Nate Newton Speaks

[DABOYZ]

Originally Posted by HoustonFrog

I really think people here underestimate a) coaching when it comes to penalties, mental mistakes, etc and b) the mental aspects of the game. The stuff that Nate is talking about is the same as us talking about "who the leaders are." Considering no one can ever give a straight answer, why is it so hard to believe that the "country club" atmosphere that Jimmy and others have mentioned doesn't permeate onto the field?

[View Full Quote]There is a reason why the last few years we are always having trouble with penalties and mental lapses....discipline and coaching. I don't care what level of football you've played you've had coaches...the good ones..constantly beat into your head running plays the right way, concentrating in the 4th quarter (which is a conditioning thing too) and proper technique. You make people pay for mistakes, not coddle them. You make it get to a point where the player is thinking.."I don't want to let down my team or coach." EVERY player will say he doesn't want to but making yourself work for it and lip service is the difference between winning and losing. That is my issue with Garrett and the coaches we have had. People hang onto this..."they don't give up and play hard for him." Well why didn't they play hard to start the game or the first 3 quarters before they fell behind by 21? Why didn't they respect him to start a game by jumping offsides multiple times?

Nate is right and it has plagued the team for years and been brought up by Jimmy and others watching.

[Gaede]

Didn't know the OP was really something anybody could argue.

If you think this teams attitude is fine, you haven't been watching.

We've got Dez and outside of him, I can't think of a single person who gives the team emotion, momentum, energy, or attitude. Dwayne Harris maybe. We've got lots of talented players who are all great sportsmen and nice guys.

If you've ever played a sport, you know how important it is to have guys that are even keel and ALSO guys that get angry and take what they want from the other team. We don't have that mix.

[speedkilz88]

Originally Posted by Royal Laegotti

And it doesn't take a high IQ to figure out that he's onto something.

fixed

[speedkilz88]

Originally Posted by Gaede

Didn't know the OP was really something anybody could argue.

If you think this teams attitude is fine, you haven't been watching.

We've got Dez and outside of him, I can't think of a single person who gives the team emotion, momentum, energy, or attitude. Dwayne Harris maybe. We've got lots of talented players who are all great sportsmen and nice guys.

If you've ever played a sport, you know how important it is to have guys that are even keel and ALSO guys that get angry and take what they want from the other team. We don't have that mix.

So you've never seen Sean Lee play before have you?

[ware1manarmy]

Originally Posted by InmanRoshi

If there is such a thing as "attitude" it's apparently completely fleeting and unpredictable to the point where it's meaningless to account for in any pragmatic way.

What happened to the Giants "attitude" from last year? Just magically disappear? Nate's Cowboys 1996 had "attitude" and then suddenly lost "attitude" in 1997? Ravens had "attitude" this year, except they lost "attitude" when they had a 3 game losing streak in December, then magically found "attitude" again. This "attitude" attribute seems pretty random and chaotic to me. Seems like a results driven narrative people concoct to attempt to make sense of outcomes.

well put

[Doc50]

Originally Posted by InmanRoshi

I love all this voodoo hocus pocus "attitude" stuff. It's so magical. All last offseason I had to listen to about this magical "attitude" that the Giants had, but little did I know that n sometime over the offseason the magical "attitude" fairy came in the middle of the night and zapped away all their magical "attitude" powers for 2012, in which they folded down the stretch and completely no-showed and made gutless appearances for critical games like the Atlanta blowout/shutout.

Maybe it was just that the really Giants got hot for a 4 game stretch and/or their opponents made mistakes to beat themselves (did the Ravens attitude cause Rahim Moore to whiff on an easy INT?) in a single elimination tournament which randomness is nurtured.

Nah, gotta be "attitude". Curse you "attitude" fairy!!!! Why must you be so fickle!!!!

[View Full Quote]In the meantime our team (who doesn't have "attitude") and the Ravens (who do have "attitude") squared off this season, and our atttitude depleated team completely pushed around the Ravens attitude ample team in the trenches on both sides of the ball (Dallas has 220+ yards rushing, compared to the Ravens 86). Turns out that game didn't come down to "attitude", it came down bad special teams play and poor clock management.

Well said.

[theebs]

Originally Posted by Gaede

Didn't know the OP was really something anybody could argue.

If you think this teams attitude is fine, you haven't been watching.

We've got Dez and outside of him, I can't think of a single person who gives the team emotion, momentum, energy, or attitude. Dwayne Harris maybe. We've got lots of talented players who are all great sportsmen and nice guys.

If you've ever played a sport, you know how important it is to have guys that are even keel and ALSO guys that get angry and take what they want from the other team. We don't have that mix.

what?

Fully convinced most people who post on message boards do it for the arguing.

I dont even think most of the people that post watch all the games, or watch them sober.

after reading about all the people that turned off games early this year because we were losing I am completely convinced message boards exist for arguing and time wasting.

[HoustonFrog]

Originally Posted by InmanRoshi

If there is such a thing as "attitude" it's apparently completely fleeting and unpredictable to the point where it's meaningless to account for in any pragmatic way.

What happened to the Giants "attitude" from last year? Just magically disappear? Nate's Cowboys 1996 had "attitude" and then suddenly lost "attitude" in 1997? Ravens had "attitude" this year, except they lost "attitude" when they had a 3 game losing streak in December, then magically found "attitude" again. This "attitude" attribute seems pretty random and chaotic to me. Seems like a results driven narrative people concoct to attempt to make sense of outcomes.

You're actually making Nate's point. The Giants started losing when they lost their killer instinct and their "us against the world attitude." It happens when you get fat and happy and win SBs. See other teams and most coaches talking about not wanting his team to get "complacent." This happens in all sports. Thanks for making the point. It fluctuates because it comes down to players concentrating and eliminating mistakes. As I said in my earlier post, much of this comes down to coaching and discipline. The 90s Cowboys had some lapses...until Jimmy got on their tails..and then things magically perked up. Not sure how this isn't obvious. For some reason Jimmy Johnson and others in the know talking about a "country club" atmosphere doesn't quite click for people and how that can translate into sloppy play on the field. They want to concentrate on how they valiantly tried hard for the coach the 4th quarter while ignoring how they came out unprepared, sloppy and with no intensity the first 3 quarters.

[InmanRoshi]

Originally Posted by HoustonFrog

You're actually making Nate's point. The Giants starting losing when they lost their killer instinct and their "us against the world attitude." It happens when you get fat and happy and win SBs. See other teams and most coaches talking about not wanting his team to get "complacent." This happens in all sports. Thanks for making the point. It fluctuates because it comes down to players concentrating and eliminating mistakes. As I said in my earlier post, much of this comes down to coaching and discipline. The 90s Cowboys had some lapses...until Jimmy got on their tails..and then things magically perked up. Not sure how this isn't obvious.

"No, you see, we won games that was a perfect example of how we had "attitude", and then we lost some games, so obviously we didn't have "attitude", and then we won some more games so we obviously had "attitude", then a week where we lost a game where we didn't have "attitude", and then won a game because we regained "atittude".

I really just got into the wrong field. I would love to work in a field were random sampling variance could be attributed to voodoo and superstition. Unfortunately, I have a field where a methodology is deemed useless until sustainable and predictable results are obtained using it.

[HoustonFrog]

Originally Posted by InmanRoshi

"No, you see, we won games that was a perfect example of how we had "attitude", and then we lost some games, so obviously we didn't have "attitude", and then we won some more games so we obviously had "attitude", then a week where we lost a game where we didn't have "attitude", and then won a game because we regained "atittude".

I really just got into the wrong field. I would love to work in a field were random sampling variance could be attributed to voodoo and superstition. Unfortunately, I have a field where a methodology is deemed useless until sustainable and predictable results are obtained using it.

What your doing is just called babbling because you don't know how it works. Somehow ex-players, coaches and others who talk about just don't get it either. When it was the 90s Cowboys it was called "swagger." More to it than you think. I'll just repost my words from a page earlier because they make more senses than watching you get mad and act like its nonsense. Your "field" whatever it is, also doesn't allow you to think outside the box.

I really think people here underestimate a) coaching when it comes to penalties, mental mistakes, etc and b) the mental aspects of the game. The stuff that Nate is talking about is the same as us talking about "who the leaders are." Considering no one can ever give a straight answer, why is it so hard to believe that the "country club" atmosphere that Jimmy and others have mentioned doesn't permeate onto the field?

There is a reason why the last few years we are always having trouble with penalties and mental lapses....discipline and coaching. I don't care what level of football you've played you've had coaches...the good ones..constantly beat into your head running plays the right way, concentrating in the 4th quarter (which is a conditioning thing too) and proper technique. You make people pay for mistakes, not coddle them. You make it get to a point where the player is thinking.."I don't want to let down my team or coach." EVERY player will say he doesn't want to but making yourself work for it and lip service is the difference between winning and losing. That is my issue with Garrett and the coaches we have had. People hang onto this..."they don't give up and play hard for him." Well why didn't they play hard to start the game or the first 3 quarters before they fell behind by 21? Why didn't they respect him to start a game by jumping offsides multiple times?

Nate is right and it has plagued the team for years and been brought up by Jimmy and others watching.

[InmanRoshi]

Originally Posted by HoustonFrog

What your doing is just called babbling because you don't know how it works. Somehow ex-players, coaches and others who talk about just don't get it either. When it was the 90s Cowboys it was called "swagger." More to it than you think. I'll just repost my words from a page earlier because they make more senses than watching you get mad and act like its nonsense. Your "field" whatever it is, also doesn't allow you to think outside the box

"Swagger" is utterly meaningless. The Cowboys won in the early-mid 90s because they had a collection of players who were really great at football. Then in the mid-late 90s they started losing players who were good at playing football and replaced with guys who weren't as great at playing football. Troy Aikman, Michael Irvin, Deion Sanders, Nate Newton, Erik Williams ... all those guys with "swagger" were on the teams in 1998 and 1999 that got embarassed and destroyed in the playoffs. "Swagger" didn't mean jack in 1998 and 1999 when you're playing next to Clay Shiver, Solomon Page and Billy Davis.

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by InmanRoshi

"Swagger" is utterly meaningless. The Cowboys won in the 90s because they had a collection of players who were really great at football. Troy Aikman, Michael Irvin, Deion Sanders, Nate Newton, Erik Williams ... all those guys with "swagger" were on the teams in 1998 and 1999 that got embarassed and destroyed in the playoffs. The "swagger" didn't mean jack. What mattered is they were playing with Clay Shiver and Derek Kennard and Billy Davis.

Swagger is what you get when you know you're better than the other guys. It's not what makes you better than the other guys. It's no surprise that good teams have players with swag. We've got them, too, but they keep their mouths shut when they're 8-8 and don't make the playoffs.

[HoustonFrog]

Originally Posted by InmanRoshi

"Swagger" is utterly meaningless. The Cowboys won in the 90s because they had a collection of players who were really great at football. Troy Aikman, Michael Irvin, Deion Sanders, Nate Newton, Erik Williams ... all those guys with "swagger" were on the teams in 1998 and 1999 that got embarassed and destroyed in the playoffs. "Swagger" didn't mean jack in 1998 and 1999 when you're playing next to Clay Shiver, Solomon Page and Billy Davis.

The NFL is full of guys in the league because they belong. There is a miniscule amount of difference between winning and losing. Your idea of attitude and swagger is a made up thing that you think anyone can just attempt to have, thus its fantasy. Nate Newton, Jimmy and others who talk about this stuff's idea is that teams who practice right, are coached right, work hard and and are mentally prepared can beat other teams because they are willing to push themselves more than other teams. They walk on the field with attitude because they know that all of their teammates buy into this and are prepared mentally. When there is a country club attitude, this does not exist. That was Nate's point, Jimmy's point and anyone else's point that has heard pros talk about it. It is the difference between teams. There is nothing more to say if you can't realize this is how the NFL operates. Guys like Irvin had swagger and attitude not because it was some made up thing...according to you...but because he knew thew they were better prepared, disciplined and conditioned. I knew that when I played in high school we were stronger than other teams in the 4th because we ran wind sprints in the Texas Summer heat for 2 weeks before having 2 a days in Granbury, Texas in mid-August. We all knew that. That is where the attitude comes from for these guys. They push themselves. The Cowboys don't have that.

[InmanRoshi]

Originally Posted by HoustonFrog

The NFL is full of guys in the league because they belong. There is a miniscule amount of difference between winning and losing. Your idea of attitude and swagger is a made up thing that you think anyone can just attempt to have, thus its fantasy. Nate Newton, Jimmy and others who talk about this stuff's idea is that teams who practice right, are coached right, work hard and and are mentally prepared can beat other teams because they are willing to push themselves more than other teams. They walk on the field with attitude because they know that all of their teammates buy into this and are prepared mentally. When there is a country club attitude, this does not exist. That was Nate's point, Jimmy's point and anyone else's point that has heard pros talk about it. It is the difference between teams. There is nothing more to say if you can't realize this is how the NFL operates. Guys like Irvin had swagger and attitude not because it was some made up thing...according to you...but because [View Full Quote]they knew thew they were better prepared, disciplined and conditioned.

So Jimmy didn't win in Miami not because he didn't have enough talent, but because he forgot how to infuse his team with "swagger"?


Huh.




What really amazes me are guys like Ken Wisenhunt and how suddenly he forgets how to install discipline and "swagger" into his teams. It's like, one year he had it a team in the Superbowl with lots of "swagger", and the next year he suddenly forgot how to do it practically overnight. I thought it was the difference between having Kurt Warner and having Kevin Kolb/John Skelton, but I never scored 5 TDs for Polk High.


You would probably be jumping for joy if Jerry hired Mike Ditka to run the Cowboys drafts. Very few people so closely share the same philosophy of football as you do. Most notably in the Saints 1997 draft when he ignored all of the scouts and massively reached for guys like Jared Tomich, Troy Davis and Danny Wuerffel because they had amazing "heart" in college (I've been told that's the one thing you CANT measure).

[Yakuza Rich]

There's a book that talks about what Belichick thought of the term 'swagger.' It's not pretty.





YR