Does Andy Reid devalue the importance of veteran leadership?
Brian Dawkins was a tremendous team leader, so was Sheldon Brown. Brian Westbrook was also a good team leader. I could name more but it's not necessary. I understand that you need to replace older veterans when the time comes, but sometimes you need to make an exception. When the player's value off the field is just as important or even more so, I think you need to do things a little differently. You can't keep depending on a handful of rookies every year. You need veteran leadership to get a championship.
| Latest Rumors |
|
|
|
|
Today's Best Stuff |
For BloggersJoin the Yardbarker Network (YBN) for more promotion, traffic, and money. |
Company Info |
Help |
What is Yardbarker?Yardbarker is the largest network of sports blogs and pro athlete blogs on the web. This site is the hub of the Yardbarker Network, where our editors and algorithms curate the best sports content from our network and beyond. |









15
1




So while I don't think Reid devalues the importance of leadership or anything else, I just think at times he may overvalue other guys and believe they can get it done when they probably can't.
Just like in the past I firmly believe he thought our WRs were good enough. And it takes a lot to admit you were wrong but all coaches are stubborn in their own way. But remember this is a guy who went into the season without a punt returner and DT playing fullback. Did he undervalue these positions? Maybe, but he also thought the guys on the team could get it done.
But to your point about Dawk, IMO they didn't want to sign him or they wanted to sign him for cheap and hope he took the "hometown discount". If they really wanted to sign him they would have done it before he actually became a free agent. Dawk had a great 2nd half of the year (Pro bowler) so re-evaluating his play wasn't an issue. They wanted to get him for cheap or get someone else who can do the same job for cheaper point blank.
And I agree, no one was going to beat the Broncos offer but like I said it should have never got to that point if you really want him to stay. And then you lose the leadership and replace him with guys that aren't even a shadow of him at the end of his career.
Somethings just aren't replaceable with money.
But you guys are getting off topic and talking about the reasons why they aren't keeping veterans. But no one is addressing whether they think Andy undervalues veteran leadership. If everything is always about money then the answer is yes. You care more about saving a couple bucks that wouldn't hurt the organization anyway than to keep guys around that make your team better. Why did Donovan get his last 2 years restructured but Dawk can't get a good deal? Seriously, what is that?
But like I said before time will tell for Andy Reid. He longer has defensive players that Ray Rhodes drafted, a great defensive coordinator. He's starting with his own team and we will see if he can truly build a TEAM and not just one side of the ball. And whether people like it or not, leadership is an important quality that can't be bought.
And please, who cares what Herremans says. What else is he supposed to say. And we're not talking about the QB. That's an entirely different thing. A coach isn't going to let a QB go if they are good regardless of how strong his leadership is. Donovan was here for 11 years and everyone but the team questioned his leadership. Fans don't know jack about leadership on a football team. Period.