teachercd Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Winning 5 games with a team filled with no senior talent... Or... Only losing 7 games with a team filled with no senior talent... RADAR, you can't pick both! 1 Quote Link to comment
ColoradoHusk Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 I will go with the possibility of finishing 5-8. That's going to be an amazing accomplishment. Quote Link to comment
commando Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 teach.....why are you trolling other posters? 6 Quote Link to comment
theknife Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Great thread, 19/19. 1 Quote Link to comment
teachercd Posted November 29, 2015 Author Share Posted November 29, 2015 Great thread, 19/19. Thanks! Quote Link to comment
huskerfan2000 Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Winning 5 games with a team filled with no senior talent... Or... Only losing 7 games with a team filled with no senior talent... RADAR, you can't pick both! I didn't know you can only win with Seniors. 2 Quote Link to comment
Bowfin Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 What exactly is meant by this "talent" of which everybody speaks? If one player is better than another, it is undeniably because of better coaching, conditioning, drive, effort, or skills, all which are obtainable by anyone now playing college football. "Talent" is not something with which a person is born, like a birthmark or an extra toe on each foot. Yes, some are better football players than others, but that is because they mastered their trade. Roger Craig didn't have the "talent" to have 1,000 yards rushing and receiving in a season, he had the drive to want it and put in the effort to obtain it. His training regimen was legendary. And another thing: I sincerely believe that great teams don't win because they have more four and five star recruits. Four and five star recruits go to the great teams where they will receive superior coaching and are imbued with a winning mindset and expectations to work hard. When they succeed, then it is credited to the "talent", and not the effort. Exhibit A would be the Texas Longhorns recruiting classes vs. their record for the last four years. Exhibit B would be Bill Snyder's recruiting classes vs. what he has been able to do over the years at Kansas State. This sort of deeply flawed "talent" theory isn't limited to football fans, by the way. Deer hunters try to buy marksmanship skills with a new rifle or bass anglers try to catch bigger fish with a faster boat. In all three cases (football, deer hunting, bass fishing) it is usually the ones who work at it and put in the time that end up succeeding. Don't even get me started about golfers! Quote Link to comment
Pedro Guerrero Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 teach.....why are you trolling other posters? I'm pretty sure he has a good laugh at some of the responses as well because some folks take themselves way to seriously around here Quote Link to comment
skersfan Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Talent is god given, deciding to use it to the max is decided by the individual and the coaching staff he aligns with. Heart and drive are not listed in the recruiting format, but I think that is where the true difference makers are. Quote Link to comment
84HuskerLaw Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 What exactly is meant by this "talent" of which everybody speaks? If one player is better than another, it is undeniably because of better coaching, conditioning, drive, effort, or skills, all which are obtainable by anyone now playing college football. "Talent" is not something with which a person is born, like a birthmark or an extra toe on each foot. Yes, some are better football players than others, but that is because they mastered their trade. Roger Craig didn't have the "talent" to have 1,000 yards rushing and receiving in a season, he had the drive to want it and put in the effort to obtain it. His training regimen was legendary. And another thing: I sincerely believe that great teams don't win because they have more four and five star recruits. Four and five star recruits go to the great teams where they will receive superior coaching and are imbued with a winning mindset and expectations to work hard. When they succeed, then it is credited to the "talent", and not the effort. Exhibit A would be the Texas Longhorns recruiting classes vs. their record for the last four years. Exhibit B would be Bill Snyder's recruiting classes vs. what he has been able to do over the years at Kansas State. This sort of deeply flawed "talent" theory isn't limited to football fans, by the way. Deer hunters try to buy marksmanship skills with a new rifle or bass anglers try to get better with a faster boat. In all three cases (football, deer hunting, bass fishing) it is usually the ones who work at it and put in the time that end up succeeding. I would define 'talent' in the context of college football players is athletic ability (bigger, stronger, faster, more coordinated, smoother, quicker, natural ability). To be a talented footbally player, one has natural born physical athletic ability and then develops and hones those skills. Some players are simply better athletes and as such are naturally going to be better football players or better hockey players or better baseball players or better boxers. Surely you are not suggesting that some people are not more athletic than others 'naturally' (they were born that way). People are gentically slightly different and some people are taller, shorter, etc. Sure, people can make themselves stronger but there are natural limits. A 5'-2" tall, slender build woman is not going to ever be able to become a NBA center for the LA Lakers, no matter how hard she works out and how determined she may be. She is not physically able. She might be the world's greatest female gymnast but is not going to be a power lifter or the right offensive tackle for the Huskers. Similarly not every 6-2" high school senior can simply make up his mind to walk on to the Nebraska football team and become the next great I Back. He can run around the world twice ala Forest Gump and most (99%) won't ever become fast enough and quick enough and strong enough to run 4.4 second 40s and become the starting running back. There are less than 1000 running backs nationally each year that are good enough athletically to play D 1 college football as a running back successfully. Nearly all of them have a great deal of talent (skill and physical traits they are born with and have developed and enhanced and practiced for a decade or more typically). 1 Quote Link to comment
Sparker Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 What exactly is meant by this "talent" of which everybody speaks? If one player is better than another, it is undeniably because of better coaching, conditioning, drive, effort, or skills, all which are obtainable by anyone now playing college football. "Talent" is not something with which a person is born, like a birthmark or an extra toe on each foot. Yes, some are better football players than others, but that is because they mastered their trade. Roger Craig didn't have the "talent" to have 1,000 yards rushing and receiving in a season, he had the drive to want it and put in the effort to obtain it. His training regimen was legendary. And another thing: I sincerely believe that great teams don't win because they have more four and five star recruits. Four and five star recruits go to the great teams where they will receive superior coaching and are imbued with a winning mindset and expectations to work hard. When they succeed, then it is credited to the "talent", and not the effort. Exhibit A would be the Texas Longhorns recruiting classes vs. their record for the last four years. Exhibit B would be Bill Snyder's recruiting classes vs. what he has been able to do over the years at Kansas State. This sort of deeply flawed "talent" theory isn't limited to football fans, by the way. Deer hunters try to buy marksmanship skills with a new rifle or bass anglers try to catch bigger fish with a faster boat. In all three cases (football, deer hunting, bass fishing) it is usually the ones who work at it and put in the time that end up succeeding. Don't even get me started about golfers! This is the biggest pile of crap I have seen typed out in quite a while. No amount of drive, desire, effort or coaching is going to transform a 5'6" 140# 18 year old into a 5* college player. I get what you are trying to say, but you took it about 10x too far. If you are trying to say drive, effort, desire and want-to separates an average player from a great player that is well documented but the simple fact is most amazing athletes combined essentially winning the genetic lottery with basically near insane amounts of dedication and obsession for their sport, that is what makes them special. Michael Jordan isn't famous if he doesn't have that exact genetic makeup and whatever weird psychological disorder his parents imbued him with to cause him to have such dedication to pursuing perfection. If he doesn't have both the genetics and the dedication nobody even knows his name, but you are kidding yourself if you think that all it takes is hard work and dedication. There are thousands of athletes that had just as much if not more dedication, drive and desire than (name your favorite athlete) but just didn't have the god given gifts (genes). Plenty of them became coaches. Quote Link to comment
teachercd Posted November 30, 2015 Author Share Posted November 30, 2015 teach.....why are you trolling other posters? I'm pretty sure he has a good laugh at some of the responses as well because some folks take themselves way to seriously around here We have a winner! 1 Quote Link to comment
California Husker Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 What exactly is meant by this "talent" of which everybody speaks? If one player is better than another, it is undeniably because of better coaching, conditioning, drive, effort, or skills, all which are obtainable by anyone now playing college football. "Talent" is not something with which a person is born, like a birthmark or an extra toe on each foot. Yes, some are better football players than others, but that is because they mastered their trade. Roger Craig didn't have the "talent" to have 1,000 yards rushing and receiving in a season, he had the drive to want it and put in the effort to obtain it. His training regimen was legendary. And another thing: I sincerely believe that great teams don't win because they have more four and five star recruits. Four and five star recruits go to the great teams where they will receive superior coaching and are imbued with a winning mindset and expectations to work hard. When they succeed, then it is credited to the "talent", and not the effort. Exhibit A would be the Texas Longhorns recruiting classes vs. their record for the last four years. Exhibit B would be Bill Snyder's recruiting classes vs. what he has been able to do over the years at Kansas State. This sort of deeply flawed "talent" theory isn't limited to football fans, by the way. Deer hunters try to buy marksmanship skills with a new rifle or bass anglers try to catch bigger fish with a faster boat. In all three cases (football, deer hunting, bass fishing) it is usually the ones who work at it and put in the time that end up succeeding. Don't even get me started about golfers! This is the biggest pile of crap I have seen typed out in quite a while. No amount of drive, desire, effort or coaching is going to transform a 5'6" 140# 18 year old into a 5* college player. I get what you are trying to say, but you took it about 10x too far. If you are trying to say drive, effort, desire and want-to separates an average player from a great player that is well documented but the simple fact is most amazing athletes combined essentially winning the genetic lottery with basically near insane amounts of dedication and obsession for their sport, that is what makes them special. Michael Jordan isn't famous if he doesn't have that exact genetic makeup and whatever weird psychological disorder his parents imbued him with to cause him to have such dedication to pursuing perfection. If he doesn't have both the genetics and the dedication nobody even knows his name, but you are kidding yourself if you think that all it takes is hard work and dedication. There are thousands of athletes that had just as much if not more dedication, drive and desire than (name your favorite athlete) but just didn't have the god given gifts (genes). Plenty of them became coaches. I don't know about anyone else, but I just love when one member starts their reply to another member's post like this...you can just feel the love Quote Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 I will go with the possibility of finishing 5-8. That's going to be an amazing accomplishment. Amazing...historical, even. And it's going to be more kindling to the fire under Riley's chair next season if it comes to pass. Though if the staff starts someone other than Tommy at QB for the potential bowl game, we'll know that Tommy's done at DoNU and who POB's #2 will work for. Quote Link to comment
Bowfin Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 This is the biggest pile of crap I have seen typed out in quite a while. No amount of drive, desire, effort or coaching is going to transform a 5'6" 140# 18 year old into a 5* college player. Do you know how tall Darren Sproles is, right?...He's 5'6"... I can hear the gears stripping between your ears from way over here trying to process that bit of info. (You have heard of Darren Sproles, haven't you?) But here we are again with the frickin' stars thing again. You realize that their main function is to sell subscriptions and internet access, right?... ...So how much jack do these charlatans ding you for, in the average year? You are the guy who laughs when someone like Barry Sanders or Danny Woodhead puts on a football helmet, because you are more of a Thunder Collins sort of guy...what with him having all the physical tools and such, am I right? You are one of those who refuse to believe a 5'4" guy could play college basketball, let alone 15 seasons in the NBA. It just can't happen, right? You wouldn't have given Pat Fischer a second look, nor Doug Flutie and you don't think Jim McMahon's superbowl ring is authentic, based on your keen eye for physical talent. I really need you to go look at these recruiting class rankings for the Texas Longhorns, or better yet, I have done it for you on ESPN: 75 recruits over the last five years that were either four or five of your beloved stars...and they are 4-7 this year while facing a curb stomping at Baylor yet...which doesn't happen in your world. It CAN'T happen...right?... ...RIGHT??... ...RIGHT!?!?!? So, as Walter Sobchak so frequently told Donny at the bowling alley... Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.