What's more important in a football player?

[Rack]

Well that's ridiculous then. Name 3 players in the NFL with instinct but lack athletic talent.

So now you're gonna start spin doctoring huh?


I never said a person that has no athletic talent can succeed if he has instincts. Keep things in perspective.

There isn't a single player in the NFL that "lacks athletic ability" depending on what point of view you have.

 

[theogt]

HEre's an example...


Do people think Ed Reed is great (not counting '05) more because of his intincts or his athletic ability?


Keep in mind Ed Reed ran the same speed as Roy Williams (Roy did it at the combine, Reed did it at his pro day).

And yes, I know speed is only one example of athletic ability.



Let me put it this way, you can be solid with very little instincts and great athletic ability or vice versa.


But every single great football player (and I'm talking the GREATS) all had good instincts.

Well of course the "greats" have both athletic ability AND instincts. In drafting you seek an optimal combination of the two.

 

[Rack]

Well of course the "greats" have both athletic ability AND instincts. In drafting you seek an optimal combination of the two.

It was a simple question, but of course you had to overanalyze.


Which is MORE Important? Simple question, I thought.

 

[theogt]

So now you're gonna start spin doctoring huh?


I never said a person that has no athletic talent can succeed if he has instincts. Keep things in perspective.

There isn't a single player in the NFL that "lacks athletic ability" depending on what point of view you have.

Ironic. Who's spin doctoring here? You clearly stated "athleticism". You made a ridiculous claim and now you're trying to back out of it.

 

[theogt]

It was a simple question, but of course you had to overanalyze.


Which is MORE Important? Simple question, I thought.

No, I answered the question. In my original post I implied that athleticism is a pre-requisite to playing in the NFL but that instinct is not.

 

[MiStar]

It really depends on the position more than anything else. At QB, everyone here would choose Tom Brady over Mike Vick. As a kick blocking specialist, instincts are all but irrelevant, but speed, power, and leaping ability are key. Generally, I would lean towards instincts and smarts.

In the grand scheme of things, athleticism is ephemeral, while instincts last forever. Injuries won't effect players that rely on instinct as much as players that rely on athleticism. Take Jevon Kearse as an example. Kearse was freak athlete coming out of college, and terrorized the leage when he came in. But then he got injured and is now only a shadow of the player that he was.

 

[Bledsoe4MVP]

No doubt that instinct and atleticism is important, but don't overlook things like raw talent, leadership, savvy play, and intangibles like the great ones possess.

Without these things players like Bledsoe would be just be another run of the mill Jo Blo QB with fantasy numbers.

 

[MONT17]

this is just sad...we have people calling EMMITT and Montana stiffs!!! yeah they may have a great football IQ but to say they are not athletic is a joke!!!


if u are not and athlete and u have ESP you will still get your **** handed to you!!!


I think what u are saying is would u rather have more of not one or the other!!!

I would still have a great athlete because he will learn the game after some time!!!



thats why they call it Athletics not Instinctiveness!!!

 

[JackMagist]

This is actually a tough question. They really have to have both to some degree.

You get athletic freaks like Randall Williams who had no instincts for the game. But no amount of instincts will suffice if the player doesn't have enough athleticism to act upon his instincts.

However, for my answer I'm going with instincts because they will make an average athlete into a great player and the lack of them can make a great athlete into an average player.

Take Dat Nguyen…an average athlete with great instincts who consistently lead the team in tackles and was a cornerstone of our defense. Then you have Levar Arrington who is a phenomenal athlete but has no instincts and he ended up riding the pine half his career in Washington and now can’t seem to get a job.

 

[theogt]

they will make an average athlete into a great player and the lack of them can make a great athlete into an average player.

You can equally apply both altheticism and instincts to this statement.

 

[baj1dallas]

i'll take athleticism, every year in the draft there is a guy who "isnt the most athletic guy on the field but has a lot of heart", that guy is never any good in the NFL. I'll take the "freaks" like merriman, kearse and matt jones.

Dat was never any good? You don't think Matt Jones has instincts? You don't go from QB to WR without being a "football player" first and foremost.

 

[JackMagist]

Originally Posted by JackMagist
they will make an average athlete into a great player and the lack of them can make a great athlete into an average player.

You can equally apply both altheticism and instincts to this statement.

Huh???

Great athleticism will make an average athlete into a great player? That is an oxymoron.

 

[theogt]

Huh???

Great athleticism will make an average athlete into a great player? That is an oxymoron.

Of course you'd have to change ALL the words, not just some of them. For example:

1. "Insticts will make an average athlete into a great player and the lack of instincts can make a great athlete into an average player."

2. "Athleticism will make a player of average instinct into a great one and the lack of athleticism can make a player of great instinct into an average player."

The second sentence sounds obvious. It's obvious because it's true. Therefore, you can apply both characteristics equally to the test you used to choose instincts.

 

[Rogerthat12]

No need for an either/or fallacy here because essentially the question is a false dilemma. It is quite obvious that both good and great players need both to function at a certain level amongst other attributes.

 

[Rack]

this is just sad...we have people calling EMMITT and Montana stiffs!!! yeah they may have a great football IQ but to say they are not athletic is a joke!!!


if u are not and athlete and u have ESP you will still get your **** handed to you!!!


I think what u are saying is would u rather have more of not one or the other!!!

I would still have a great athlete because he will learn the game after some time!!!



thats why they call it Athletics not Instinctiveness!!!

Dumbest post in Cowboyszone history.

This is actually a tough question. They really have to have both to some degree.

Every player that has ever played the game has had both "to some degree".

That wasn't the question. I really don't think it can be worded any simpler.


Which is more important? I'm not saying which you'd rather have, one or the other. Obviously you have to have some degree of BOTH, but which is MORE important?


My god, Frued (sp?) wouldn't f'in analyze that question as much as some of you people are doing.

You get athletic freaks like Randall Williams who had no instincts for the game. But no amount of instincts will suffice if the player doesn't have enough athleticism to act upon his instincts

I don't consider a person that is extremely fast to necessarily be extremely athletic.


Randal Williams could run straight ahead fast, but he couldn't make a cut to save his life. Not athletic, IMO.

However, for my answer I'm going with instincts because they will make an average athlete into a great player and the lack of them can make a great athlete into an average player

I agree. Players like Emmitt Smith, Jerry Rice, Joe Montana, even Michael Irvin were not overly athletic. I'm not saying they had no athletic ability. So for anyone trying to take this "debate" down that road, get a life.


I guess a good way to put it would be "Defining feature". What would you rather have be the defining feature in a football player. His athleticism, or his instincts (not saying that have zero of either).

You can equally apply both altheticism and instincts to this statement.

You can apply it, but not equally.

The second sentence sounds obvious. It's obvious because it's true. Therefore, you can apply both characteristics equally to the test you used to choose instincts.

It's true? I failed to see you prove as much. Just cuz you say it's true doesn't make it so.


Who would you rather have, Mike Mamula or Terrell Suggs?

 

[theogt]

Good ol' Rack resorting to the ad hominem. Explain why it was a dumb post. Explain why you can't apply both equally. Let's say it together now. SUBSTANCE.

edit: ...as to why the statement is true, it's patently obvious. It logically follows from the definitions of the terms and structure of the sentence.

 

[JackMagist]

Of course you'd have to change ALL the words, not just some of them. For example:

1. "Insticts will make an average athlete into a great player and the lack of instincts can make a great athlete into an average player."

2. "Athleticism will make a player of average instinct into a great one and the lack of athleticism can make a player of great instinct into an average player."

The second sentence sounds obvious. It's obvious because it's true. Therefore, you can apply both characteristics equally to the test you used to choose instincts.

The problem with your statement and the reason it cannot be applied equally is that you are saying that the player with great instincts has below average athleticism (lack of athleticism). Whereas in my statement the great instinctive player had at least average athleticism. I will stand by my assessment of two attributes.

 

[theogt]

The problem with your statement and the reason it cannot be applied equally is that you are saying that the player with great instincts has below average athleticism (lack of athleticism). Whereas in my statement the great instinctive player had at least average athleticism. I will stand by my assessment of two attributes.

That is logically irrelevant. The two can be applied equally. You can word the statements however you like but they're conceptually equal.

 

[theogt]

Slightly edited. Can you not see how the two are equally applied?

1. "Insticts will make a player of average athleticism into a great player and the lack of instincts can make a player of great athleticism into an average player."

2. "Athleticism will make a player of average instinct into a great player and the lack of athleticism can make a player of great instinct into an average player."

 

[Rack]

Good ol' Rack resorting to the ad hominem. Explain why it was a dumb post. Explain why you can't apply both equally. Let's say it together now. SUBSTANCE.

edit: ...as to why the statement is true, it's patently obvious. It logically follows from the definitions of the terms and structure of the sentence.

Speaking of substance...



So if I say...

"Throwing a football accurately is just as important as throwing a football with velocity", I can just as easily say "Throwing a football with velocity is just as important as throwing the football accurately"?



If you say yes you're flat out lying. Cuz I don't think you're a dumb person.



I see you completely ignored my other question. Who would you rather have, Mike Mamula or Terrell Suggs?




And the reason that post was dumb is cuz he took a simple comment and completely raped it with assumptions. I don't recall anyone calling Emmitt Smith a stiff. Just cuz you say someone's strength was his instincts doesn't mean you're saying he had no athletic ability. That's called being Dumb or spin doctoring. In his case, I don't think he has the ability to spin doctor. Do the math.



A player with average athleticism but great instincts can be a good, or even great, football player. It's been proven. Emmitt was an average athlete. So was Jerry Rice.

But players with great athleticism and very nominal (sp?) instincts are very rarely, if ever, good or great football players. Mike Mamula is just one example. Lavar Arrington is another. Arrington would be hall of fame material if he had average instincts. The dude just guesses. Sometimes he guesses right, most of the time he guesses wrong.


Terrell Suggs is an average athlete, at best. He's had at least 9 (?) sacks in all three of his seasons, and was the rookie of the year in 2003. How many players said he's be a bust simply cuz he ran a 4.9 forty? Nors was one. Some clown named "CATCH22" (over at that other site) is another. Those were the most vocal.


How many people are calling Vince Young a bust even now? Just cuz he doesn't have the prettiest mechanics or cuz of some wonderlic score. He has great instincts though. That's another word for "It" when describing a QB. Vince has "It". I don't think he'll be a bust.



People just fall in love with a player's workout numbers too easily. If Lawson hadn't ran a 4.4 you wouldn't have him in your sig right now. If he had a 35" vertical and ran a 4.6 you wouldn't want anything to do with him in the first round.


Again, I'm not against takign Lawson at 18. But there is some HUGE risk there. I know there's risk with every player, but with Lawson it is substantially more then normal, IMO. His own coach said in that article about his instincts at the LB position. He said he could be a 3-4 rush backer, but he wouldn't be rushing every time. And a player with poor instincts is gonna struggle at the LB position when he has to play the run and cover his man or his zone.


Either way, you've taken this way off topic.


Simple question, what is more important in a football player, his athleticism or his instincts? Again, don't assuem I'm saying "Would you rather have a great athlete with no instincts or a poor athlete with great instincts". Every player in the NFL has to have some degree of athleticism and instincts. I'm saying which of the two is MORE important.