WP: Portis and Mitchell put the Redskins on blast

[Mr. Sinister]

1 hour ago, wit33 said:

 

In football, sometimes it's as easy that. The trenches were dominated by the Panthers on both sides of the ball. 

 

I don't think it's that that simple...

 

Despite what many fans and old school era players want to believe sometimes (myself included), I highly doubt the overwhelming majority of guys that have been busting their tail since high school and even before that to make it to the league, playing an incredibly violent sport with high turnover, don't care.

 

I think for the most part, that stance is ridiculous, and is usually done when no one wants to do actual analysis, and instead just says what people want to hear. And to many, they'll always be right, because of the disconnect between spectators and players.

 

Unless no one cares from the start of the first snap this season, sometimes it's as simple as the guys on the field just aren't very good compared to the opposition

 

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

1 minute ago, jschuck12001 said:

I dont blame anyone for being angry, that was one of the most soul crushing games in years.  My level of Butt Hurtness was 15 out of 10.

 

Losing a game or having a bad game is one thing, laying an egg and embarrassing your fans on the national spotlight is another.

 

 

 

I was pissed...PISSED. 

 

But not because Kerrigan wasn't foaming at the mouth. More so because nothing we did worked. 

[kleese]

37 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Our best teams in franchise history were led by some pretty docile personalities: 

 

Joe Gibbs looked physically sick on the sideline half the time

I'm not even sure Art Monk ever spoke between 1pm and 4pm on Sundays

Charles Mann sounds like a Biology professor when he talks

Darrell Green smiled throughout every game. 

Joe Theismann? 

John Riggins? 

Mark Rypien? 

Doug Williams? 

Earnest Byner? 

 

Do any of those guys seem like junkyard dogs to you? Not to mention we had little nicknames including "The Fun Bunch" and "The Smurfs" which I'm sure intimidated the Hell out of opponents...hahaha. We had some crazies on those teams (Wilbur Marshall, Dexter Manley, Dave Butz, Gary Clark) but the idea that you can't be both refined and an incredible/intense football player is stupid. 

Thank You..... the Gibbs I era was full of relatively dull personalities (especially the late 80s and early 90s once Joey T, Dexter, and Riggo were gone). My friends generally didn't like them because they thought they were boring. Not many junkyard dogs or table-flippers on those teams. Gary Clark was one notable exception, but our QBs in that era were VERY quiet and unemotional and as you mentioned, we had lots of other rather quiet dudes.

 

Dave Butz is a legend here- and that dude never broke character--- his face never changed. Never showed ANY emotion. Ever. Was it because he didn't care? Was he not a junkyard dog? 

 

Sure, it is nice to have a mix-- I'd like a few guys on the team that spit fire visibly and throw stuff-- it takes all kinds, and I like a mix of personality. Garcon fits that mold as do Williams and Norman and a few others-- heck, probably more on this team than the 1991 team.

 

I just think this theory holds no water because no one ever says "I wish they had more fire like ________" and then fills in the blank with a player that sucks. Basically what they are saying in that case is that the good players have fire and the crappy ones don't. Heck, I saw a pregame video awhile back where Spaight was losing his mind getting hyped up for a game--- how come no one talks about what  junkyard dog he is?  

[TD_washingtonredskins]

@kleese my only reason for including Butz was because he seemed nasty. Not necessarily fiery, but like he was someone who scared the **** out of the other team. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

To me, "I wanna see players angry, yelling, throwing helmets on the sidelines when they're getting their asses kicked" basically translates to losing with style lol...the only time I think that type of reaction helps the team win is when it's done in private at halftime. But that's something we wouldn't see anyway.

 

You know what I want to see when the Redskins are getting their asses kicked?...I want to see someone make a play. They can look like mannequins on the sidelines for all I care...just get that INT instead of letting it bounce off your hands. Hit the guy in stride who's open for a TD instead of overthrowing him. Get a sack at the critical moment. Convert 2-pt attempts. Block a punt. Nail that 55 yarder right down the middle.

 

Those are the things that energize and motivate your teammates far more than tossing a Gatorade bucket out of frustration.

 

 

[zoony]

The larger point is that there isn't enough passion or talent on the team and that I agree with. 

 

Neither passion or talent will get you far enough in this league without the other

[kleese]

39 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

I don't think it's that that simple...

 

Despite what many fans and old school era players want to believe sometimes (myself included), I highly doubt the overwhelming majority of guys that have been busting their tail since high school and even before that to make it to the league, playing an incredibly violent sport with high turnover, don't care.

 

I think for the most part, that stance is ridiculous, and is usually done when no one wants to do actual analysis, and instead just says what people want to hear. And to many, they'll always be right, because of the disconnect between spectators and players.

 

Unless no one cares from the start of the first snap this season, sometimes it's as simple as the guys on the field just aren't very good compared to the opposition

 

 

And thank you..... it's an absurd notion. So they cared about the Vikings and Packers games, but not the Cardinals or Panthers games? They didn't care about the first half of the Eagles game either I guess, but decided to care at the end.

 

The Redskins have been bad many times over the past 25 years...sometimes, REALLY bad. But the instances where I truly felt heart and "want to" were problems are very few and far between. I do think the 2000 team quit at the end of that season-- after the loss to the Giants when Norv got fired-- maybe some checked out even a bit before that. The losses to the Steelers and Cowboys that year screamed of a team that packed it in. I thought the 2003 and 2009 teams had effort issues over the second halves of those seasons as well --either that or they just so lacked confidence that it appeared they didn't care.

 

The other thing that should be noted here is "gameday effort" vs "the effort to prepare." I think this is largely overlooked. I think come game day just about every guy in the league tries hard out there. Even if it's purely selfish, they want to keep their jobs and/or earn more money. So I think once the ball is kicked, teams generally try their best regardless of situation. What I do think is very possible is that teams that have less to play for and/or might have dysfunction or distractions-- maybe during the week they've lost focus or aren't taking things as seriously. Maybe the preparation dips and that manifests itself on Sunday with poorer results which look like a lack of caring.

 

I'm hoping that benefits us this week-- the Bears have played really well/hard the past few weeks. Clearly, up to this point, they haven't quit-- pushed the Lions and Packers to the brink the past two weeks. But those were division games-- and last week they lost a heartbreaker to their rival-- they put a lot of energy into that and got zero reward from it. Now they are 3-11 and subconsciously, everyone there knows it's probably better to go ahead and just finish 3-13. The Redskins don't really matter to them or their fans one way or another and it's not like beating us is some sort of major accomplishment either. So my hope is that maybe the Bears are kind of checking out mentally this week-- maybe going through motions in the film room, etc... maybe thinking about their off-season plans and where they will play next year. Will their staff return, etc?

 

On our end, you'd hope our guys and staff are locked in to preparing for this game. Come Sunday, I imagine all players on both sides will try their best-- but perhaps one team has put in a better effort than the other. I do think that happens from time to time--especially late in the season-- but I'm not a buyer of the "junkyard dog" theories.

[rocskins]

5 hours ago, Wildbunny said:

I believe you have To be nasty and tough on the field and you can be Nice off the field. This isn't exclusive To me.

Scherff or williams don't play nasty??

[TheCoach22]

Preparation from the coaches was poor. Execution of poor game plan also poor. 

That said, I do not disagree that losing needs to be taken more personally. Team getting worse in December with so much to play for is mind blowing. Losing to teams with nothing to play for, really tough.

 

The Patriot way, "do your job," is what I long to see on our team again. Gibbs balanced the Dexter Manleys to the Art Monks by knowing them as men and assigning an appropriate role for each of them. I don't believe Jay Gruden is capable of getting the same PROFESSIONALISM from jos players, not based on the product on the field the last two seasons. Too many times the same mistake is made over and over.

[Voice_of_Reason]

I might be in the minority, but I find BMitch to be an insufferable loud-mouth, know-nothing, rabble-rousing douche bag.  And, I've felt this way even when he was playing.  I think he STILL has a chip on his shoulder because even on some absolutely awful teams he couldn't crack being the starting RB, which he DESPERATELY wanted.  Sure, he was a good ST player.  You know why he has so many kickoff yards?  Because we were so bad teams kicked off a lot. 

 

He was a fine players. But all his bluster didn't get the team anywhere after Gibbs left.

 

I give Doc the due that he actually played on winning teams.  But his shtick ran it's course about 20 years ago.  He knows less than BMitch, tries to be Berman with the stupid nicknames, and has had the same rant for 1 years.  The whole, "put the other guy in" thing is the stupidest, dumbest thing a commentator can say.  Coach could be right or wrong, but there's NO WAY that he knows jack didly poop. 

[Skinsinparadise]

46 minutes ago, zoony said:

The larger point is that there isn't enough passion or talent on the team and that I agree with. 

 

Neither passion or talent will get you far enough in this league without the other

 

It's where I fall.  The idea that talent is key -- IMO that's plain as day.  It doesn't matter how fired up I am, if I am playing name that sport against someone who is vastly superior to me skill wise, they will kick my butt.  However, I do think passion can be a needed edge everything being equal.  I don't work every day with the same passion.  Some days I am more fired up than others.   My talent is the same but my production isn't the same from one day to the next.   Same I am sure for all of us.

 

Ironically, Russell is running a segment on this point right now on 106.7.  He thinks this team lacks emotional players/coaches.  Cooley and Doc Walker in their own way have been beating that same drum.  Cooley's take is every team he's been on has a psychology to it -- and he thinks this team likes to take the first punch and feel out the opponent, then they decide how to respond.  They don't take it to the opponent.  Doc's thing is the roster is filled with nice guys but not really nasty competitive types.  Cooley concurs.  Those guys especially Cooley are around Redskins Park so maybe there is something to their assessment. 

 

I like Jay but never love the line he beats to death this season which he has said multiple times which is a variation of how this team isn't going to destroy anyone but they will be in these tight games that will likely come to the wire.  I don't like the message that it sends.  I gather he says it to tell the team they need to play well in tight spots.  But personally, I prefer the mindset of we can destroy such and such opponent versus expect a tight game. 

 

I do think though this falls more on players than coaches.  We need IMO the London Fletcher, Gary Clark, type.  Guys that bring out some extra oomph and energy. 

 

[Wildbunny]

14 minutes ago, rocskins said:

Scherff or williams don't play nasty??

They sure do, and I love that.

Was just speaking in general, not particularly aiming at someone, I should have been more clear about that.

[NewCliche21]

47 minutes ago, zoony said:

The larger point is that there isn't enough passion or talent on the team and that I agree with. 

 

Neither passion or talent will get you far enough in this league without the other

 

Yep, it's about the passion (in this context).  I mean, look at the best team (hurts to type that) over the past 15 years in New England.  Six Super Bowl appearances, four wins, and another hell of a shot this year.  Who are their assholes?  

 

Green Bay?  Clay Matthews can be annoying and have a cheap shot or two.  Denver?

 

And please don't confuse swagger/****iness/being a loudmouth with being passionate.  Being loud and being right are not the same thing.

 

The point is to be passionate to the level of intimidation.  You can intimidate without saying a word if you're good enough, and passion doesn't need to happen anywhere except on the 120 by 40 yards of the field.  People who are passionate and talented win.

[zoony]

10 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

It's where I fall.  The idea that talent is key -- IMO that's plain as day.  It doesn't matter how fired up I am, if I am playing name that sport against someone who is vastly superior to me skill wise, they will kick my butt.  However, I do think passion can be a needed edge everything being equal.  I don't work every day with the same passion.  Some days I am more fired up than others.   My talent is the same but my production isn't the same from one day to the next.   Same I am sure for all of us.

 

 

 

 

The cool thing is that there isn't any real debate scientifically

 

behavioral psychologists have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that passion ("work") is the root of success (some have gone as far to say that "talent" doesn't exist but I don't go quite that far at least as it relates to pro athletes)

 

look at Michael Jordan's turnaround jump shot when he entered the NBA. He didn't have one. It was his tireless practice that developed that skill. "Talent" had nothing to do with it, though I guess he wouldn't have had the opportunity had he not been able to jump like a gazelle. 

 

Why was Jerry Rice the greatest of all time despite an average skill set?  Why did Jeff George suck?

 

as Malcolm Gladwell pointed out, the Beatles weren't better musicians and songwriters than everyone else. It's that they played 8 hour sets every day for over a year in a Hamburg club. Kurt Cobain never broke into the scene out of nowhere, he locked himself in a room for his entire teenage existence and did nothing but fiddle with guitars and write songs and practice singing. 

 

Passion always wins out, always. It's what I already take GMSM to mean when he says he wants "Football players". Unfortunately he hasn't found too many

 

if any of you have kids make sure they understand this above all else.... "talent" is a myth. Find your passion and work tirelessly. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, kleese said:

Thank You..... the Gibbs I era was full of relatively dull personalities (especially the late 80s and early 90s once Joey T, Dexter, and Riggo were gone). My friends generally didn't like them because they thought they were boring. Not many junkyard dogs or table-flippers on those teams. Gary Clark was one notable exception, but our QBs in that era were VERY quiet and unemotional and as you mentioned, we had lots of other rather quiet dudes.

 

Dave Butz is a legend here- and that dude never broke character--- his face never changed. Never showed ANY emotion. Ever. Was it because he didn't care? Was he not a junkyard dog? 

 

 

 

Arguably the whole O line (the hogs) had a nasty attitude and took pride in it.  Monte Coleman was arguably what London Fletcher was an emotional leader.  Gary Clark.   Dexter Manley.   Wilber Marshall brought some nastiness.  Ironically Brian Mitchell, too. 

 

I don't think the point is every player needs to be this way.  But who on the team is like this and is also a leader?  Maybe Trent Williams -- he plays nasty but he seems like a chill dude as a speaker.  Garcon is nasty but he's not a corral the troops kind of guy.   So I'd say he's the modern day Gary Clark.

 

Too bad Ryan Clark when he came back lost his skills because I'd watch him pregame go player to player and practically scream an individual pep talk for each guy -- I had a field pass one time and heck he even got me fired up.  London Fletcher seemed to be that guy when he was here.   A good player that the team would rally around. Some around the Giants after Strahan left said they missed Strahan's personality even more than his play. 

 

I don't think its the be all and end all.  But it just seems weird to me that a part time DL RJF seems to be the emotional leader of this team -- at least judging by pregame. 

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

I used to dismiss all the rah rah "you need killers on the field!!!" as just bs

 

until we signed Norman. Sure he's very talented but he plays with an edge and swagger (hate that word lol) that makes him even better imo. You just know it when you see it. 

 

Pierre has it too. 

 

And honestly being an elite player doesn't give you that. Jordan Reed is probably the most talented guy on the team but he doesn't have that edge to him. Neither does Kerrigan.

 

Basically we have too many "passengers" on the team and that's evident when things go wrong and guys miss assignments, it snowballs and guys just look around like idiots

 

and then some get on twitter and rant like ****es but that's another story 

[kleese]

4 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

The cool thing is that there isn't any real debate scientifically

 

behavioral psychologists have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that passion ("work") is the root of success (some have gone as far to say that "talent" doesn't exist but I don't go quite that far at least as it relates to pro athletes)

 

look at Michael Jordan's turnaround jump shot when he entered the NBA. He didn't have one. It was his tireless practice that developed that skill. "Talent" had nothing to do with it, though I guess he wouldn't have had the opportunity had he not been able to jump like a gazelle. 

 

Why was Jerry Rice the greatest of all time despite an average skill set?  Why did Jeff George suck?

 

as Malcolm Gladwell pointed out, the Beatles weren't better musicians and songwriters than everyone else. It's that they played 8 hour sets every day for over a year in a Hamburg club. Kurt Cobain never broke into the scene out of nowhere, he locked himself in a room for his entire teenage existence and did nothing but fiddle with guitars and write songs and practice singing. 

 

Passion always wins out, always. It's what I already take GMSM to mean when he says he wants "Football players". Unfortunately he hasn't found too many

 

if any of you have kids make sure they understand this above all else.... "talent" is a myth. Find your passion and work tirelessly. 

 

Sometimes, "passion" is the talent, though. I believe Larry Bird is arguably the most purely "talented" player I've ever seen in the NBA. He wasn't the most athletically gifted by any means-- but he had a natural ability to play basketball-- he even has said on many occasions that is just seemed to come easier to him than to others. He saw things no one else saw-- or at least a fraction of a second sooner than they did. He then took this natural, God-given gift and honed it by working tirelessly at it. He actually did a poor job of keeping himself in shape over the years-- drank too much, didn't eat right, didn't work out the way he should have, etc... but he could always fall back on what came naturally to him.

 

In contrast, the Thunder have a guy right now-- Andre Roberson-- he is 6'7, lanky and a supreme athlete in terms of jumping, quickness, etc. He is also arguably the worst shooter for a guard/wing I've ever seen. By all accounts he works his tail off at it and has a rep for being a good kid and a hard worker. But when he shoots the ball it looks like he is holding a watermelon-- like it's a foreign object in his hands. His free throws are borderline comical--- they have worked with him and reports are that he spends hours practicing. He's gotten a little better, but he still probably doesn't shoot a free throw as well as I do-- and I'm 39 and haven't shot one in about five years. He just doesn't have much natural basketball talent despite being a gifted athlete.

 

Joe Montana is another one-- he just saw things better than others did-- a natural ability that is hard to explain. I'm sure he worked hard too. And I know that Patrick Ramsey worked hard as well-- and he was bigger and stronger and a better athlete perhaps than Montana. But he was missing whatever that "it" is that the greats have.

 

So, while yes, we should all teach our kids to work as hard as possible- I don't think talent is a myth. I think it is very real.

[SkinsGuy]

I see we've arrived at the "reaching for answers" post-game phase of an uninspiring loss.  

[Skinsinparadise]

28 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

The cool thing is that there isn't any real debate scientifically

 

behavioral psychologists have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that passion ("work") is the root of success (some have gone as far to say that "talent" doesn't exist but I don't go quite that far at least as it relates to pro athletes)

 

look at Michael Jordan's turnaround jump shot when he entered the NBA. He didn't have one. It was his tireless practice that developed that skill. "Talent" had nothing to do with it, though I guess he wouldn't have had the opportunity had he not been able to jump like a gazelle. 

 

Why was Jerry Rice the greatest of all time despite an average skill set?  Why did Jeff George suck?

 

as Malcolm Gladwell pointed out, the Beatles weren't better musicians and songwriters than everyone else. It's that they played 8 hour sets every day for over a year in a Hamburg club. Kurt Cobain never broke into the scene out of nowhere, he locked himself in a room for his entire teenage existence and did nothing but fiddle with guitars and write songs and practice singing. 

 

 

 

Agree with much of this.   I've studied my share of psychology myself -- lot of studies show emotion is often the key influence on performance or for that matter everyday thought. We aren't robots.  External variables can influence emotion greatly    So the idea that a sports team can be different emotionally from game to game -- I think is intuitive.

 

I think its interesting how ex-players like Cooley can contradict themselves on the emotional component of the game.  I've heard him say NFL players don't need to be motivated to play the game.  Their motivation is self-evident.   Then at the same time he talks about how the players come out playing flat and uninspired in certain games.  Well, if players motivation is self-evident and doesn't need pushing then how can those same players play pumped up one week and uninspired the next?

 

IMO the simpler point at hand is having a player or two that sets an example on the field and can help inspire off of it, too.  I do think some people need that push coming from someone else -- where a London Fletcher both in practice and pregame can help get them in the right emotional mind frame.  I don't think we have that guy right now.    Part of it is Fletcher or the other example I used Strahan went out of their way to work the psyche for their whole unit.  I don't think we have those type of guys right now.  Is that the main reason why the defense stinks?  I don't think so.  But I don't think its far fetched that this team comes out flat especially of late partly because we don't have those emotional leaders. 

[zoony]

14 minutes ago, kleese said:

Sometimes, "passion" is the talent, though. I believe Larry Bird is arguably the most purely "talented" player I've ever seen in the NBA. He wasn't the most athletically gifted by any means-- but he had a natural ability to play basketball-- he even has said on many occasions that is just seemed to come easier to him than to others. He saw things no one else saw-- or at least a fraction of a second sooner than they did. He then took this natural, God-given gift and honed it by working tirelessly at it. He actually did a poor job of keeping himself in shape over the years-- drank too much, didn't eat right, didn't work out the way he should have, etc... but he could always fall back on what came naturally to him.

 

Funny you mention Bird.  I read this on ESPN last week.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/18197737/larry-bird-reveals-secrets-13-year-career

 

Quote

 

BH: I read that Kevin Durant did some exercise to strengthen his wrist and it was somehow tied back to you?

LB: It's interesting. When I was in the sixth grade, we had to go in before school and shoot free throws and lift a little bit. Not like they do. But they had a roller -- a wrist thing.

BH: Did it have a piece of string with a weight attached to it, and you'd roll it up?

LB: [Nods yes.] So my coach said, "You're going to get your wrist stronger." He was the varsity coach. So I did that all the time. And I still think today that's one of the reasons I was able to shoot the way I shot. That, to me, changed everything. I was in the sixth grade -- what, 10, 12 years old.

BH: And your shot was based heavily on the wrists?

LB: It was a slingshot ... but, more than anything, I [worked] on my wrists. I don't know why. He was telling me, "Your wrists have got to get stronger." And I would tell kids, when they start, 8, 9, 10 years old, I would do wrist exercises because they could get the ball instead of down here [around the chest], they could get it up here [above the shoulders]. It's interesting hearing that [Durant] did that, because to me, I always thought that was the key for me when I was young.

BH: He said it made his wrists strong as hell, I believe.

LB: I guarantee you, I did it, and that made a big difference in my game. It was that and my left hand. I was always told you have to be able to dribble with both hands and use both hands normal.

BH: Did you do anything in particular to train your left hand?

LB: Just pound, pound, pound [the ball with my left hand]. That's all I did. Plus the wrist exercises. I did the wrist exercises more than I lifted weights. I was sort of like Kevin. To hell with the weights. I thought basketball would make me strong enough. But the wrist exercises were the key to everything I did.

 

Dude did wrist exercises incessantly starting at the age of 10, lol.  He did not have the "talent" to shoot the ball, so he changed that through his passion.

Quote

 

BH: Did you notice them watching you?

LB: No. I didn't notice until I quit and somebody said, "Why are you quitting?" I said, "Well, why shoot if you're making all of them?" [Laughs]

It's the way I worked out, too. I go out in the summers and I'd do everything I had to do before I shot last. If I got out there and I was making everything, I'd go, "Why am I doing this?" So I'd shoot 500 free throws. But the next day, if I come in and I could tell the ball was going a little bit left on me, I could be there for hours, trying to get it back. It's unbelievable. 
 

 

 

So 500 Free Throws, after a workout, was a LIGHT day when he was young.  If he was missing them, he'd be out there for hours.  

Nothing to do with talent.  He was willing to put in the work that you and I were not.

 

 

Now backing up, I think pro athletes are probably the exception, because there is a genetic/physical element that has to be part of the equation.  However I don't think that's the case in most things.

[Nfcbeasts4721]

B Mitchell is right.... But with how horribly politically correct the country is now mixed in with how soft Goodell and others have made the NFL making it all about money fantasy foosball and all, it will never be the same as even early as the mid eighties. Now in the middle of a pile up its oh let's trade jerseys and exchange Twitter account thingamabobs if only half of what they used to say was shared even the so-called man today would be scared..We need mean nasty quite players..see Scherff.. with the way things are and how disgusting money is players these days don't want to play for fun or to beat the other guy it's all for fame and money now. Like it used to be where they played for fun and had normal jobs..not executive pencil pushing jobs either...hard working blue collar players.

[Koolblue13]

I think talent is a real thing. People are all born different. I don't think it's worth anything if you don't have the passion to put the work in.

 

Saying you need assholes on the field is dumb.

[kleese]

7 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

Funny you mention Bird.  I read this on ESPN last week.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/18197737/larry-bird-reveals-secrets-13-year-career

 

Dude did wrist exercises incessantly starting at the age of 10, lol.  He did not have the "talent" to shoot the ball, so he changed that through his passion.

 

So 500 Free Throws, after a workout, was a LIGHT day when he was young.  If he was missing them, he'd be out there for hours.  

Nothing to do with talent.  He was willing to put in the work that you and I were not.

 

 

Now backing up, I think pro athletes are probably the exception, because there is a genetic/physical element that has to be part of the equation.  However I don't think that's the case in most things.

And they tried EVERYTHING with Shaq too--- if it had nothing to do with talent, then every human with the same size and dimensions could have been as good at basketball as Larry Bird-- and I simply do not buy that, not for one second. Larry Bird was an all-time talent. Now, would he have realized that talent without also putting in the work? No, surely not. He had it something inside of you that most don't have and through hard work, etc. he was able to unleash it.

 

The current coach of the Wizards is Scott Brooks-- he managed to hang around the NBA for over a decade-- he was small and not particularly gifted, but by all accounts he was a gym rat-- so he impressed enough to stick around-- a Rudy type-- but why wasn't he as good as John Stockton or Isaiah Thomas then? I think it boils down to talent and natural gifts. He had more than most but as not as much as those guys. His hard work and effort likely kept him in the league-- his lack of talent likely kept him on the bench. It's a combo.  

[zoony]

Again, pro athletes tend to be the exception to the talent myth, because some level of genetic lottery needs to be struck

 

it's like arguing over how hard supermodels work ultimately

 

that said, the larger point which can't be argued is that passion is always more important than talent. Always

 

and don't argue with me, argue with every phd in the country. I'm just the messenger

[crabbypatty]

12 minutes ago, zoony said:

Again, pro athletes tend to be the exception to the talent myth, because some level of genetic lottery needs to be struck

 

it's like arguing over how hard supermodels work ultimately

 

that said, the larger point which can't be argued is that passion is always more important than talent. Always

 

and don't argue with me, argue with every phd in the country. I'm just the messenger

 

Agree. Look at our own London Fletcher and Josh Norman as examples. They had enough "talent" to latch onto a team, but were tireless workers and made themselves into what they are/were in their primes. Both those guys were an afterthought in their respective drafts, Fletcher more so than Norman.

 

They both have that nobody is gonna beat me or work harder than I do mentality. They both took everything extremely personally and used it as more fuel on the fire to get even better, and it shows. With much of the team I see guys who are mega talented athletes, but don't seem to have that inner drive that Norman and Fletcher have.. and that shows as well.

 

All players more or less have equal talent as a whole, Some are way better athletes than others, but the NFL is a very small fraternity, and guys that can't hack it get drummed out pretty quickly. What is the difference between the 7th rounder/UDFA who flourishes and the 1st round pick that flops? Drive and passion. Tom Brady is a prime example. He was no physical specimen or mega athlete, but he had relentless drive and passion, and look how that worked out for him. He was good enough to make the cut, but his heart and desire put him over the top.