GumboBC

WhoDat --

You\'re kind of hung up on Delhomme aren\'t ya? Hell, I didn\'t even mention Jake Delhomme.

If I had of wanted to bring up Jake Delhomme or Aaron Brooks, I would have done so. It\'s not like I\'m shy about talking about them.

You believe what you want to belive, WhoDat. I\'ll believe that it takes a combination of athleticism, knowledge of the game, and hard work to be a successful player. Now, you can make the case that atleticism isn\'t important, and that\'s fine. Believe what ya want to.

If you would actually read all of what I say, you would actually see I\'m saying it takes more than athleticism to be successful. But, you\'re too obsessed trying to prove me wrong that you can\'t possibly be reading what I\'m posting.

According to you I\'m saying all it takes is athletcism to be one of the best players. So, instead of debating what I really said, I have to spend 90% of my time defending something I never said.

It would be much easier if you quit trying to spin everything I say or actually read all of my posts. But, I guess it would make it harder on you to try and discredit me, which is your goal isn\'t it??? :P

[Edited on 21/6/2004 by GumboBC]

[Edited on 21/6/2004 by GumboBC]

BlackandBlue

I lost \"it\" a long time ago.

D_it_up

The \"it\" is piling up quick in here. I\'d put on hip waders if I owned any. :P

BlackandBlue

The \"it\" has hit the fan.
\"It\" happens.
Holy \"It\"!
\"It\"-for-brains.

GumboBC

Oh, that\'s what \"it\" is. That\'s about what I thought.

JKool

Here is another suggestion for it - much less humorous than BnB and DitUp2\'s though.

In curve fitting (a method whereby you try and seclect a curve that fits some data so you can use the curve to make future predictions) the curve almost never fits the points exactly.

In practical terms this means that if you assign a bunch of variables that you think will help you predict future phenomena (let\'s say athletic ability, smarts, work ethic, and so on will be used to predict the playing ability of the player) there will always be some \"unknown\" that will cause variance - that is, there is always some noise and error in the curve that will cause predictions to be a little off (or a lot off in some cases). Error and noise can be reduced in various ways, but the one that is most interesting for our purposes is this: as you add or refine the variables you have the predicitons will get better and better.

Thus, I think \"it\" is merely a place holder for two things: (1) the lack of refinement of what we use to make predictions about the player\'s future performance (e.g. we aren\'t really sure how athletic ability translates to on field skill), and (2) there are so many little variables (e.g. home life) that are too difficult to figure out a way to use in prediction that they are not really worth working out. (1) is something that may help us make better judgments of which players are going to be good on any given day (and is the coaches job), but (2), when there are enough of these, can wreak havoc with our assessments of how a player will be form game to game BUT they are too hard to figure out and thus NOT the coaches job. Thus, I say that \"it\" is really just a way of talking loosely about (2) - e.g. a player who is a very stable person, who gets enough sleep, who has an ability to block out nagging family problems, and so on is going to be the guy who is more likely to have \"it\".

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

FrenzyFan

One thing is for certain, there are a lot of verbose people on the boards now.

Shrume\'s point is dead on the money. In the days of yore, dynasties ran rampant in the NFL. With the implementation of Free Agency and the Salary Cap, the talent pool on a given team is a lot closer to every other team in the NFL. Then comes \"it\".

In the \"world according to FF\", the \"it\" is the ability to put all of your talent, athleticism, knowledge-of-the-game, etc to use and turn it into production. The reason it\'s an intangible is because it cannot be measured. The \"it\" makes a person seperate from the pack.

Who has the \"it\" on our Saints? Deuce for certain. Horn absolutely. I think LeCharles Bentley has \"it\". I\'ll surprise you all and say that Fred Thomas has \"it\" (how else does a 5\'9\" relatively slow corner manage to keep a starting job?) Darren Howard has \"it\". Young had \"it\" on the Rams, hope he keeps \"it\" here. As for everyone else, I feel the vote is still out on them - though I hope Stallworth find \"it\" this year (I have my doubts about this). I also hope that either Grant of Watson has \"it\".

\"The AB brand of TP will hurt your O-ring.\" - BlackandBlue

http://www.darrylbercegeay.com/wsmith1.jpg

GumboBC

I\'m going to be upfront and tell you guys that I\'m don\'t put too much stock in \"it\" or \"intangibles\". I believe there\'s a reasonable explaination for why every player is successful in the NFL. I don\'t believe in the magical \"it\".

First of all there are positions where atleticism isn\'t as important as other positions. But, let\'s start where athleticism is very important.

1. Wide Receiver -- If you don\'t have speed at this position, then you are a \"possession\" guy. You\'re never going to be the coveted guy that offensive cooridinators want. And before you guys tell me there are examples of guys with lesser speed that have done well like Steve Largent, I tell you that receivers without speed just aren\'t nearly as good as guys with speed.

2. Cornerback -- Without speed and atheticism at this position they are a liabilty. Plain and simple. Sure there are some CB\'s without speed that have jobs in the NFL, but top flight CB\'s they are not.

3. Runningbacks -- You\'ve got your guys like Jerome Bettis that are 3 yards and a cloud of dust that do great in the NFL. As a matter of fact, you\'ve got all types of runningbacks that have been successful in the NFL, but athleticism is crucial to a runningback. The more speed the better. If you lack \"burner\" speed you had better be athletic enough to make some great moves and make defenders miss or you won\'t amount to much in the NFL.

3. Linebacker -- As the game has gotten faster, the slower linebackers have become less effective. Sure, there\'s still linebackers in the NFL that don\'t have great speed, but the best defenses have linebackers with speed. The slower linebackers that do well usually have great D-lines in front of them that make their jobs much easier.

4. Safties -- Without speed they are a liability in pass coverage and those types aren\'t desireable.

5. Defensive Ends -- Gotta have that speed. Not only speed but you want guys that are powerful also. Without those, they are average at best.

Then there are postions where atleticism are less important. Like:

6. Quarterback: Don\'t need great speed or even good speed to be a great QB. But, if you got speed, it\'s just that much better. The primary job of a QB is to complete passes. There are all kinds of reasons why a QB is succesful. But, there is NO magical \"it\". Consistent QB\'s have just mastered the position. They have an understanding of the game and enough physical tools to get the job done. And enough good players around them to make them successful. And there\'s different levels of success for a QB. Like Trent Dilfer. He was certainly successful, but it was more of a team success thing than being indivdually successful.

We can go on and on, but football is an athletes game and great athletes make a team successful more than ANYTHING else.

Of course you want intelligent guys. But, they don\'t have to be rocket scientists. And you want hard working, dedicated guys that want to win in the worst way.

But, what you don\'t want is a team full of slow smart guys.


These intangibles and \"it\" are a load of bull, in my book.



[Edited on 22/6/2004 by GumboBC]

JKool

Let me summarize my earlier ridiculously verbose post: \"it\" is a place holder for all the things that make a guy good when you wouldn\'t necessarily expect it from looking at the things that regularly make a guy good. Fred Thomas is an excellent example FF.

\"It\" is too vague to be of much use given my view (which I think is MOSTLY in agreement with Billy\'s).

Given two guys with identical physical attributes (speed, size, flexibility, perceptual skills, etc.), I\'d want the guy who has \"it\" - those other things that are very hard to put your finger on to measure. However, I think, in agreement with Billy, that \"it\" is most often over ratted.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

WhoDat

So then what separates Peyton Manning from Ryan Leaf?