Well, to be able to lead men (or women), first you have to do your job very good if not excellent. If you are lousy in performing your job, than your leadership will be under question mark. Somebody who will play on much higher level will be challenger, even if he does not try to become one. First you need to show that you know how to "lead" your job, before you are entitled to lead men (or women).

But, that is only my opinion. I accept there were and will be exceptions, but as old proverb says those exceptions are only to confirm the rule.

Right. Trent Dilfer lead the Ravens to a SB win. And Brad Johnson did the same for Tampa. Jim McMahon for the Bears. And Joe Flacco also did for the Ravens. Great defenses for all those teams were just a coincidence. Thanks for the insight.

Leadership is one factor, both at QB and coach, but the QB doesn’t play on defense and still needs the tools around him.

You take the exceptions and overlook history. Before the Cap era, teams could just be better. Lombardi had a heck of a roster and a great coach. The dynasties of that period were one of the reasons for the cap being imposed. With a great roster and coaching, a QB with great awareness but less skills can exploit the skills around him. One could argue we saw that last week, where a cap rich franchise was temporarily able to assemble a plus roster ( if not to the level of prior eras).

Secondly, the times have changed to favor offense dramatically. It’s much harder to win by having a great D and managing the game on O, even than it was 20 years ago.

Mediocre QBs that can manage are occasionally able to go on a tear. Chicago paid a lot of money for one such last season. Occasionally cap rebound or a fantastic draft can temporarily create a roster that us simply better around one if injury luck holds particularly, but today you need a great QB or such an anomaly to be competitive. The Cap dissolves the anomalies rapidly, so a good game managing but limited QB is likely to only offer a very short window. GMs and coaches that plan on that basis are probably not in it for the long term. So yes, leadership is a factor, but it isn’t a basis for long term success in isolation today.

Or, when you strike Gold you hang on to them.

Bart Starr won 5 NFL championships, but not in a row.

Whether it’s sports, or business, or the military, having a guy that can lead men to victory is always the difference.

Brady isn't the great leader of men especially on the Buc's, its their coach, who they want to win a Super Bowl for...I would say it was the same in NE with Bill coaching. Brady does his job and snarls around at people but I don't see him as some great leader...a winner yes and respected but some great leader of men...nah...these are grown adults they don't need much rah rah, what they need is good coaching and very good players...

I don’t think that I would use Trent Dilfer as an example of great leadership. He played with a great defensive unit that season and only needed to score about 14-17 points to win games that year. His defense just about shut down everybody. If Rodgers had Dilfer’s defense I doubt that the Packers would ever lose a game during the Rodgers era.

As for Bart Starr, he played on a team with 11 other HOFers led by the GOAT HC. Again, put Rodgers on Lombardi’s Packers and they probably go undefeated for the 60s.

Leadership is critical but some level of talent is required for both the QB and the players around him. At the professional level the margins for error are minuscule. Talent across the roster usually makes the difference especially when you reach the playoffs.

Thanks, Since ‘61

It's all about stats, and leadership is always in second place on the matters most list. Every talking point by any pundit begins and ends with stats. Leadership is always the follow-up discussion, not the main point of the discussion.

Leadership is now defined by the numbers a QB might post in each column of the stat sheet, regardless of whether those numbers translate to success, winning an SB, unless your version of success is a winning record, a Division Title or simply a playoff berth with an early exit. Yes, Watson, Prescott and others put up numbers, but their success is zero and winning is at best .500. Stat machines are not leaders or successful winners.

I have often mentioned, not recently, that the Packers have failed in making leaders, especially in a strong draft and develop ideology FO. Rodgers is the default leader by virtue of being the QB, but he leans more towards his stats legacy and protecting it with his 'trust' mandate, which appears to hurt the team at the most inopportune times. He's a bit too self-absorbed with his ego and his focus on making Adams his new pedestal base.

The Packers haven't had a true leader in a long time, perhaps since Woodson, and one could argue that was more a product of making the playoffs in 2010 which led to his 16 quarters speech.

Leaders don't disappear in games. Their presence is seen and felt even if the stats don't show it. The Packers have too many players that fail there, especially the over-heralded Smith Boys. Perhaps Alexander will be the new Woodson and be so for a longer period of time in GB.

I'm sure this will ignite a new fire of retorts against me, but it's what I see and deduce, and it will be a long off-season, and someone needs to maintain the fire, even if deemed negative by most. I'll always offer myself to be the 'leader' in your expected tirades. Leaders don't disappear they stay and fight for the ultimate victory, what MLF didn't do with that FG, and Rodgers not running for the TD, made or not, but both chose to turn away from leadership.

I was waiting for Rodgers to run it....like he did last week vs the Rams for a just-barely touchdown. And like he did vs Chicago in the only NFC Championship game he won.
And like Old John Elway did to beat us in a Super Bowl.
But he forced another one to covered Davante.

Stafford to the Rams , they just improved , may be the NFC champs next season.

Yeah, Brady is no leader. What the Bucs need is a true leader; a QB who yaps about winning the MVP all season long and not the Super Bowl, pouts on the bench after a 3 and out, locks into his favorite guy and ignores open receivers because he doesn’t “trust” them, shows up teammates with the stink eye after they make a mistake, pulls a Droopy Dog face when he gets behind, and drops crap bombs on management after playoff losses. That is a true leader!

I think that Lewis is considered a leader on this team. And there are probably others as well that we don’t hear much about. Leadership is important but then so is talent. Rodgers has both. I am not sure about the rest of the team because I am not privy to it’s inner workings. Yet I imagine that leadership is not the major problem, it’s talent.