there was a post yesterday that declared Ryan wasn't a good leader. my response was that i thought his worse trait was not being able to get a total commitment from his players, because his admissions of failing to take care of his (and his staff's) business sends a message that some levels of failure are not only expected, but are acceptable.
I used the metaphor of religion in my response. that leaders must insist that the foundation of their faith is beyond doubt, and that the gospel they preach will lead the faithful to the promised land. if the disciples fail, the fault is in the disciples - not the gospel. they simply don't have the faith necessary to attain their goal. such a paradigm fall on it's face when those spreading the gospel can't meet the standards they preach. if the leader is determined to be flawed, doubts will destroy the disciples' faith in his gospel.
what seem like small annoyances that impact the team on game day - such as the proper turf shoes to wear, radios in helmets, even cool water in the water bottles - are symptomatic of a lower standard of attention being paid to preparation by those who support the players ability to perform. as such things add up, the players begin to see that flaws at varying levels of preparation are acceptable to the coach. they begin to openly question more important aspects of the system - their individual roles on the team, their use, and their gameplans.
their commitment wavers. they lose faith. they lose games.