.
The Future: From a team-building standpoint, look carefully at our draft choices for a moment. Nearly every one was a team captain, someone whose teammates looked up to him. Such people develop into Group 1's, if they aren't there already. At the worst, they are Group 2's who still lean to the positive. They are the folks who will change your fortunes and win you games. Look at the enthusiasm that Ron Fields posts on his website, that DJ Williams has when talking about the new scheme, that Wesley Woodyard has in just sharing a locker room with Davis. That, along with scheme, coaching and talent, are what you need to win. Many games each year are decided by whichever team just plain wants it more. Upsets happen every week because of that.
Michael Lombardi made a point, referring to the Arizona Cardinals in his July 8 article. He said,
"Don’t be afraid to make unpopular choices. Status quo only promotes the same, and the whole theme of the offseason is to move forward."
He's right. Coach McDaniels and GM Xanders made some unpopular decisions in the offseason and they didn't let it affect their emotional balance or their approach to the game. McDaniels especially is a solid leader in that he is leading by example, demanding quality performances from his player, his coaches and himself. He has brought in two groups - free agents and draft picks - who are current or potential Group 1 players and has removed the biggest obstacle to having an enthusiastic and committed locker room. That's good business and it's good football. He's committed to removing Tamas (inaction and foot-dragging) and promoting right action (Rajas and appropriate Sattwa). That's how you build for the future and how you give yourself the best chance to win from Day 1.
45 comments
|
32 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Awesome
Simply awesome. This is a tremendous piece. Thanks and rec’d.
"Speak softly and carry a big (hockey) stick." - Theodore Roosevelt
wow...nice post Bear.
My Senior thesis in college discussed the Hegelian Dialectic and how it pertains to contemporary politics and the evolution of consciousness. Good stuff!
"C" is for Championship...that's good enough for meeeee!!!
Very nice post!
I would add some external factors into the mix as well. In the case of the Broncos, it would be the fans, the MSM, and the player’s agents. Just as any player can be one of the three, so can these factors. Unfortunately, external factors are much harder to influence but still have a drastic effect on the culture of the business or in this case, the team.
What a great article
I have been waiting a while to make my first post and this article finally got me motivated enough to write in. Great job Bear in breaking down the groups and it gets me fired up to know that McD and Xanders looked at a players personality as much as their talent. It is so comfortating to know this year players will be held accountable by their teamates as well as the coaches. THIS SEASON CAN’T GET HERE FAST ENOUGH!!!!!!!
by NM_Broncoholic on Jul 28, 2009 11:34 AM MDT reply actions
Probably overestimate Group 1's and Underestimate group 3's
Simple typical curves of leadership distribution say that typically the percentage in an organization for these 3 groups is roughly 25-50-25… and even the most vocal leaders saying the right things can in actuality and behind closed doors be #3’s, or folks saying nothing ever can be #1’s. The vast majority is ALWAYS #2’s.
Just because some fo the group 3’s aren’t talking to the media, doesn’t mean they aren’t talking around the water cooler, etc. I’m sure there are more than just B-Marsh.
Also I’d guess some of the “Group 1” guys you talk about are more likely Group 2 guys that are talking the good talk, but in reality will need to see success on the field, etc. before truly buying in whole-heart to the new scheme.
With those caveats however, your analysis is right on in about McX’s approach and emphasis on empowering those looking to succeed. Group 2’s can essentially be #1’s if given the appropriate direction and structure… and McX seem to be trying to provide that system. But only success can keep them there permanently.
The trick is defining success in a way that is reachable, and gets the buy-in from the #1s and #2s. The team could lose every game, but if McX are able to show progress towards goals which have team buy-in, the team could still move forward.
but...
although you say it is roughly 25-50-25 that doesn’t mean every orginazation is like that, -especially one that just signed a crap load of group 1 rookies and free agents, and ousted guys in group three
id say its probably more like 35-55-10 right now
The problem is that no one is ALWAYS a #1, a #2, or a #3…. different folks fall into different groups on different issues. In general, I believe the research around this concept shows that for any change being attempted by a leadership structure, at the start of the change you get a roughly 25-50-25 breakdown. Getting high character guys doesn’t necessarily change the #1-2-3 distribution… You can have very high character guys who are #3’s, and complete idiots who are #1’s. Everyone has the potential to be a 1, 2, or 3 depending on whether they “buy what the leader is selling”.
Now, where the high character and vocal guys come into play is in getting folks that can sell the idea to the #2s if the leader can convince them. So if McX can get Dawk to buy-in and become a #1, they have a high likelihood of getting buyin from the #2s. The vocal guys will sell it to the #2’s, while the “high character” guys are less likely to be vocal #3’s, even if they don’t personally buy the changes.
In the end, it comes down to Bear’s point that the key is using the #1s to get the #2s, and not being distracted by the #3s. Having high character guys definitely can help with this… but it doesn’t really change the 25-50-25 starting distribution for any organizational change.
Bear...you know this article is right up my alley!!!
Great job mate and rec’d!
Those that cant coach, compete!
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
All I want is 53 Rod Smiths. Is that asking too much????
"Peyton Hillis didn’t rip the sleeves off his jersey, they flew off out of fear."
Calijoefornia.
Fantastic, bear!
Beautifully conceived and executed! You’re a true leader on our team. Group 1 all the way.
"Talk about the Broncos and I'm gonna 'put my dukes up'. I'm gonna hit you with these rings." -- Rod Smith giving the Kennison rebuttal to Jamie Dukes
by broncosmontana on Jul 28, 2009 11:45 AM MDT reply actions 1 recs
Your point is well taken, cj
While writing this I was keenly aware of the lack of first hand insight, but there is something that’s also worth a look. When i did research on players, I tried to find articles, interviews and statements that showed me something of the man behind the jersey. With the one’s that I listed, I saw things, specifically, that drew them into that listing. Can we know? Nope – neither on the positive or the negative. But, good research is it’s own reward, because I know more about them and frankly – from a leadership viewpoint, this is a very good group.
Last year, we suffered from a lack of Group 1 players. As noted, they can be vocal or experiential. They can lead by example or statement (or both). The one’s I mentioned have been captains in the past, have showed leadership and have been vocally positive in their public persona. Is it just a persona? Perhaps – but often, I suspect that it’s not. And, of course – I’m very comfortable with the fact that I could be wrong!
Hillis/Moreno in '09
see post above
I think the problem is a misunderstanding/mis-defined understanding of what the group 1-2-3 stands for. Its not about the type or character of persons… Its about whether a person is buying into the leadership structure. So EVERYONE can be a 1, 2 or 3 depending on the issue at hand.
For an extreme example, if your leader was Hitler we’d hope there would be lots of #3s… but still you’d likely have ~25% supporting him, ~25% fighting him, and ~50% waiting to see who wins… but in that case, the “high character” guys may be the #3s.
by cjfarls on Jul 28, 2009 10:58 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is one Awe full Post!
I think from this article, that means the 13-3 crowd belong to Group 1.
A Salmon for the Bear.
"You give 100 percent in the first half of the game, and if that isn't enough, in the second half you give what's left." – Yogi Berra
"No, I'm from Iowa, I only work in outer space."
Great article.
Would you say that these groupings are relative? I would think that a majority of NFL players would have fallen into the group one designation on their college teams, and then group two, with almost no group threes.
"My job description is to win football games. I'm a hard worker. I'm not flashy by any means, but my job is to play football and win and I plan to do that." Kyle Orton
Other than Cleveland and Chad what'sisname...lol
What is it with Ohio…? Anyway – you know, as I’ve read on the subject over the years, I consistently hear that NFL locker rooms are rife with both great leaders and bad eggs. Often the bad egg is simple one that refuses to become a positive influence, and who brings others down just by being around them (the Law of Vibration states that a particular vibration will tend to influence those around them, in many different systems). I will say this – on any team, it takes a lot less Group 3’s than Group 1’s to spoil a season. For some reason, we as human’s tend to be easily influenced by the ‘dark side’.
Hillis/Moreno in '09
IMPRESSIVE...
Just absolutely freakin’ impressive…Being in business management and leadership for my entire employment career, I can relate to the principals as well as the results…
One more time…IMPRESSIVE…Thanks Bear and rec’d as well!
not sure about the taoist parts
My understanding of Yin and Yang is that they are two sides of a coin, inseparable and neither good nor bad. Casting them as such seems to be confusing the philosophy. Admittedly, I am usually confused and may be again.
In any case, enjoyed the post greatly, thanks Doc.
Don't limit Yin/Yang thinking to Taoism
Your analysis is correct, but only in part. I don’t see either as ‘bad’. However – the separation into active and passive attributes in an essential aspect of Y/Y theory. As a medical practitioner, I do see an excess of either to be what we think of as ‘disease’. Generally, you can also see the idea of ‘tamas’, for example, as ‘rest’ but it can as easily be ‘refusal to act’. It’s more of a matter of what is dominant at any moment. You can also say that ‘sattwa’ is a better blending of the two and therefore ‘superior’ (just as you could consider ‘synthesis as superior) but that’s only true in part as well. Each attribute is valid and necessary in the right circumstance. The process will tend to continue to manifest.
However, the point here is somewhat more far-reaching. The tendency of phenomena on the physical plane – including business theory, medicine, philosophy and physics, among others – shows a consistent tendency to be easily divided into threes. That was the real thrust of that part of the article – forgive me if I wasn’t more clear.
Hillis/Moreno in '09
Thanks for the clarification
I think me and you could have a very enjoyable philosophy discussion over a glass of kombucha. It’s probably best you didn’t write your article in the style of the Tao Te Ching, you might have been demoted to ball boy!
I did find the separation of players into three groups to be very helpful in thinking about team building. It helped de-mystify why it is so essential to recruit players taking their character into consideration.
I can just picture
Bear tossing the yarrow sticks….
Actually, That would be difficult. How would he get his big ol paws around em?
There is no army so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
by Jeremy Bolander on Jul 28, 2009 11:59 PM MDT up reply actions
Very interesting...
But I would quibble with your placing Brandon Stokely in the Group 2 players. Last year he used his influence to keep the other Brandon from drawing a 15-yard penalty in the end zone. Isn’t exercising leadership for the good of the team what Group 1 is all about?
Sincerely,
BP (still part of Group 2 around here)
"People who work together will win, whether it be against complex football defenses, or the problems of modern society." - Vince Lombardi
by broncospriestess on Jul 28, 2009 12:29 PM MDT reply actions
Good quibble!
Those in any group can also manifest leadership, which is the benefit and problem. Stokes is one who might be in either group. He was definitely in Group 1 that day = but he sure as heck hasn’t been a Group 3, from all reports and what I can see. Thanks!
Hillis/Moreno in '09
You'll be part of Group 1 soon...
… I know that Bronco Victory-Rage is lurking in there somewhere.
It's Orange Crush time. And no I am NOT talking about the soft-drink.
Which I beg the question: "Can liquid really be... soft?"
3 TE Set = 3 losses or less.
Do it MickeyD... 13-3!!
Great stuff Doc
Absolutely rec’d
"I am not one of those who think that coming in second or third is winning." -- Robert F. Kennedy
Terrific article Bear
Rec’d of course.
That’s one thing that did stand out to me on draft weekend – one guy after another was team captain or something similar in college.
Enjoyed the read as always Doc,
your method of educating us about football and ( life )
continues to en-light-en me.
You are a one of a kind Bear…
Rec’d
Real Power, comes with the realization that One cannot change the Moment;
only ones perception of it: Atitude! JQM
I hate ta add my comment and come close to ruining it
But you kinda have a feel when an article has more rec’s than comments, it is highly worthy – not to mention, when an article comes from certain MHR’ers, I am automatically looking forward to reading it!
Thanks broncobear!
First team to three consecutive SB wins!!!! and then some, right? I think four and we oughtta let someone else have a fair shot : )
by PearlJamBroncoGFunk on Jul 28, 2009 2:39 PM MDT reply actions
Thank you, guys
I really appreciate it.
By the way, ShawnDenver makes a very good point. This team doesn’t talk about character. They trade for it, draft for it and pack the roster with it, which makes me very comfortable with where we are. The hardest work comes next, but we have something that was in sort supply last year – leadership!
Hillis/Moreno in '09
Good Job Bear
Always an interesting read.
It's Orange Crush time. And no I am NOT talking about the soft-drink.
Which I beg the question: "Can liquid really be... soft?"
3 TE Set = 3 losses or less.
Do it MickeyD... 13-3!!
Brilliantly written.
Erudite, informative, and inspirational. Pushes the boundaries of our understanding, with the synthesis of philosophies beyond football, allowing greater insight into our personal lives as well.
Rec’d of course. Thank you.
"Remember, it's only a game."
An interesting analysis
and a departure from your usual style — more introspective — but effective. It made me think. BMarsh was almost a side issue. For the record I think he does aspire to group one. He sees himself as a leader because he’s prone to fantasy. But I think he’s group three mainly due to being immature and gaffe prone. Once he has a new contract he’ll otherwise be no problem. True about Xanders’ role being underestimated. He’s a behind-the-scenes kind of guy. But to the extent that he and McDaniels are both part of the new approach to player evaluation and team dynamics it’s perhaps not totally irrelevant that he was the first one in the door. Maybe that was Bowlen’s way of dipping his toes into the water. And although Bowlen apparently still favors a strong head coach model he did make Xanders the lesser of two equals rather than a subordinate. (Surely the spectacle of Shanahan firing his GM was a wee bit embarrassing.) And maybe even that underestimates Xanders’ impact..
The heart of your article for me is in the section titled The Past, beginning with these sentences:
He needed to be told that he was not just wanted but needed, even that he was irreplaceable. From a leadership viewpoint, you have to accept that if anyone had faltered and told him those things, it would not have been true.
You go on to explain why not telling the truth, even if it’s just stroking the QB to keep him happy, is a very bad idea:
As a business model, telling those lies is one of the worst things that you can possibly do, because those in Groups 1 and 2 will see you telling those lies and they will notice. It will affect how they see the organization and you never want that to happen.
Maybe it depends on the context of the “lies”. I don’t think most players would look askance at management stroking the QB. They might think they’re daft if they didn’t. But do you recall what outraged Cutler at the infamous Saturday meeting, after which he immediately demanded a trade? McDaniels told him no one’s irreplaceable and here’s what you need to do to improve. What if he had blanketed him with warm fuzzies instead? Cutler strikes me as a guy who’s benefitted less from coaching that from hours of practice honing his physical skills. If he had been reinforced in his belief that he needed only to be plugged into McDaniels’ shiny new system, that he didn’t need McDaniels to teach him how to be a quarterback, it would have been difficult if not impossible for McDaniels to shape him into the kind of QB he needed.
That raises the question, how coachable is Cutler compared to Orton, and how much does it matter? Have you heard of the zone of proximal development? It was coined by the brilliant Russian “developmental” psychologist L.S. Vygotsky to refer to the difference between how much a child can learn unaided and how much he can learn with the help of an adult. He discovered that it varied significantly, so much so that an especially teachable child might have a higher ceiling than the more naturally gifted child sitting next to him. It occurs to me that McDaniels, so steeped in his knowledge of quarterbacking and so accomplished as a tutor, might have a feel for which players can most benefit from instruction, who have the most ability to grow in the kinds of skills that go beyond a powerful, accurate arm. Did he choose Orton in part because he thought he had a greater capacity for growth and adaptation to his system than Cutler? (Was telling the truth to Cutler a way of finding out what he needed to know, whether Cutler could be molded into the kind of QB he needed?)
"Surprised to see you, Captain, though pleased." — from Star Trek episode Space Seed.
by spock on Jul 28, 2009 5:32 PM MDT reply actions 4 recs
Interesting takes, spock
I agree with you – Xanders is underestimated and underrated by the fans.
I am not familiar with Vygotsky’s work, but it fits with what I do know about. Your point on this is well taken – we will never know that exact circumstances with McDaniels and Cutler, and this will probably provoke theories and comments for a long time to come. However – I think that I’d stand on the concept that telling those supposedly ‘white’ lies sets a dreadful precedent.
I’m aware of the belief that you should do that to keep an unusually talented player. I even understand it – I just don’t happen to agree. Your discussion of that weekend meeting is accurate as far as we know. Cutler wanted to have his ego stroked. McDaniels didn’t do so, He was, rightly or wrongly, setting a tone. All employees are employees. The management will do whatever is in the team’s best interest. And from all we know, Cutler did lose it on that day. That’s truly unfortunate, but I tend to the same management school (and there are others, certainly) that McDaniels does. I don’t agree with being less than honest about such things. I think that it’s a bad precedent, and there’s a lot of business theory that backs me up.
As far as Orton – maybe McDaniels/Xanders had gotten that far. I have no data to rely on. Strangely, I suspect that we haven’t heard the last on the subject (lol). But I’m pretty happy with Orton now, and I look forward to the season.
Hillis/Moreno in '09
by Doc Bear on Jul 28, 2009 5:44 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs
I agree with the concept of even 'white lies' being dangerous.
A lie of any size, intent, etc. is a war with reality. The best cases I have heard attempted to defend some lies usually ignore the context of the proverbial ‘gun to the head’ (a context that nullifies morality by nullifying meaningful volition).
To start a war with reality is to start an unending, unrelenting, inexahustible, uphil climb, that can only end in defeat.
I would go so far as to say that not lying is a ‘principle’, that is, a rule that you can use in any situation to guide you. Like, life and death guide you. All the time.
So, obviously, I am of the opinion that telling Cutler anything but the truth was the wrong thing to do.
There is no army so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
by Jeremy Bolander on Jul 29, 2009 12:25 AM MDT up reply actions
Thanks to Broncobear for this analysis
And thanks to Spock for the comment above. A good coaching staff almost certainly has learned these lessons from experience whether they were able to elucidate them as clearly as Broncobear and Spock or not. Essentially, teamwork involves very sophisticated juggling of interpersonal relations with the big picture in mind and the individual in your hands.
Fantastic post, Bear!
By reading your posts, I feel that I am learning more about football.. now I’m learning more about the forces that rule our lives.
Rec’d and I’ll even share my salmon!
" Life is what happens while you're making other plans "
Amazing, Bear!
"Really, I'm a high-motor guy. Tough, hard-nosed, a hard runner, can make you miss at times. And just competitive. I love to play the game and I bring that energy to my team. So, we'll see how that goes." - Knowshon Moreno
Knowshon Moreno=ROY
Good Bear! Here's a treat.

"Surprised to see you, Captain, though pleased." — from Star Trek episode Space Seed.
Nice work bear.
That is definatly an interesting angle you took on the organization and everything that has transpired during the offseason. You hit this right on the button. I mean putting players into three groups really puts things into a better perspective on what McDaniels/Xanders and the rest of the front office is doing. Not catering to one player like you said when you were talking about Cutler is so true because you would undermine what is being done which is having everyone on the same page.
This is why I like McDaniels more all the time because I can see, and we all did buy the players he dumped and signed, is to get guys to want to do what is best for the team. We haven’t had the unity for quite some time that I see this group of players having in the future.
Awsome post. Rec’d and re-tweeted. Good job.
GO BRONCOS IN 2009 AND BEYOND!!
2009 NBA Champions L.A Lakers
2009 NBA Finals MVP Kobe Bryant
McD has lied to the press twice and a player has said he lied to them. One portion of you article says that an organization cannot lie to its players. Well maybe you should tell Josh this.
As another poster was saying these guys are leaders not type 1 people, and they can be in any group but if you have a lying coach all those leaders will be moving to type 3 very quickly.
Also for most people you don’t walk in as a leader until you have proven yourself on the field. Brian Dawkins probably fits in as walking in and being a leader, but that is it. All the other FA and rookies are going to have to prove themselves before anyone listens to them. Team chemistry takes time to build and while I agree the Broncos probably didn’t have it last year, I am sure they don’t have it this year yet. When this team shows some teamwork and spirit then I will believe this article.
I don't think that you've been reading the available media
I don’t know what ‘lies’ you are referring to, so there’s no point in talking about that. As far as leadership – did you read the article regarding Wes Woodyard and Andra Davis? Leadership was the main point of that one. DJ Williams showed leadership at MLB and didn’t at Will – he is matched with Davis in the middle this year. There are multiple examples.
Team chemistry takes time to build and while I agree the Broncos probably didn’t have it last year, I am sure they don’t have it this year yet. When this team shows some teamwork and spirit then I will believe this article.
No problem there. Enjoy the season.
Hillis/Moreno in '09

by 



























