What's more important in a football player?

[Rack]

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."

I can't believe that you CAN'T see that they are NOT equal.


You assume that instincts and athleticism are completely equal. They are not. Great instincts will make up a lot more ground then great athleticism.


I believe a player with great athleticism and average instincts will be no better then a "Good" football player, not Great.

 

[JackMagist]

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

I believe that it is very relevant if you wish to make an equal comparison. And I simply do not agree that they are conceptually equal regardless of wording. I am not saying that a player does not have to be a good athlete but instincts will make the difference for a good athlete vs. a great athlete as to which one will be the great player.

To try to assign a quantitative weighting to the two attributes I would have assign a relative value of:

40 points athleticism
60 points instincts

Note: If the weighting concept is not self explanatory please disregard because the explanation would be too lengthy of a discussion for this venue.

 

[theogt]

Re: the football accuracy statements. They're not logically equivalent to the other two statements so I don't see how it is relevant.

Re: the "dumb" post. I don't know where the hell he was getting those players from but I thought, at least, that he made complete sense and I agreed with most of his points. Other than showing he made erroneous assumptions, which really weren't even central to his theme, you haven't shown that it is dumb.

Re: Combine workout numbers. Ware wouldn't be here if it weren't for his spectacular workouts. While it is possible to place too much emphasis on these workout numbers, they are very meaningful in assessing a players ability.

Re: out original subject. I never said insticts can't make an average athlete great or that they do not play a significant role. In fact, I said just the opposite. However, I think there is a threshold level of athleticism that no amount of instincts will get you past. Beyond that, great instincts will take a player far. An optimal combination as I've said several times is best.

Re: taking us off subject. As my grandmother used to say, when you point your finger at someone you have three more pointing back at you. Personally I don't think we've gone off subject. If so, neither of us individually deserves blame.

 

[BLEU3ASY]

instincts by far

 

[theogt]

I believe that it is very relevant if you wish to make an equal comparison. And I simply do not agree that they are conceptually equal regardless of wording. I am not saying that a player does not have to be a good athlete but instincts will make the difference for a good athlete vs. a great athlete as to which one will be the great player.

To try to assign a quantitative weighting to the two attributes I would have assign a relative value of:

40 points athleticism
60 points instincts

Note: If the weighting concept is not self explanatory please disregard because the explanation would be too lengthy of a discussion for this venue.

Grrr....I'm not saying that athleticism or insticts are equal or unequal. I am just saying that the test you used to determine instincts as more important did not necessarily conclude that. When ran through the test both outcomes are equal. Now we can differ as to whether athleticism and instincts are equal. That after all is what the thread is about.

Edit: The weighting concept is irrelevant. We are to assume from the statements that "great player" = "great player".

 

[JackMagist]

Grrr....I'm not saying that athleticism or insticts are equal or unequal. I am just saying that the test you used to determine instincts as more important did not necessarily conclude that. When ran through the test both outcomes are equal. Now we can differ as to whether athleticism and instincts are equal. That after all is what the thread is about.

I disagree that the test proved to be equal. As I pointed out the assertions of your counter statement did not employ equal scenarios and therefore could not be equally applied. You claim that these inequities are irrelevant whereas I see them as being very relevant to the test of the two attributes. And the test of the two attributes is after all the point of this thread...or so I thought.

 

[lane]

the greatest attribute an athlete can have in any sport is HEART...

 

[Rack]

Re: the "dumb" post. I don't know where the hell he was getting those players from but I thought, at least, that he made complete sense and I agreed with most of his points. Other than showing he made erroneous assumptions, which really weren't even central to his theme, you haven't shown that it is dumb.

OMFG...


Is it even possible to prove ANYTHING is "Dumb"? Does "Dumb" have an actual value or something?


Do you understand the meaning of the word "Opinion"?



You're new nickname is Mr. Spock. Cuz anything that can't be proven or disproven as "factual" is "Not logical" to you.


Sometimes things are what they are, and there isn't a mathematical formula to prove otherwise.

His post was dumb. Call what you want, I'll continue to call it dumb.


And remember what I was saying earlier about "Over analyzing"? You really should seek therapy about that.

Re: Combine workout numbers. Ware wouldn't be here if it weren't for his spectacular workouts. While it is possible to place too much emphasis on these workout numbers, they are very meaningful in assessing a players ability

And this has WHAT to do with ANY of this?


My god... do you even understand anything we're talking about here? Or are you ASSUMING I think Ware has poor instincts?

Cuz I sure as hell didn't say that about Ware. So why you bring him or his workout numbers into this is beyond me, unless, again, you are ASSUMING I think he has poor instincts.

However, I think there is a threshold level of athleticism that no amount of instincts will get you past.

Absolutely 100% WRONG.

If you CREATED your own athlete giving them the most of any kind of physical athleticism you can think of, but he had terrible instincts, he would NOT be a good football player.

Basically you just said you can get the greatest athlete in history... put a rat's brain in him and he'd be just as good as he would be if you were to put Ray Lewis' brain in him. Cuz, as you said, there is a point of athleticism that no amount of instincts will get you past. YOUR words.

And they're wrong.

Edit: The weighting concept is irrelevant. We are to assume from the statements that "great player" = "great player".

We are to assume? I already stated that a player with great athleticism and average instincts would be no better then "Good", NOT great.


So your assumption is irrelevant.

 

[theogt]

I disagree that the test proved to be equal. As I pointed out the assertions of your counter statement did not employ equal scenarios and therefore could not be equally applied. You claim that these inequities are irrelevant whereas I see them as being very relevant to the test of the two attributes. And the test of the two attributes is after all the point of this thread...or so I thought.

Let's go through.

1(a) Insticts will make a player of average athleticism into a great player
Inputs - Instincs, average athleticism
result - Great player.

1(b) Lack of instincts can make a player of great athleticism into an average player."
Inputs - Lack of instincts, great athleticism
Result - Average player.

2(a) Athleticism will make a player of average instinct into a great player.
Inputs - Athleticism, average instinct.
Result - Great player.

2(b)Lack of athleticism can make a player of great instinct into an average player.
Inputs - lack of athleticism, great instinct.
Result - Average player.

Do you disagree with any of the statements? I can't see anyone disagreeing.

You may however claim that inserting instincts into a player of average athleticism will result in a better player than inserting athleticism into a player of average instinct.

In that case, weighting each value would make sense.

 

[Rack]

the greatest attribute an athelete can have in any sport is HEART...

While I agree it is a great attribute to have, it is NOT the greatest attribute.


I've known a few players over the years with an extreme amount of heart, and none of them would of stood a chance at the NFL level.

You have to have SOME degree of athleticism and instincts. Heart will help if you've got enough of the other two, but if you have poor instincts and poor athleticism and the biggest heart man has ever known, you won't be worth a crap in the NFL.

 

[Rack]

Let's go through.

1(a) Insticts will make a player of average athleticism into a great player
Inputs - Instincs, average athleticism
result - Great player.

1(b) Lack of instincts can make a player of great athleticism into an average player."
Inputs - Lack of instincts, great athleticism
Result - Average player.

2(a) Athleticism will make a player of average instinct into a great player.
Inputs - Athleticism, average instinct.
Result - Great player.

2(b)Lack of athleticism can make a player of great instinct into an average player.
Inputs - lack of athleticism, great instinct.
Result - Average player.

Do you disagree with any of the statements? I can't see anyone disagreeing.

You may however claim that inserting instincts into a player of average athleticism will result in a better player than inserting athleticism into a player of average instinct.

In that case, weighting each value would make sense.

Yes, I absolutely do disagree.

 

[theogt]

Yes, I absolutely do disagree.

Which ones and why?

 

[JackMagist]

Edit: The weighting concept is irrelevant. We are to assume from the statements that "great player" = "great player".

As I said if the concept is not self explanatory then disregard it.

But as for the statement that "great player" = "great player"...well duh.

However, my assertions is that "great athlete" does not necessarily equal "great player" unless the great athlete has sufficient instincts.

 

[theogt]

As I said if the concept is not self explanatory then disregard it.

But as for the statement that "great player" = "great player"...well duh.

However, my assertions is that "great athlete" does not necessarily equal "great player" unless the great athlete has sufficient instincts.

I understand this. I restated the term as "player of great athleticism" in my statements to make it more clear.

 

[JackMagist]

Let's go through.

1(a) Insticts will make a player of average athleticism into a great player
Inputs - Instincs, average athleticism
result - Great player.

1(b) Lack of instincts can make a player of great athleticism into an average player."
Inputs - Lack of instincts, great athleticism
Result - Average player.

2(a) Athleticism will make a player of average instinct into a great player.
Inputs - Athleticism, average instinct.
Result - Great player.

2(b)Lack of athleticism can make a player of great instinct into an average player.
Inputs - lack of athleticism, great instinct.
Result - Average player.

Do you disagree with any of the statements? I can't see anyone disagreeing.

You may however claim that inserting instincts into a player of average athleticism will result in a better player than inserting athleticism into a player of average instinct.

In that case, weighting each value would make sense.

Yes I disagree with 2b specifically. A player has to have at least average athleticism to be an average player. No amount of instincts will make up for a complete lack of athleticism and this is where your agruement fails.

 

[Clove]

Personally I'll take a gifted player, and he'll develope instincts. And if he doesn't develope it, I'll take another athleticly gifted athlete. Give me a bunch of 4.3 guys on my team, guys that can throw a football 150 yards, a guy that is as quick as lightening, a guy that can jump 52' verticle, a guy that is 330 pounds and can lift a truck, and I'll find a way to the Super Bowl.

Obviously a guy has to have some instincts if he made it to the NFL, but if a guy made it to the NFL and he's as smart as anything, and he has incredible instincts, but he can't run fast at all, the dumbest non-instinctive player will burn him everytime. People say that Troy Polamalu has great instincts, and he has 4.3 speed to go with it. So the perfect player is one with both, but if I had to choose, I'll take the athletically gifted individual.

 

[theogt]

Yes I disagree with #4 specifically. A player has to have at least average athleticism to be an average player. No amount of instincts will make up for a complete lack of athleticism and this is where your agruement fails.

You don't disagree with it actually. Just add "at best" to the end of the statement. The thrust of #4 is just as you say, that no amount of instinct will make up for a complete lack of athleticism.

 

[JackMagist]

You don't disagree with it actually. Just add "at best" to the end of the statement.

No, the way the statement is made I disagree with it. This is after all a discussion of athletes and it is therefore a given that a minimum amount of athleticism is required before the discussion can even begin. Your statement does not allow for that minimum amount of athleticism.

 

[Rack]

Which ones and why?

All of them.

1(a) Insticts will make a player of average athleticism into a great player
Inputs - Instincs, average athleticism
result - Great player.

1(b) Lack of instincts can make a player of great athleticism into an average player."
Inputs - Lack of instincts, great athleticism
Result - Average player.

You don't apply any type of value to "Instincts" in these two.

In 1(A) is a player has POOR instincts and is an average athlete he most certainly will not be a great player.

In 1(B) is a player actually had ZERO instincts then he would not be an average player regardless of his athleticism. He would be a poor player ala Mike Mamula.

2(a) Athleticism will make a player of average instinct into a great player.
Inputs - Athleticism, average instinct.
Result - Great player.

2(b)Lack of athleticism can make a player of great instinct into an average player.
Inputs - lack of athleticism, great instinct.
Result - Average player.

In 2(A) you don't put a value on athleticism. Does the player have poor athleticism? Good? Excellent? Just like you used Instinct in 1(A&B) you're using Athleticism here. A person with poor or even average athleticism will not be a great player if he has average instincts.

You get the point. You weren't specific enough in 1 (A&B) regarding instincts and in 2 (A&B) regarding athleticism.

Everyone has a different degree of both instincts and athleticism. So you can't say "Lack of" regarding either. If a player truly "Lacked" any of the two he wouldn't be great, good, or average. He'd be horrible.

 

[lane]

While I agree it is a great attribute to have, it is NOT the greatest attribute.


I've known a few players over the years with an extreme amount of heart, and none of them would of stood a chance at the NFL level.

You have to have SOME degree of athleticism and instincts. Heart will help if you've got enough of the other two, but if you have poor instincts and poor athleticism and the biggest heart man has ever known, you won't be worth a crap in the NFL.

rack......i simply mean this:

an athlete at the highest level must have heart and a love of the game.
you will not make it to this level if you do not have athleticism.
not financial gain........ a love of the game.

way too many athletes are overlooked because they can not run a 4.3 40.

that is total bs.

i'll take a mike renfro and a bill bates any day of the week.