To Rhode: Those off-the-field "A" leaders and gametime "B-2" leaders MUST have "street-cred" someway or another with the guys they're trying to push. That's why "seniority" often is part of the credentials. I believe that offense and defense are somewhat different on this. Offense is something like a military unit. The system has chain-of-command built into it, right down to who can even talk and when. At the pre-snap, everyone must have bought into the play whether they agree with the higher command or not [sure, this is also true on defense in a literal sense, but the atmosphere surrounding game-day offense is much more chain-of-command]. Because of this subconscious atmosphere, I believe that it is easier for a quarterback to truly "take charge" [even emotionally] at a time when his seniority is not yet there. Everyone on offense instinctively looks to the quarterback at the end and in the huddle interval of every play. What is he saying? How strongly/resolutely is he saying it? Does he sound like he believes it? What are his eyes saying? What's his body language? The entire offense WANTS this guy to look like he's ready to roll and confident "if we just do our parts of the job". That's why if you're not the quarterback it's hard to lead on the field while the game is in progress.
That doesn't mean that offensive leadership is not possible for someone else just after the whistle or while the O is on the sidelines. That's where a Mike Floyd could have been roaming about getting in the faces of a Theo Riddick, a TJ Jones, a Cierre Wood et al. It is more likely [or more often seen] that this takes place within the closed fraternity of the offensive line. And, if you're not "one of the fraternity", you have to have a LOT of street cred to come over to their neighborhood of the bench and get in their faces. Obviously coaches do it. A rare QB like Tebow can get away with it. But it is usually one of their own. Braxton Cave has huge street cred as a monster and a don't ever quit guy. He could easily be that guy if he had the personality. A Zach Martin has now developed the street cred to turn on his posse and let fly. A sophomore O-Lineman can't do it.
Defensively, the atmosphere is less like a military unit and more like a wolfpack. There's the time for discipline and "system" of course, but there's a lot more "free time" for near-mayhem-like roaring about and challenging one another. Here again it was the wrong personality in our alpha-wolf, Manti. He like Mike just isn't built for getting after his own guys. With the overwhelmingly acknowledged alpha-dog unwilling to take that role, it has been harder for others to step into it. Harrison was not that sort of in-your-face guy, either. I doubt that Jamoris, who last year was actually fighting for playing time early, has "ascended" to that position. Who can? The D-Line and middle linebackers have almost always had that aura about them of the great monsters of the defense who carry a frightening violence just below the surface. If the right sort of athlete exists there [seniority in the sense of having proved something on the field, plus overtly evocative personality --- you have to be at least a little likable, too], his teammates will listen when he's getting after them. VERY rarely can an offensive player "come over" to their bench neighborhood and rouse the troops. Again, that's why Tebow was so odd --- but to my eye, even he cultivated that relationship with the defense, and even when yelling, was saying exhortive things, not criticism. A monster can call out other monsters; mere olympic gods cannot.
Two further things: 1). I think that we have been unlucky. Our great stars have been devoid of these blunt challenging personalities. They are great performers and never quitters, but they have not done much game-time to pull the others along. We have youngsters who seem to have the potential, and are getting the street cred.
Now, something that I shouldn't say: 2): I believe that the Notre Dame football experience has been a bit too orderly and chain-of-command. I do not know this, but it seems from the outside that the Weis regime AND the Kelly regime both [in their different ways] put a excessive damper on the release of raw emotion. I realize that not to do so would be playing with fire, but the corporate atmosphere must allow some of this to allow the [in practice and in game ... shall we call it "aggressive"? ...] teammate-to-teammate exchanges, if we're going to get to those areas of useful leadership, or if it's always going to be repressed. Note how the staff [and even some players], seemed a little shocked at how "demonstrative" Aaron Lynch naturally is on the field? I say, go for it, Aaron... just don't get a penalty. I think that Kelly is so obviously and completely "The General" that it's just a little too much. It's up to him to set the tone. We'll see if he has that particular talent in him. Diaco also seems one of the more conservative "behavior-managers" as well. Maybe the added burden of this being Notre Dame, where everyone's an elite paragon of social virtue allegedly, makes overt leadership of some of these sorts harder to achieve.
