ET80 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 7 minutes ago, johndeere1707 said: Perhaps a better comparison would be Superstar traits vs. college production? 23 minutes ago, Adrenaline_Flux said: Every draft prospect is boom/bust. I think it comes back to this - we're trying to determine a science out of something that is best described as an art. All of these guys will fail if you try to put things within defined lines, surround them with supporting talent that doesn't enhance their natural skills or try to coach them out of traits that are perceived as inhibitors to success. Larry Fitzgerald had impeccable height/weight/speed numbers and a work ethic that was unrivaled. But if you put him in a spread offense that looks for him to run basic routes within a 3-5 yard radius, he's not nearly the player he is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrenaline_Flux Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 10 minutes ago, johndeere1707 said: If I remember correctly Ponder had an extensive injury history and wasn't nearly as productive as Dalton was 8 minutes ago, johndeere1707 said: Perhaps a better comparison would be Superstar traits vs. college production? But Christian Ponder had college production and was known as a smart and hard-working player. He wasn't as productive as Dalton, but he also was in a less pass-friendly offense at the time. Regardless, Ponder still falls in that second category, but he still went very high in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagles18 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 It's got to be a blend of both.. You can have all the hard work you want but if you have no talent to go along with it, then your done. Same goes for talent and needing hard work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Nix Posted July 19, 2017 Author Share Posted July 19, 2017 7 minutes ago, eagles18 said: It's got to be a blend of both.. You can have all the hard work you want but if you have no talent to go along with it, then your done. Same goes for talent and needing hard work And obviously I understand that. I guess the point I was trying to make was, it seems that the pretty solid blue collar guys stick around longer than the super-talented but poor work ethic guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucsfan333 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 8 hours ago, EliteTexan80 said: Larry Fitzgerald had impeccable height/weight/speed numbers and a work ethic that was unrivaled. But if you put him in a spread offense that looks for him to run basic routes within a 3-5 yard radius, he's not nearly the player he is now. Pretty sure Fitz was sloooooowwww when he came out. But he got a coach and actually got faster somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 37 minutes ago, johndeere1707 said: And obviously I understand that. I guess the point I was trying to make was, it seems that the pretty solid blue collar guys stick around longer than the super-talented but poor work ethic guys. Mostly because the hard workers will do anything - Gunner on ST, wedge on KR/PR, etc. No job is too small. Not necessarily the case with the high talent/low ethic guys. 35 minutes ago, bucsfan333 said: Pretty sure Fitz was sloooooowwww when he came out. But he got a coach and actually got faster somehow. Think he ran a 4.5 at 6' 3" 225. He looked slower on tape from his days at Pitt, but you also saw him spring up about three feet off the ground and pull down a pass over three defenders at Pitt, so you were quick to forget his "tape" speed. Fitz had the closest thing to an internship at WR when he was a ball boy for the Vikings. Being able to pick the brains of Carter and Moss as a teenager no doubt had a big impact on his work ethic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucsfan333 Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, EliteTexan80 said: Think he ran a 4.5 at 6' 3" 225. He looked slower on tape from his days at Pitt, but you also saw him spring up about three feet off the ground and pull down a pass over three defenders at Pitt, so you were quick to forget his "tape" speed. Fitz had the closest thing to an internship at WR when he was a ball boy for the Vikings. Being able to pick the brains of Carter and Moss as a teenager no doubt had a big impact on his work ethic. Quick Google search said 4.65. But I agree that he could fly. And he was great at tracking the ball from day one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 1 minute ago, bucsfan333 said: Quick Google search said 4.65. But I agree that he could fly. And he was great at tracking the ball from day one. Kiper reported 4.50 at the Pitt pro day: http://www.espn.com/ncf/story?id=1765595&src=desktop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadpulse Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 I think hard work is more vital in the NFL, again assuming they have that base level talent to be an NFL player. Look at guys like Julian Edelman and Tom Brady for instance, it was all hard work that got them to where there are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phire Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 You already got a slew of responses about the issue not being black and white, but I'll try to stick to your parameters anyways to see if we can work out an argument out of it. It's clear that working hard and natural talent can blend, but practically speaking not everybody works just as hard as each other. Of course there are guys who will hit the weights harder and earlier than others. Of course there are guys who will study their playbooks harder and longer. Of course there are guys who will do the smaller things better and more often, like getting better sleep, eating right, not getting out of shape, etc. (though some of this is discipline rather than hard work, again, these things are not all mutually exclusive). I think one answer to your question is that guys with natural talent seem to have more immediate opportunities but shorter careers, while guys that work hard without the necessary talent either never get a shot or have longer careers. I understand these are complete broad-brush statements and they are intended to be so. It's impossible to speak with any particularity on this subject since it calls for generalized answers. I look at a guy like Dorial Green-Beckham. 2nd round draft pick, great measurements, but a terrible attitude and from what I understand, a very poor work ethic (among other flaws). This is a guy who didn't even make it to the Eagles training camp this year, but was "talented" enough for us to trade for him last year. For the record, the Eagles WRs last year were miserable, and an argument can be made that DGB was at least the second best WR in our group, so it's not like he was completely useless to the team. I'm pretty sure DGB is currently sitting at home without a team. Then I look at a guy like Jason Avant, who isn't as naturally talented, but worked his butt off. At one point he was the Eagles special teams captain. He worked his way up the special teams ladder and eventually became a great locker-room leader and a solid slot option. Avant didn't have the immediate opportunities due to a perceived lack of extreme talent, but had a longer career than someone like DGB (assuming DGB is pretty much done) due to his willingness to do anything for the team. These are anecdotal, but if you look around I think this is loosely generally true. But as others have pointed out, these aren't mutually exclusive and there are so many factors to how a player succeeds or not (such as being drafted by a better team). It's also hard to tell who is working harder than others since the vast majority of that is unreported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cddolphin Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 On 7/19/2017 at 10:51 AM, Gmen4ev said: This isn't a black/white issue. You've used this expression in the Kaep thread as well. I see you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, cddolphin said: You've used this expression in the Kaep thread as well. I see you. Isn't this a common figure of speech? Meaning something isn't definite one way or the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cddolphin Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 Just now, Gmen4ev said: Isn't this a common figure of speech? Meaning something isn't definite one way or the other? It is, but this thread and the Kaep one both have certain.. underlying issues which makes the expression a possible play on words / joke. Maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, cddolphin said: It is, but this thread and the Kaep one both have certain.. underlying issues which makes the expression a possible play on words / joke. Maybe not. Oh. I'm certainly not trying to bring it to a race issue. If that's what you believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cddolphin Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, Gmen4ev said: Oh. I'm certainly not trying to bring it to a race issue. If that's what you believe. I didn't think you were, just thought you were making a subtle joke. Moving on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.