Stanback vs Ogletree for 5th Receiver Spot *Merge*

[WoodysGirl]

[youtube]4Z0h_c9eH-8[/youtube]

 

[TD-33]

[youtube]4Z0h_c9eH-8[/youtube]

:laugh2:

 

[VACowboy]

Yeah, I saw him. Again read the thread before making obnoxious comments about whether or not I even saw the guy.

Chill, dude. I didn't ask "Did you even see the guy???" I asked about a move Ogletree made on the field during a game to point out the fact that he has some fricking talent too. Sorry you find empirical demonstration "obnoxious."

If you can't see the difference then what I think won't mean anything.

The difference in what? Can you explain the difference? Can you point to ONE demonstration of Stanback's supposed superior talent? Like I said, I've never seen it.

 

[Hoofbite]

[youtube]VAoTKPsPR3A[/youtube]
Around the 1.05 minute on, the white and silver blur.

Yes, we know. Laid-up looks awesome running without the ball in his hands. Pretty much the only reason he still has a roster spot.

 

[starfrombirth]

[youtube]VAoTKPsPR3A[/youtube]
Around the 1.05 minute on, the white and silver blur.
[youtube]1FuC3jnm4TE[/youtube]
QB = Stanback

Wow! That throw was just nuts! Still he is a wr for us and we need him to show up. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to get rid of him. I do want us to keep 6 wr's if possible but I don't want to get rid of Ogletree more.

 

[theogt]

What exactly is "athletic talent"? The two terms don't work well with me in this case. "Athletic ability"? Maybe....but "athletic" and "talent" are two very different terms.

....and Stanback seems to only have one of the two....and thats only if pure speed equals athleticism. I keep hearing how the guy can cut so well at full speed and do these tremendous athletic feats that our other players are unable to do... I've yet to see where this extreme athleticism has allowed Stanback to run routes well, or make himself standout as a returner. It hasn't. He's been very unimpressive IMO.

So for all of his supposed athletic talent, he clearly hasn't translated it to the field. Instead, he's injured and re-injured himself enough times that his roster spot is in jeopardy....and rightly so. Meanwhile, we have a guy that has continually showed that he can play the position...and while his "athletic talent" may not be quite as impressive as Stanback's, it's pretty good....and guess what? He's a receiver.....you know, the position we're trying to fill....

NO brainer IMO.

I'm not sure what you're missing. Athletic ability is talent.

Talent: "Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality."

LINK

 

[alancdc]

I would just like to say, Thank you, as this is the longest one of the threads I put up has lasted by about 12 pages. Thank you all for making my week a special one.

 

[TheCount]

I'm not sure what you're missing. Athletic ability is talent.

Talent: "Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality."

LINK

Maybe in Track & Field.

 

[theogt]

Maybe in Track & Field.

Obviously athletic talent alone isn't enough for track and field events either. Technique and training is required similar to football.

 

[tomson75]

I'm not sure what you're missing. Athletic ability is talent.

Talent: "Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality."

LINK

You're smarter than that Theo. While athletic ability is talent, talent isn't always athletic ability.

How does "Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality" = "Athletic ability"?

It can, but only when the endowment or ability required for that particular talent is athletic ability itself. In the case of being a talented wide receiver, talent would be a "natural endowment or ability of a superior quality as a wide receiver", and not of "...quality as an athlete."

So no. Athletic ability does not always equal talent.

If I'm 34 and can do backflips in my front yard...it doens't mean I'm a talented pianist.

 

[tomson75]

You're confusing the definition of talent. Talent simply means having an ability that is considered above average or exceptional.

If you're 34 and can do backflips, you certainly are talented, because that is an ability that is above average or exceptional.

Having natural athletic ability is a "natural endowment." It is also an "ability of superior quality." If I have to explain to you why that is the case, I'm just dropping the conversation altogether.

Lmao...i understand that.

What I was trying to convey earlier, and I may have misspoke, is that Stanback is not a "talented wide receiver". I won't argue that he's a talented athlete, because as you've pointed out, he is....but in this particular application, I don't believe his talent is applicable to the wide receiver or kickoff return positions in the NFL.

Does that make sense? I'm all over the place today...

 

[theogt]

You're smarter than that Theo. While athletic ability is talent, talent isn't always athletic ability.

How does "Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality" = "Athletic ability"?

It can, but only when the endowment or ability required for that particular talent is athletic ability itself. In the case of being a talented wide receiver, talent would be a "natural endowment or ability of a superior quality as a wide receiver", and not of "...quality as an athlete."

So no. Athletic ability does not always equal talent.

If I'm 34 and can do backflips in my front yard...it doens't mean I'm a talented pianist.

I think I see where you're getting confused. You are arguing that he's not a "talented wide receiver." If someone were making that claim, they would be saying that he possesses skills of a wide receiver that are exceptional or above average. Whether that's true is up for debate, but it's beside the point because I don't think anyone is claiming he's a talented wide receiver -- or at least they didn't use that term to modify the word talented. They're simply saying he's talented (without any sort of modifier), with the assumption being that others would realize they're referring to his athletic talents.

And, by the way, if you're 34 and can do backflips, you most certainly are talented.

 

[theogt]

Lmao...i understand that.

What I was trying to convey earlier, and I may have misspoke, is that Stanback is not a "talented wide receiver". I won't argue that he's a talented athlete, because as you've pointed out, he is....but in this particular application, I don't believe his talent is applicable to the wide receiver or kickoff return positions in the NFL.

Does that make sense? I'm all over the place today...

Ignore that response, because I misunderstood your argument. See the later post.

 

[FCBarca]

Does he have a chance to make this team?

Stanback experiment has been over for a long time

 

[DallasDomination]

maybe they can throw at Stanback a little more...It's not all His fault he hasnt produced lately. Mageee was to busy playing madden and Kitna has a hard on for Hurd....throw some passes his way atleast. I'm just saying.

 

[Goldenrichards83]

From Matt Mosley blog:


Mark (Wilkes-Barre PA)




Hey Matt, love the blog. Who do you think makes the cut? Stanback or Ogletree?
Mosley (12:57 PM)





Ogletree's making the team. Romo LOVES him.