Where Rivet sees leadership

[carpandean]

http://www.buffalonews.com/489/story/649924.html

 

No. 1 would definitely be Paul Gaustad. He really moved himself into more of a role, more vocal in the room, which I think this team needs.

No surprise there. If Paul had just a little more hockey skill, he would be exactly what this team needs in its top six: big, physical leader willing to call himself and others out.

 

A guy like Tim Connolly is always a guy that you could see the leadership qualities.

I don't know about "always" -- it was tough to see that when he was in the press box for the first half of this year and much of the last two years -- but it's good to hear that he has that potential. Let's hope he can show it for most, if not all, of the next two seasons.

 

Even Derek Roy was somewhat quiet at the start of the year, but you could see these improvements.

I assume that "even Derek Roy" means that Derek was thought to be a leader on this team (reasonable to think looking back at last year), but was a little quiet at the start of the season. I thought that he regresses a little this year, but still see a future Captain (here or elsewhere) in a few years (he's definitely still too immature right now.) I know many will disagree with that, but there's something there that I can't put my finger on.

 

-Interesting that he doesn't include Pominville, who many here (including myself) thought could be Captain after last season. Perhaps, it was simply a matter of him focusing on his play, which was clearly sub-par, but he definitely took a big step back in that department.

 

-Unfortunate is that Vanek wasn't included. He seemed to be stepping up as a leader, on and off the ice, at the start of the season, but that didn't last long. Maybe this was Lindy mishandling him or maybe he's just naturally a little lazy and couldn't sustain the effort that he put forward at the start of the season.

 

- Very surprising is that he didn't mention Miller. It's possible that he just figured that was a given, not a surprise or a change, and he was focusing on guys stepping up into that role.

[...]

Gaustad doesn't surprise me at all. Connolly being mentioned surprises me somewhat, as I have him pegged as one of the quiet players in the locker room.

 

His assessment of Roy doesn't surprise me, although I think he's wrong about the potential leadership qualities. I can see Roy fuming in is little ego-bubble, and exploding at guys because he's frustrated that HE looks bad.

 

I am not at all surprised JJ Pommers wasn't mentioned. That dude was psychologically crushed this season. I never understood why other folks here were pointing towards him as a potential captain - I did not and still don't see those qualities in him. If he can "walk through the valley of darkness" and come out okay on the other side, then maybe YEARS from now he might be a decent captain. He will have to learn how to get angry, first, then how to throw down, long before he earns a "C".

 

Vanek is a total loner. I think that should be clear to anyone, he exudes that personality type. He should be relied on to score goals, and serve as a leader-by-example, but nothing else.

 

I think Miller is so obvious, that he wasn't worth mentioning. Rivet likes the word "obviously" - meaning that he has impatience with the obvious.

[shrader]

- Very surprising is that he didn't mention Miller. It's possible that he just figured that was a given, not a surprise or a change, and he was focusing on guys stepping up into that role.

 

Or the writer didn't feel it needed to be included.

[Wraith]

Gaustad doesn't surprise me at all. Connolly being mentioned surprises me somewhat, as I have him pegged as one of the quiet players in the locker room.

Connolly doesn't surprise me at all. The guy is obviously not known for his interviews but he's been consistently vocal while on the ice over the last few seasons. I've often seen him gesturing to teammates in the huddle during a timeout or in the face-off circle. Think back to that game against Phoenix where he told Sekera exactly where to stand during the draw and it resulted in a one-timed goal from the point. Also add in that he defended Miller twice.

[R_Dudley]

Nice Post.

 

Gaustad - Obsolutely ?

 

Connolly - yes I saw that as well and I like and agree w/Wraith's point about him being one of the few to step up for Miller 2x

 

Roy - Im taking that to mean some improvements in maturity, because I still didn't see the leadership late in the year on the ice. Maybe he handled the critique from some others better at the end or responded to the challenges being made a little better behind the scene's. I do agree with Carp that there is something you can't put your finger on however I wouldn't be surprised if it is tied to the maturity and/or private issues that the whole alleged 'sausage pulling caught on camera' incident says about priorties and where your heads at figuratively....

 

Miller- Yeah, that's just assumed in my book because he was one of the players that when he came back from injury, stepped up, didn't back away from the pressure, press or heat and spoke the truth about what was lacking and needed in his game and produced for the most part. Talk the talk, walk the walk.

[Stoner]

Connolly doesn't surprise me at all. The guy is obviously not known for his interviews but he's been consistently vocal while on the ice over the last few seasons. I've often seen him gesturing to teammates in the huddle during a timeout or in the face-off circle. Think back to that game against Phoenix where he told Sekera exactly where to stand during the draw and it resulted in a one-timed goal from the point. Also add in that he defended Miller twice.

 

Very good post, Wraith. Some seem to think "leadership" is standing up and yelling, or calling someone out. Virtually every act of leadership will never been known by the media or fans. I remember at the trading deadline it was reported that a cheer went up in the lockerroom when it was announced Connolly had been resigned. That says a lot. Imagine the respect Connolly has earned all around the league for coming back from one serious injury after another. With a near full season next year, he's the classic Masterton Trophy candidate. I think he was this year, but they didn't give me a vote.

[...]

Connolly doesn't surprise me at all. The guy is obviously not known for his interviews but he's been consistently vocal while on the ice over the last few seasons. I've often seen him gesturing to teammates in the huddle during a timeout or in the face-off circle. Think back to that game against Phoenix where he told Sekera exactly where to stand during the draw and it resulted in a one-timed goal from the point. Also add in that he defended Miller twice.

 

 

Let's be clear - I said "in the locker room". If the dude is quiet in the locker room, but vocal out on the ice, that could cause some confusion or worse (read: animosity) amongst his team mates.

 

No, leadership is not just berating your team mates in the media, but it is being consistent with them on the ice and off. Just like carp's " there's something there that I can't put my finger on" comment on Roy, there was/is something about Connolly that makes me believe he wasn't one of the people in the locker room standing on their soap box trying to rally the team to a victory.

 

That said, I agree his leadership on the ice had definitely grown the last few months of the season. Too bad he wasn't able to apply that all season. I also want to make it clear that I have been one of Connolly's defenders all season - I think he was worth the two-year extension and let's hope he surpasses all of our expectations.

 

As far as I'm concerned the issues with this team aren't due to the talent on the ice, fundamentally, but what's happening in the locker room.

[Wraith]

Let's be clear - I said "in the locker room". If the dude is quiet in the locker room, but vocal out on the ice, that could cause some confusion or worse (read: animosity) amongst his team mates.

My point was that it is not hard to believe that Connolly is a locker room leader given the fact that he appears to be a leader on the ice. I think there is a very strong correlation between how a guy is on the ice and how he is in the locker room. I doubt there is much of a correlation at all between how well a guy interviews and how good a leader he is in the locker room.

[...]

I think there is a very strong correlation between how a guy is on the ice and how he is in the locker room.

 

Can you justify this correlation?

 

I doubt there is much of a correlation at all between how well a guy interviews and how good a leader he is in the locker room.

 

Can you justify the lack of correlation?

 

I mean, we can determine a player's personality based on what we see on the ice, but not by what we see and hear him saying publickly?

[Wraith]

Can you justify this correlation?

Can you justify the lack of correlation?

 

I mean, we can determine a player's personality based on what we see on the ice, but not by what we see and hear him saying publickly?

Wow, seriously?

 

You see no reason why I would prefer to judge a person by watching them do their job rather than judge a person based on a what a third-rate journalist trying to sell a paper says they said about their job after the fact?

[...]

Wow, seriously?

 

You see no reason why I would prefer to judge a person by watching them do their job rather than judge a person based on a what a third-rate journalist trying to sell a paper says they said about their job after the fact?

 

 

So the five to ten minute player interviews on radio and posted at the Sabres site provide no insight into a player's personality?

 

And, so, a person's personality can be accurately determined only by how they perform their jobs?

 

Why give job interviews, then? Or performance reviews? Why do we hear about people being judged in the workplaced based on Facebook postings? Why are politican's personal lives scrutinized, or their media appearances parsed, so long as they do their jobs well?

[Wraith]

And, so, a person's ability to do their job can be accurately determined only by how they perform their jobs?

Yes.

 

Why give job interviews, then? Or performance reviews? Why do we hear about people being judged in the workplaced based on Facebook postings? Why are politican's personal lives scrutinized, or their media appearances parsed, so long as they do their jobs well?

Employers rely on job interviews and performance reviews because in most industries it is not practical to physically observe prospective employees in the work place long term. Do you honestly think, if given the choice, employers would choose job interviews versus hours and hours of tape of the person actually performing their job function?

 

In professional hockey, we have the luxury of having actual observations of them performing their job.

[...]

Yes.

Employers rely on job interviews and performance reviews because in most industries it is not practical to physically observe prospective employees in the work place long term. Do you honestly think, if given the choice, employers would choose job interviews versus hours and hours of tape of the person actually performing their job function?

 

In professional hockey, we have the luxury of having actual observations of them performing their job.

 

Okay, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. If we were talking about a job such as the toothpick press operator, where teamwork and other social skills mean nothing to the function of the job, then physically observing the performance may count. Though it would it be easier to simply count the number of toothpicks the press operator presses a day.

 

But, in a team environment, being able to interact in a positive manner with the team is as important as the skill at doing the job. You can be highly skilled but if you have poor social skills you will fall way short of exercising your potential, and the team will thusly fall short of its potential, due to the consequences of those poor social skills.

 

But this is a tangent: the questions remain whether the five to ten minute player interviews on radio and posted at the Sabres site all season long provide insight into a player's personality, and if the only way to assess a personality is via job performance.

 

And, nice trick, slick, but you changed my words in the quote thereby making it not a quote at all. That changes the question I posed entirely.

[SwampD]

So the five to ten minute player interviews on radio and posted at the Sabres site provide no insight into a player's personality?

They really don't. I see a lot of people on and off camera. They are two entirely different things altogether. Being interviewed is such an artificial setting that it is impossible to tell what someone is really like. Just because someone may appear awkward or cold on camera doesn't mean that in the locker room they couldn't be open and vocal.

 

 

As to the topic, I think they are all sheep being led to slaughter by farmer Lindy.

[Kristian]

Okay, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. If we were talking about a job such as the toothpick press operator, where teamwork and other social skills mean nothing to the function of the job, then physically observing the performance may count. Though it would it be easier to simply count the number of toothpicks the press operator presses a day.

 

But, in a team environment, being able to interact in a positive manner with the team is as important as the skill at doing the job. You can be highly skilled but if you have poor social skills you will fall way short of exercising your potential, and the team will thusly fall short of its potential, due to the consequences of those poor social skills.

 

But this is a tangent: the questions remain whether the five to ten minute player interviews on radio and posted at the Sabres site all season long provide insight into a player's personality, and if the only way to assess a personality is via job performance.

And, nice trick, slick, but you changed my words in the quote thereby making it not a quote at all. That changes the question I posed entirely.

 

All I heard all year was the same line : "We need to be better, work harder, play the the system, give a full effort, backcheck harder blah blah blah blah".

 

So I would say, that if interviews provide insight into player's personalities, we're in good shape.

 

However, looking at the standings tell a different story.

[Wraith]

But, in a team environment, being able to interact in a positive manner with the team is as important as the skill at doing the job. You can be highly skilled but if you have poor social skills you will fall way short of exercising your potential, and the team will thusly fall short of its potential, due to the consequences of those poor social skills.

Where have I said that "social skills" aren't important? Wouldn't watching a person perform their jobs for hours upon hours while amongst their teammates be a better indicator of those social skills than a few minutes with a reporter? Most of the players say the right things to the reporters. Most of that does not carry over to ice. When trying to guess figure out which guys are good in the locker room, I'll look to the guys who are good leaders on the ice. Sounds like a much safer bet than looking to the guys who talk a good game with the reporters when their teammates aren't around.