If every player that took to the field had the game intelligence to know what to do they wouldn't need a "leader" to tell them what to do.
The academies are all well and good - but there is no substitute for actually playing against bigger, better, dirtier men and learning from it... rather than wrap them up in proverbial cotton wool.
Can't agree with all you're saying there.
A leader's not just there to make decisions - that's not even the majority of what he should be doing - he's the guy getting the rest in the right frame of mind, geeing them up, calming them down. Even at the top level, even in teams with multiple leaders, you notice the guys who can do that. A better quality of player does not wipe out a need for leaders. Our intensity was awful. We need more guys who self-start and gee up others.
Also - there's no substitute for gametime, but there's also no substitute for basic athleticism and skills. The first, you pretty much have it or you don't, although it still needs development. The second, if you're trying to learn them after school then to a certain extent, it's too late. Who's getting wrapped up in cotton wool? My point is that trying to turn guys like Andrew and McIlwaine into good Pro 12 players is an uphill struggle as they simply don't look that talented, nevermind all the young forwards who never got a chance but looked pretty naff in the Ravens. The Academy needs to find and upskill more players who have the talent to succeed in professional rugby. Without that, the rest is pretty pointless.