What's more important in a football player?

[theogt]

That's exactly my point about weighting each value. In the exercise you DON'T weigh each.

Ok. I'm off to bed. Talk to you guys tomorrow I'm sure.

 

[Rack]

Personally I'll take a gifted player, and he'll develope instincts.

You assume instincts are somethign that can be developed.



I'd take an average athlete with great instincts over and great athlete with average instincts every time.

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.

If those players have the instincts of a chipped rock, I guarantee the only superbowl you'll see is on TV.

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

So a 4.7 forty guy like Emmitt wouldn't succeed? A 4.6 guy like Jerry Rice? A 4.9 guy like Charles Haley? Terrell Suggs?

the dumbest non-instinctive player will burn him everytime

You mean a guy like Randal Williams (you specified speed)? Or Alexander Wright?


Who would you rather have, Alexander Wright or Everson Walls?

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,

The fact that you refer to Troy Polamalu as a "Perfect player" completely wipes out any bit of credibility you may have ever had.

 

[Rack]

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.

I disagree. I think I know what you're trying to say, but the way this is worded, I disagree.

A player doesn't HAVE to love the game to be successful.

I agree about Mike Renfro and Bill Bates, but that doesn't prove your statement.

Would I RATHER have a player with heart? That loves the game? Hell yeah. But it isn't necessary to be successful.


I was darn good in math in highschool/college. Could of done something with it, but I freakin' hate math. I can't stand it. It just doesn't appeal to me at all. I get no enjoyment out of it.

But if I had forced it on myself (which is probably what i should of done, but that's another story) then I could of been a rich man by now.

 

[Rack]

That's exactly my point about weighting each value. In the exercise you DON'T weigh each.

Ok. I'm off to bed. Talk to you guys tomorrow I'm sure.

Good night, sweetheart. Sweet dreams.


:starspin

 

[wesleyc288]

depends on position

 

[JackMagist]

That's exactly my point about weighting each value. In the exercise you DON'T weigh each.

But I weighed the ones that matter in the context of this discussion. When you try to reverse them they do not equate because an athlete without instincts can make it into the game. But a person without athletic ability will not make it into the game and therefore is not germane to the discussion. Since we are discussing athletes the discussion becomes a comparison of great athletes vs. good athletes with little or no instincts vs. good instincts.

Great Athlete w/ good instincts = Great Player (HoF caliber)
Great Athlete w/ poor instincts = Average Player
Lesser Athlete w/ good instincts = Great Player (Pro Bowl caliber, maybe more)
Lesser Athlete w/ poor instincts = Special Teamer / Practice Squad (gone in 2 years)

In all four scenarios the player with the good instincts is the cream that rises to the top. To reverse the argument as you attempted to do steps outside the given boundaries of this discussion.

Edit: Damn he went to bed...and I was having such fun

 

[Haley94]

You assume instincts are somethign that can be developed

Can't they? or are we born with an innate ability to play football. I would argue that we are not.

Playing football is a learned behavior. Through practice and experience we develop the mental and physical ability to make certain distinctions which we call instincts.

 

[Haley94]

A player doesn't HAVE to love the game to be successful.

I agree, but a player must be motivated to be successful. maybe not by the game itself but by what the game can provide for him.

 

[JackMagist]

Can't they? or are we born with an innate ability to play football. I would argue that we are not.

Playing football is a learned behavior. Through practice and experience we develop the mental and physical ability to make certain distinctions which we call instincts.

Playing football is a learned behavior; true enough. However, it is that innate ability to recognize and react that makes the difference in the level of play and the quaility of the player. Otherwise we would be looking at the Wonderlic for linebackers just as closely as we look at it for quarterbacks.

 

[Haley94]

And some coaches do look at wonderluck in all their players. The ability to recognize and react is not innate in specialized environments. It is learned through experience. The speed in which the information is processed can be influenced by the genetic makeup of the brain, but the brain is flexible and adaptive enough to create new neuro nets through repetitive conditioned behavior.

My point is this: Give me a highly motivated, superior fast twitch athlete and the instincts will develop over time.

 

[Derinyar]

You can take a player with below average physical talents but with good instincts and they will likely always be useful, but I think the inverse isn't true. A player with good physical talents and below average instincts is usually harder pressed to amount to any thing. Even if your size isn't perfect or your speed is lacking if the player positions himself in the right place its less of a factor.

Every player to hit the NFL has at least a certian level of raw athletic ability, with this in mind the players ability to maximize their physical talent with their instincts is even more important.

Average players are, in my opinion, more likely to be people who are using instinct. The players who boom and bust are more likely playing on phsycial ability. Great players most often have both.

So after all this I'd say that the mind is more important than the body, as long as certian minimal physical levels are reached.

 

[Rack]

And some coaches do look at wonderluck in all their players. The ability to recognize and react is not innate in specialized environments. It is learned through experience. The speed in which the information is processed can be influenced by the genetic makeup of the brain, but the brain is flexible and adaptive enough to create new neuro nets through repetitive conditioned behavior.

My point is this: Give me a highly motivated, superior fast twitch athlete and the instincts will develop over time.

Yeah, in lala land maybe.


Tell that to Mike Mamula.


Either way you still have yet to answer the question. I didn't ask which you would draft because of your opinion on what could be developed easier. I said which is a more important assett to a player, athleticism or instincts. The draft has nothing to do with it.

 

[Rack]

You can take a player with below average physical talents but with good instincts and they will likely always be useful, but I think the inverse isn't true. A player with good physical talents and below average instincts is usually harder pressed to amount to any thing. Even if your size isn't perfect or your speed is lacking if the player positions himself in the right place its less of a factor.

Every player to hit the NFL has at least a certian level of raw athletic ability, with this in mind the players ability to maximize their physical talent with their instincts is even more important.

Average players are, in my opinion, more likely to be people who are using instinct. The players who boom and bust are more likely playing on phsycial ability. Great players most often have both.

So after all this I'd say that the mind is more important than the body, as long as certian minimal physical levels are reached.

Excellent post.

 

[Haley94]

perhaps Mamula wasn't properly motivated or had a limiting beliefs.

Read the book "Flow". It's not la la land. It's Jimmy Johnson land.

 

[Haley94]

I answered the poll question as instincts as a more valuable asset. I just think it can be developed with motivation. That said, if you don't meet certain minimal physical atributes, all the instincts or motivation in the world isn't going to help you.

 

[JackMagist]

And some coaches do look at wonderluck in all their players. The ability to recognize and react is not innate in specialized environments. It is learned through experience. The speed in which the information is processed can be influenced by the genetic makeup of the brain, but the brain is flexible and adaptive enough to create new neuro nets through repetitive conditioned behavior.

My point is this: Give me a highly motivated, superior fast twitch athlete and the instincts will develop over time.

Speaking form a pure physiological standpoint you are correct. However, instincts transcend the physiological processing of data. Instincts are that innate ability to recognize the situation even before the actually physical environment develops. In facts instincts border on the physic and are not just a reaction to what one sees. In fact a player with good instincts will often times go against what he sees to pursue what his gut tells him is going to happen. These are the guys who are not fooled by misdirection and trick plays.

BTW, I consider motivation to be a seperate and singular attribute that CAN be developed. Sometimes it can be instilled by coaches or mentors and other times it can be found by the individual player. It is never exactly same for any two players being a psychological factor that is developed through life experiences.

 

[Haley94]

I agree with you on your take on motivation.

I would suggest that you are describing "intuition" and not "instinct" in the first part of your post.

Instinct-An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental

Intuition- 1. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. See Synonyms at reason.
2. Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight.
1. A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.

 

[Rack]

perhaps Mamula wasn't properly motivated or had a limiting beliefs.

Read the book "Flow". It's not la la land. It's Jimmy Johnson land.

Jimmy Johnson? The same Jimmy Johnson that drafted Alexander Wright?

I answered the poll question as instincts as a more valuable asset.

Then you are a smart man.

I just think it can be developed with motivation.

I don't know if motivation would be the thing to develop it.

And just to make it clear, sometimes it never will be developed. There is no guarantee. But if it were to be developed I think experience would be the biggest factor.

That said, a person will horrilbe instincts will probably never, ever have good instincts no matter how much motivation or experience that player gets.

That said, if you don't meet certain minimal physical atributes, all the instincts or motivation in the world isn't going to help you.

And if you don't have at least average instincts no amount of athleticism will help you.

Also, you know a person's athleticism can also be developed.

Why do you think players work out so much in the offseason? You think the coaches have them lifting all those weights and doing all that running so they can develop their instincts?

Instincts are that innate ability to recognize the situation even before the actually physical environment develops.

Case in point, Dat Nguyen yelling "Draw!" vs the eagles this year before the ball was even snapped.

 

[Rack]

I agree with you on your take on motivation.

I would suggest that you are describing "intuition" and not "instinct" in the first part of your post.

Instinct-An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental

Intuition- 1. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. See Synonyms at reason.
2. Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight.
1. A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.

Ok let's not get technical. We all know that the TRUE meaning of "Instinct" has nothing to do with football players.

You know what we're talking about, call it fluffy pink gay rabbits for all I care, you know the meaning.


In fact, if you want to get technical, Humans do not have any type of "instinct". Unless you want to count breathing. We aren't like a bird that just is born with the knowledge of how to fly.

Anyway, read that somewhere a long time ago.


Still, you're getting off point. Intuition isn't the "correct" word for it either.

You want a nice little word for it to make you feel better? Call it a "Feel" for the game.

But in relation to football, it is often (almost always) referred to as Instincts.


Fire up madden or NCAA Football, they call it "Awareness". Same crap, although "awareness" is a broader term.

 

[JackMagist]

I agree with you on your take on motivation.

I would suggest that you are describing "intuition" and not "instinct" in the first part of your post.

Instinct-An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental

Intuition- 1. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. See Synonyms at reason.
2. Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight.
1. A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.

I will grant that by the strict definitions you are correct. However, I would submit that the two are not so far apart. And inasmuch as your own definition describes instinct as inborn it would seem to defeat your argument that instincts can be learned.