WhoDat

Hey Billy, go back and read my previous post. You\'re talking about magic, I\'m not. You\'ve turned \"it\" into some crazy power that Popeye gets when he eats spinach.

The title of this thread is INTANGIBLES and \"it\". As I said before, you\'re talking about the same thing. There are tangible attributes that are measurable - height, weight, speed, arm strength, even things like efficiency or hell even smarts if you want to count the wonderlic.

Then there are intangibles - those things for which there aren\'t stats. Desire, leadership, quick decision making. Those are OBSERVABLE but there are no stats for those attributes. Those are INTANGIBLES. You act as if \"it\" is only this other special quality that no one knows about. Elway was the comeback kid. I know he was, but it was still an intangible. Who makes faster decisions? Peyton or Brooks? You know the answer but show me stats to prove them. You can\'t b/c it\'s an INTANGIBLE.

That\'s what I\'m talking about. Leadership, football smarts, ability to read a defense... intangibles. If you want to talk about some magical power go right ahead - but that\'s not what I\'m talking about.

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

GumboBC

WhoDat --

Now we\'re getting somewhere.

I agree: \"Then there are intangibles - those things for which there aren\'t stats. Desire, leadership, quick decision making. Those are OBSERVABLE but there are no stats for those attributes.\" - WhoDat.

I\'ll place a lot of value in anything I can observe. And I can observe all of those. And also I see you place a lot of value on \"desire\". I do too. I\'m guessing you place a lot of value in desire because you see a fiery player demonstrate his desire on the field? Is that correct?

Well, I see all kinds of QB\'s that are fiery QB\'s on the field, like Bobby Hebert, whose desire didn\'t help \'em out too much.

So, desire is fantasic, but all players don\'t show it even though they want it as much or bad as someone who does show it. Get it?

Then there are other players who are calm, cool, and collected that helps them achieve greatness when the stuff is hitting the fan. Get it?

In other word, some folks place more value in certain intanglibles because they think that\'s what constitutes a great player, but overlook other intangibles because they don\'t like that style.

There are some guys in the world that will kill you with a smile on their face, but you are dead none-the-less. Then there are guys that go ape-sh*t wild and then kill ya.

Which one would you rather face?

WhoDat

Ah-ha! Now we are getting somewhere indeed.

I agree Billy - people do place different value on different intangibles. To me, some are unalienable and some are subjective. In other words - how a player shows his desire is a good example. There are different pros and cons to how a player deals with a game (fiery versus calm and collected). However, in order for either to matter the player must first have desire (unalienable).

Now we come to a crossroads - and here, to me this goes back to the debate of the type of team that we are trying to be. There are certain intangibles that make a player great and certain intangibles that make him a great fit. Does that make sense?

To explain further, I\'ll bring it back, as always, to the QB position, b/c this is familiar territory. This is personal opinion at this point, but to me, I\'ll take a guy whose better suited to be efficient if unimpressive at QB so long as he is surrounded by very talented players (the Jake Delhomme approach). Others prefer a super star at QB (a la Peyton Manning). Peyton has the right set of skills to be great, period. Delhomme has the right set to be a great fit for Carolina\'s system.

To me, the NFL is less and less about great players (b/c of parity) and more and more about great fits that make players play slightly better than they would otherwise. As it relates back to AB, I think our team is better suited for a QB with a different skillset and/or intangibles. That\'s not to say that the guy can\'t play great ball here and hepl the team - i just don\'t see him as the optimal fit.

As it relates to \"it\" in general, you know the difference of what I\'m talking about. Sammy Knight was a ball hawk and a hard hitter. Those are, to some degree, intangibles. For whatever reason, that set of abilities was a great fit in NO - hence the Pro Bowl for Sammy. This is an example of a great fit. Ronnie Lot, on the other hand, was an example of a great player period, who would have been dominant anywhere.

Any way you look at it, intangibles matter. You\'re right, it does come down to preferance, and I\'ll take slightly above average players who are great fits over super stars most of the time. Give me guys playing over their heads (Sammy Knight) versus great players playing down (Tebucky Jones) any day.

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

WhoDat

PS - You do realize that by your statements above you have just admitted that the issue is really preference in intangibles and not whether or not intangibles and \"it\" exist, thus contradicting your first post in this thread. :P

GumboBC

I realized what I said before I posted it, WhoDat. I just did it to make a point.

Point being, every players has \"intangibles\" if you want to call it that. It\'s just certain folks are in love with a certain style of player and when they don\'t see their favorite characteristics in a player, they use that as an excuse as to why that player doesn\'t have what it takes or to try and explain why a certain player is successful.

That stuff is way overrated. A player either makes plays or he doesn\'t. There\'s all kinds of reasons.

WhoDat

I don\'t dispute that all players have different levels of intangibles. And if you want to say that certain people only look for a certain type of player and if they don\'t seem those qualities that they personally dislike the guy and set out to berated and defame the guy... uh, OK. THat\'s a bit over the top, but it probably happens.

I do like a certain type of player - those that fit the mold of success. Look at the last few Super Bowl teams. You\'ll generally see good defenses built on speed. You\'ll see a solid RB from at least one team in the big game. At QB - you usually see a game manager and not a super star.

Where have the Mannings, McNabbs, Culpeppers, Bledsoes, and Favres been of late? Not in the SB I\'ll tell you that. Who has been there? Delhomme, Dilfer, Brady, Collins, and brad Johnson. These guys don\'t have super star qualities, they are good fits - they manage the game.

Look, year in and year out and I\'ll bet you\'ll see a ton of similarities at each and every position.

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

WhoDat

PPS - again, I\'m not really sure why you feel better for saying this:

After saying this:

A regular switch hitter you are Billy.

GumboBC

I\'ll tell ya where they\'ve been. They\'ve been on teams that have been more consistent than those other QB\'s have been.

If it\'s your theory that because a QB goes to the superbowl only to never return again makes their team or QB better, I think you need to rethink that.

McNabb - 3 straight NFC championship games.
Bledsoe - Been to a superbowl and to several playoffs.
Manning - Been to AFC championship game and several playoff games. And I look for him to get back this year. I\'d bet money on it.
Culpepper -- Not his fault the Vikings haven\'t done anything.

LOok you want to look at average QB\'s that have gone to a superbowl and say that\'s the way to go. I could not disagree MORE. Yeah, those QB\'s and their team go there, but it was for other reasons than their QB.

I\'ll take a Troy Aikman, Steve Young, Jim Kelly, Joe Montana, Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, Kurt Warner, Dan Fouts, etc. etc. I\'ll let you have Jake Delhomme or Trent Dilfer. And I\'ll take a good running back and strong defense too.

D_it_up

JKool,

I guess what I\'m trying to say ties into what you posted. When a player is drafted in the first round, there is something the front office and coach see in that player that could be considered the \"it\" everyone is referring to here. A coach that has \"it\" can teach and mold this player to bring \"it\" out on the field. When you have a player already, we\'ll use Ray Lewis for an example, you know he has \"it\". Ray Lewis is the most dominant force in the NFL at his position. He\'s got \"it\". When you have a player of his caliber on your team, then other players more often than not, play above their abilities. \"It\" just seems to rub off on them from that player. This is where my trickle down effect comes into play. Like my references of Parcells and Bellichek, those coaches have \"it\" and bring \"it\" to their players. There are a handful of players on these two teams that really could be superstars on another team. They were blessed to be in a coaching scheme that brings out the best in them. Hard-working, blue collar athletes is what these coaches who have \"it\" like. Then there are teams with a bunch of prima donnas who think they have \"it\", but can\'t learn to use \"it\" because their coach doesn\'t apply \"it\" or have \"it\" himself. I understand that most of this post is about individuals that have \"it\", but regardless of who \"it\" is supposed to apply to, I still think it starts from the top and works its way down to the players on the field. In short, I believe \"it\" from a player may not necessarily be strength, speed, or football intelligence. I believe \"it\" is the heart and desire to be successful and helping others to believe in themselves that they can perform that way as well.

People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.

JKool

DitUp2,

An interesting idea, I\'ll think about it some more.

Cheers.