Intangibles and "it" ???
 

I often here people talk about how important the "intangibles" are for a player. And how some players have "it." Whatever "it" is..........

But, I never here anyone say we need to sign or draft a player because of his intagibles or because of "it". Why is that?

These same people that are in love with intangibles and "it" are also the first ones to criticize players for a lack of athleticism. For example: Ambrose and Fred Thomas. Do they not have intangibles or "it"?

What's more important to you guys that place a lot of value in intangibles and "it"?

Is true talent more important or are intagibles and "it" more important?

It seems to me that athleticism is much more important than any intangible. The best players in the league are the best because of speed and talent. Not any intangible.

For example:

1. Randy Moss
2. Ray Lewis
3. Terelll Owens
4. Marvin Harrison
5. Mike Vick

I could go on and on with that list. But, it's pretty clear to me that intangibles are overrated.

For every one exception to the rule, I can name 10 players that athleticism is more important than intangibles or "it".

I will say that the one postion where atleticism is the least important is probably at QB. But, I don't think it's any intangible or "it" that has anything to do with a QB's success. I think it's hard work and preparation. The kind Petyon manning puts in. Also, the system has a lot to do with how successful a QB is.

So, how important are intagibles and "it"???




[Edited on 19/6/2004 by GumboBC]

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

First, we should probably narrow down what \"intangibles\" and \"it\" are before we evaluate them against athleticism.

Here is a simple point: athelticism cannot be all there is to being a good football player (since there are many atheltes who would suck on the grid iron), so there must be some other thing that goes with that. Billy suggests that it is hard work and study - I agree. However, there is something else too, and maybe that is our contestant for \"it\"?

There are guys of roughly equal athletically and in terms of study, but often one of them is just better - we call that instincts a lot of the time. Biologically speaking, I\'d guess that it has something to do with sight processing and memmory, but who cares about that. I think this is candidate one for \"it\". Are there others? If not, I\'d have to say that I think it is important but how critical \"it\" is depends on the position and the situation.

As for \"intangibles\", I always sort of thought of those as skill or vetran savvy. This is where you look at a guy and you ask, \"how could that guy with those physical skills, succeed in this game?\" The answer is usually \"knowledge of the sport and the position.\" That is candidate one for \"intangibles\", and I\'d say that that is only moderately important when compared to raw atheletics; there is a reason the young guys are so good, even if they are kinda dumb - they can run faster, turn better, and have less fear of pain than the old guys.

There is a second candidate for intangibles: heart. We all know what that is, don\'t we? Ha ha. However, it has something to do with desire, mental strength, and raw will. This becomes more important as a player ages or has fewer athletical abilities - thus, it too is less important than athletics. I say give me a player with technical skill and ability over a guy with heart, but most people seem to disagree - think it is because they assume a guy with heart also has skill. Believe me, when I coached we had some kids with a ton of heart, but they stunk. Often the best players had no heart - they didn\'t need it to be good at what they did. Would I want a guy with both? Hell yeah; but, unfortunately, those guys are rare.

How\'s that for a start?

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

That was very good, JKool. Very good.

Here\'s something else to chew on. If a player has \"it\". Then don\'t they always have \"it\"?
I mean they can\'t lose \"it\" can they?

Assuming they can\'t lose \"it\", then why do guys get cut after they lose their atleticism? If \"it\" is more important than speed and athleticism, then the best team would be loaded with aging vets that still had \"it\". Right? But, that\'s hardly the case.

Sure, teams keep aging vets on the team that contribute, but the real play-makers are the guys that are in the prime of their atleticism.

I think \"it\" is more of a knowledge of the game that allows them to make better decisions. Then I think SOME of it is \"luck.\" Things happen at critical times in games that elevates a player to superstar status.

But, most players that don\'t possess great atleticism don\'t consistently make great plays. Conversly, players that do possess great athleticism consistently make great plays. Randy Moss comes to mind. Many players in that same mold comes to mind.

I think when you build a team you don\'t go after intangibles unless that player also has great atleticism. You can teach the game of football, but you can\'t teach speed and atleticism.





[Edited on 19/6/2004 by GumboBC]

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

Of all the players who have it... how many have rings excluding Ray Lewis. They can\'t seem to build a supporting cast around the ones who have it to don a cherrished ring.

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

I have to disagree with y\'all to an extent.

I think your definitions are a bit skewed. If someone is a success he is athletic and talented in your views. I think all the people on your list (Moss, Lewis, Vick et al.) are talented for sure, but they have the \'it\' and intangibles.

You talk about talent being key. Huh? Have you seen the stats on players? There\'s a difference of .01 second and that is a difference between a 3rd rounder and a 1st rounder. THEY ARE ALL TALENTED AND ATHLETIC.

I think what seperates some players from others is not simply their raw talent. It is Ray Lewis watching hours upon hours of tape for that one clue that will give him that 1 second advantage, it\'s Moss thinking in a milisecond to hand off the pass he just caught to his teammate. If you want to call this talent and athletic ability, then yeah, you\'re right.

But I think all NFL players are very close in talent (closer than we think) Michael Vick is one of the few players I can say is talented and athletic enough to support your argument. JKool, these guys aren\'t like the guys you coached (unless you coached professional sports). There are no sucky players. There\'s levels of players, but all are a lot closer to each other in talent and ability. It is the Jerry Rice working hours upon hours, to make himself an amazing receiver. THAT is what seperates players.

If it was as simple as talent and ability, then why do so many 1st round (top 5 or 10 picks) flounder. What is the percentage of flops to phenoms in the history of the draft at the top? It\'s not 10 to 1. Were they simply mis-rated? Yes. They were valued based on their talent and athletic ability.

SO i think my issue with this argument is that the players we call \"athletes\" and \"talented\" all have that \'it\', the \'intangibles\' because if they didn\'t in 2 years people would be talking about how they shoulda, woulda, coulda. I think \'it\' is a work ethic, \'heart\' to want to succeed to drive yourself to not only compete against others but against yourself.

I think Gumbo, you said :
_________________________________________________________________________
\"You can teach the game of football, but you can\'t teach speed and atleticism. \"
_________________________________________________________________________

True, but you also can\'t teach someone to have heart, to have a drive to succeed, not only be famous.

You also said:

\"But, I never here anyone say we need to sign or draft a player because of his intagibles or because of \"it\". Why is that? \"

Huh? That is why people (Saint\'s fans included) were so hot for Vilma (Miami). Small guy, a bit undersized, but a leader,a smart guy, a guy who somehow plays better than his abilities (aka \"has \'it\', intangibles)

Liesle, drafted for his attitude. Brian Young started ahead of 3 1st ruonders for the Rams, although he is undersized.

I think there is very little mediocrity in the NFL. We are not dealing with that wide a spectrum of talent and athletic ability. So i do think you have to have some \'heart\' players, who are aged but have learned from their experiences, and learned to out think their ignorant but young competition. The older we get the smarter we have to be to compete.

I\'ll take a Jake Delhomme (an \'it\' \'heart\' guy) over a #1 talented pick like Akili Smith.

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

St.Shrume --

I like the way you think. Your posts are always very well thought out. And I agree with most of your concepts

But, here\'s the way I see it.

There are no \"intangibles\" or magical \"it\".

What there is are these:

1. Athletic ability.
2. Knowledge of the game.
3. Hard Work

1. Athletic ability: Without it the chances of a player suceeding in the NFL are very slim. It is, by far, the most important quality a player possesses. If it were simply a combination of the other 2 qualities ( knowledge of the game, hard work) then we\'d have a lot of guys from Harvard and Yale in the NFL.

2. Knowledge of the game - I don\'t care how much athletic ability a player has he must be knowledgeable about the game of football. He must be able to understand the concept of the system he is in and know where he\'s suppose to be. He must also understand what other teams are trying to do.

3. Hard Work -- Some playeres don\'t have to work as hard as others to become great players because they possess more natural ability (Randy Moss) but hard work is vital to the success of players. There\'s been so many extremely talented guys that didn\'t make it in the NFL because they didn\'t put in the hard work that was necessary.

Now, athletic abilty is relative in terms of importance to certain positions.

Defensive tackles don\'t need to be as fast as cornerbacks.

QB\'s don\'t need to be as athletic as runningbacks.

But, if you can get a player with atleticism at any position and still have the other qualities then your team is just that much better off and opposing cooridinators will lose sleep game planning for those athletic players.

Well, there ya have it. My 2 cents....

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

Billy, I agree, but here is one that others will say you\'ve missed on your list:

(4) Desire (aka heart).

Now all the guys wanna play, but some just want it in the right way and others don\'t. This is the difference between Jerry Rice and Keyou Craver (if I understand StShrume\'s point about the difference in their raw ability, which apparantly is minimal). Jerry worked hard day in and day out, he was a professional who wanted to be the best (and ARGUABLY was at his position).

Now, I\'ve been heard arguing here that there isn\'t a guy in the NFL who doesn\'t want to play, BUT I think that needs to be qualified. What steps are you willing to take to play? How many hours of film will you watch? How will you improve your already impressive physical skills during the off season? Well, that is up to the player - this is heart (or desire, a much less loaded word).

Thus, I think this idea has a place on the list - I think, though, that Billy is right: if you have a guy who is that milisecond faster than everyone else, it seems to make a huge difference on the feild - think Isaac Bruce versus Wesley Carroll at WR. If a guy had heart, could he be better? Well that depends on the capacities of the human body and the postion - so I don\'t know. Thus, as a part of \"it\", I think heart is well down there - at least until the player starts to age - heart will keep him going long after the physical tools start to diminish. Darryl Green comes to mind.

There is another two cents. At this rate, we may make a dime!

PS - Deion Sanders is a prime example of all of this. He had no heart, but he didn\'t need it.

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

Gumbo, you said:
________________________________________________________________________
There are no \"intangibles\" or magical \"it\".

What there is are these:

1. Athletic ability.
2. Knowledge of the game.
3. Hard Work
_________________________________________________________________________

Exactly. Well put. A lot of what we call luck, talent, smarts, has to do with attitude and preparedness. These are (IMHO) the intangibles. Donte has had the talent and physical ability(fastest receiver in NFL arguably) but this is the first year it seems he has finally woken up to the fact that talent only goes so far.

We\'ll have to wait and see if his preparedness (staying healthy and concentrating on all plays) will actually materialize. But here\'s a guy who if he has another injury full season, may get traded (at least talk of it was prevalent until mini-camp showed he is serious this year)

JKool, your example of D. Sanders is true. He is one of those players like Vick, who have that much talent that it makes up for a lot. But these players come thru 1 or 2 every few years. But even he worked hard, though we may question his heart. He was a business man, he worked hard for the $$$. I\'ll take a guy like that too, although they aren\'t always team players. But atleast they are willing to bleed.

Your example of Isaac Bruce doesn\'t work here since he is a hard worker (him and Holt). They run such amazing routes. That takes practice, practice, practice. Bruce is fast but has lost a lot of speed and still kicks @#@ (work ethic)

So, i guess GumboBC, I would say, I would look at the work ethic and intelligence (where needed, not DL, OL :) ) when getting players. These are the intangibles in my view:

1. knowledge of the game (comes from studying)

2. desire to not only win, but compete against themselves period. That way when the winning comes, they don\'t go soft, but keep striving for perfection.

3. Can LEARN. That is something that is very under-rated. These athletes come in with egos and don\'t realize that the coaches who are around them (even the average ones) can teach them 1 or 2 things.

Man, i think Ray Lewis is one of my favorite players (not his personal life) because, although it may be argued that he is physically talented, this guy is self-made. The amount of time he puts into practice, watching tape, searching for any scrap that can make him better....i mean, he is unbelievable. No coach can get a team motivated as much as one of their own showing them how it\'s done and holding everyone accountable...by example.

I guess what i am saying (i am beginning to babble) is that i will take an average player with Ray Lewis\' mentality and work ethic over a Deion Sanders any day.

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

St.Shrume --

Man, that was another great post.

Now that we\'ve estabished all of that. Let\'s relate that to the Saints.

From my standpoint, I think we\'ve had a lot of players that haven\'t wanted it bad enough and haven\'t been willing to work hard enough to achieve the desired results.

Grady Jackson is a prime example. Now, that\'s an extreme example compared to some others on the team, but just the same I feel like there are other players on the team that haven\'t wanted it bad enough.

I think (and I could be wrong) that players themselves are more responsible for finding the motivation needed to be great players, BUT, coaching plays a vital role in this also.

What I\'ve seen is Haslett and co. haven\'t set the tone early on that the BS wasn\'t going to be tolerated and because of that the players haven\'t given 100%. Instead they\'ve played sloppy and not up to their abilites.

I\'m not suggesting all of it is the coaches fault, but I think when players know that the coach isn\'t going to tolerate anything less than maximum effort they\'re more likely to produce. Either that or you find out you\'ve got a guy on your team that\'s not worth investing anymore time in.

I think Haslett started the no-nonsense approach towards the end of last season when he sent Grady packing. Now Keyou was sent a message. Then we have John Pease who is a no-nonsense guy himself.

I think if the coaching staff keeps this up that we MIGHT finially see a team that plays up to it\'s potential.

One last thing. Hard work and discipline aren\'t the only problems this team has had. There are a lot of young guys on this team that haven\'t quite learned what it takes to compete at the pro level. In college they could get by more on their pure athletic ability, but like you said, the talent gap is much less in the NFL and it takes them a while to adjust to that. But, that\'s not a unique situation to the Saints.

I know, I rambled on too long, but I hope I made some sense.

Next?? Anyone????

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

Hhmmm - first, there are probably other guys in the league that match up to these guys both on size and speed. You use that list as an example of players who are good b/c of athleticism. I use the same list to show that the players have \"it\".

Just take our Saints... look at our \"it\" players:
Joe Horn - tell me that there aren\'t 20 other receivers in the league, probably more, who are as big and as fast and as cocky. So tell me, what makes Horn a Pro Bowler three out of the last four years and Willie Jackson a nobody?

How about Deuce - his combo of size and speed aren\'t all that rare anymore. Or take the non-typical RB. What made Barry Sanders so much better than say Warrick Dunn?

How about Jeff Blake vs Aaron Brooks. Blake has a stronger arm and is a better runner. I assume you believe Brooks to be a better QB. Is that ONLY age. If so, why is age a factor? Would you take Drew Brees or Doug Flutie if you needed a QB to start right now today? What makes Peyton Manning the best player in the NFL while Ryan Leaf gets booed out of football?


This sounds like a very old discussion and to me it all translates back into Billy wanting to do anything he can to prove AB is a better QB than Delhomme. He refuses to see AB\'s shortcomings (unless he perceives them as being easily fixable - i.e. fumbling) or admit that Delhomme might, just might, have something AB does not.

I\'ll tell you what. I will concede and upload a picture of me eating crow to the site if Billy can make a convincing argument as to why Favre and Montana are two of the best QBs ever to play the game based solely on athleticism. They have something others don\'t. Vision, leadership, a sixth sense, whatever you want to call it, they got it.

[Edited on 21/6/2004 by WhoDat]

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

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]

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

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

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

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

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

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

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

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

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

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\".

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

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\".

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

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]

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

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.

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

So then what separates Peyton Manning from Ryan Leaf?

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

IMO, WhoDat. No one can possibly say Peyton Manning has \"it\". If there\'s one player that has consistently proved that he can\'t win the big game it is Peyton Manning. And that goes for his entire college career and his entire NFL career. Even last year Peyton chocked in the AFC championship game. He was more responsible for them losing that game than anyone else.

I don\'t want to get into a Manning bashing deal here. I\'m just pointing out to you that Manning doesn\'t have some magical \"it\".

What Peyton does have is an incredible work ethic. The guy knows the offesive game as well as the coaches. He\'s probably the best at reading defenses. He has a good arm and makes quick decisions. And he\'s certainly good enough to win the super bowl. But, it\'s not going to be because of some magical \"it\". Like some claim Jake has.

Manning is better than any QB that supposedly has it. And that includes Tom Brady and Jake Delhomme.







[Edited on 24/6/2004 by GumboBC]

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

I know I\'m about to stir up a hornet\'s nest with this reply, but Billy, you say that Peyton was more responsible than anyone for the Colts loss to the Pats in the playoffs? Isn\'t that kind of reversing your beliefs? When someone says that AB was the majority of the reason for their losses with his fumbling problems, you quickly go on the defense for him. If memory serves me correctly, it\'s supposed to be a team effort. Not just one man. You\'ve even said that before yourself. I\'m not berating you by any means, just making a point. If any QB were to have \"it\" over another, it would be Peyton over AB and the majority of the QB\'s in the league. I do agree with you, however, that \"it\" is overrated. \"It\" is more of a team chemisty than an individual player. The head coach is what puts \"it\" into action. If the coach doesn\'t have the smarts and swagger (like Haslett), then the team won\'t have \"it\", either. Then you have coaches like Parcells and Bellichek who have \"it\" and can make even the worst franchises on paper look like superstars. \"It\" comes from the top and has a trickle-down effect in my honest opinion.

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

D_it_up2 --

I admit Brooks was more responsible for us losing some games last year than any other individual player last year. The fumbles killed us in some games. But, as a whole, our team had many more factors that contributed to our losses than what Peyton had.

I don\'t deny that I\'ve gone over the top in defending Brooks in the past. But, only because some folks have gone over the top in bashing him.

Brooks has what it takes to lead us to the super bowl, IMO. But, he needs cut out some of the stupid mistakes. He also needs a supporting cast that cuts out the stupid mistakes.

Agreed. Haslett has got to somehow pull this team together and make the correct decisions.

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

Wow - major reversals for you.

And one for me... I argued in the past that he could not lead us there. I no longer feel that way - one for Billy - it\'s about time he got one. ;)

Wait, wait, wait - Manning was recently called the best player in the league. It is hard to argue that he is the best QB in football. Are you telling me that he is simply has the best combonation of athleticism and smarts? Really? More so than Garcia? Culpepper?

But let\'s use someone else then? You don\'t feel Manning has \"it\" b/c his TEAM hasn\'t advanced far enough for you. OK - what about Favre? What makes Favre a hall of famer and Dilfer journeyman? You telling me that there aren\'t other QBs in the league with more smarts and athleticism than Favre???

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

DitUp2, great idea with \"it\" belonging to teams instead of players! I hadn\'t considered that one. I really like that idea - espc. since it fits in with my ideas regarding the importance of schemes and DL/DB Symbiosis.

HOWEVER, \"it\" is not usually applied to teams. Player\'s have \"it\", coaches bring \"it\" out in players, and some guys lose \"it\" or never had \"it\" - at least in common parlance. I really want to agree with you, so what do you say to that problem? I have a guess how I would answer this for you, but I\'d like to hear your thoughts.

WhoDat, why have ya been all hiddin\' on us and stuff? I\'m glad to see you\'re back; were we just borring you?

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

Busy at work Granola-boy - glad to see I was missed. ;)

I think you\'re using common parlance (nerd) and extending too far to a discussion of intangibles. Saying he\'s lost \"it\" or never had \"it\" to me translates into \"the right stuff\" - i.e. athleticism, strength, smarts, focus, whatever.

Intangibles, which we are saying are synonimous with \"it\", to me translates into some special characteristic that cannot easily be measured. Most often, that is manifested in players via some ability to lead (i.e. leadership). However, it can occur in different ways. Some players are simply charasmatic and likable. Others seem to have a sixth sense and be able to see a play develop before it happens - Vick and Sanders are great examples of runners who seem to have that - Favre is a good example of a QB to have that - and also a good example of another intangible: being able to make something out of nothing.

Finally, let me say that you could include even measurable attributes, such as smarts (wonderlic) in this. I don\'t think AB reads defenses real well. Manning does. Neither is all that bright, but one has something more than the other - or at least to date, that is the way it has appeared to me.

Got it granola-boy?

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

WhoDat --

I\'ve said on here many times that the ONE postion that athleticism is the LEAST important is at QB. Although, the more athleticism the better. But, not neccessary.

So, we need to get off the atleticism thing at QB.

There\'s many things that make a QB successful. The least of which, IMO, is \"it\".

Peyton Manning is the best QB in the NFL and you CAN\'T say he has it since he\'s let his team down so much when it counts. And I\'m talking about the stupid decisions he\'s made that have cost his teams games. Not that it was all his fault but you can\'t overlook the fact that he played terrible in those games. It was no \"it\" there.

But, IMO, Peyton is the best QB in the game today regardless of some of his past performances. Because Peyton shoulders more of the load in that offense and without Petyon, that team would go nowhere.

Petyon is the best QB in the league because of a lot of factors:

1. Great at reading defenses.
2. He\'s accurate.
3. He makes quick decisions


But, that\'s what makes Peyton successful.

Favre is great for other reasons:

1. Strong arm and can make some incredible throws.
2. He turns into a sandlot QB and makes some incredible plays.
3. He\'s pretty good at reading defenses, although he\'s a gambler at it cost him at times.

Overall, WhoDat, \"it\" really doesn\'t exsist. I think \"it\" is luck and what makes a QB succesful can be explained. Sometimes QB\'s have a great year, but they come back down to earth if they don\'t possess some of the tangibles. It\'s all about smarts, talent, and athleticism with QB\'s. You don\'t have to possess all of them but you better be stong in one to make up for the other. Ideally, you want all 3.


[Edited on 24/6/2004 by GumboBC]

[Edited on 24/6/2004 by GumboBC]

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

Didn\'t Indiana Jones find \"it\" in that first movie, and when they opened \"it\", all of their faces melted off?

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

***WARNING***WARNING***

The picture below represents what was really in the ark that was in the first Indiana Jones movie. Try not to look directly at it, for fear that you may suffer the same results as they did in the movie.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.I\'m warning you
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/the...mages/king.jpg

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

:o :o :o :o :o :o :o

..... and you\'re gonna have to listen to stories about his daughter!!!!

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

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.

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

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?

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

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.

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

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

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

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.

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

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.

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

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

After saying this:

A regular switch hitter you are Billy.

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

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.

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

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.

Intangibles and "it" ???
 

DitUp2,

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

Cheers.