BillySims

Why do people consider Terrell Owens so "talented?"

685 posts in this topic

The guy can do situps in his driveway like no other.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, you're selling TO way short when it comes to his athleticism and speed. And no, all of it isn't/wasn't a result of hard work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=cr-owensfall102209

“I hear that he’s one of the greatest of all time, but I don’t buy it – never did,” said one general manager. “He drops balls. He’s not a natural catcher. He’s not a great route runner, blah, blah, blah. He’s big and strong and good with the run after the catch, if he catches it. I can give you 100 negatives. It’s just not worth it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did TO sleep with your girl or something? It's like 100 to 1 here guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://sports.yahoo....owensfall102209

“I hear that he’s one of the greatest of all time, but I don’t buy it – never did,” said one general manager. “He drops balls. He’s not a natural catcher. He’s not a great route runner, blah, blah, blah. He’s big and strong and good with the run after the catch, if he catches it. I can give you 100 negatives. It’s just not worth it."

Gotta be the rams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did TO sleep with your girl or something? It's like 100 to 1 here guy.

Are people even reading my posts? This is a pro-Terrell Owens thread. I'm saying he doesn't have much talent, but he has the heart of a lion, and that's what made him such a great receiver.

I admire guys who work their asses off to make themselves successful a lot more than guys who are just born with great natural ability and succeed mostly on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a terrible thread. i certainly can't see how you can call donovan mcnabb an underacheiver first of all. yes he failed to win the superbowl. But 5 championship games and a superbowl apperance and breaking virtually every eagles passing record in history with very little "wr talent" around him is far from an underachievement considering 50 percent of first round draft pics in the nfl are busts. I have no doubt T.O. was a hard worker but to say he had very little talent is crap. Every player in the nfl was born with a talent that was far superior to 95 percent of all people to ever play football !!! to be an elite nfl talent means 99 percent !! So in the op's opinion we should have dumped mcnabb and kept T.O.? Why as far as who did better without the other the answer is clearly mcnabb. Neither won a superbowl but hell T.O. didn't participate in a single playoff win outside of the eagles and he left in the middle of his prime. In truth both T.O. and Mcnabb i feel would have a ring if not two or three had both stayed but don't fool yourself thinking this feud was really about TO vs Mcnabb. It was TO vs the front office in an effort to get a new deal 1 year after signing his contract and mcnabb just happened to be the leverage he thought he could gain by attempting to turn the media against mcnabb and the front office to get himself his love. It backfired both sides lost but the eagles at least sniffed at another superbowl in 08.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I have no idea, please explain it to me.

Numbers = / = talent.

Talent is something you are born with that you naturally excel at.

The most talented receivers ever don't typically have to go to division I-AA schools. They don't typically run 4.68 in the 40-yard-dash, leap only 33 inches, do poorly in the cone drill and shuttle as well, and get a "C-" grade from the team that drafted them in hands. They're not typically bench players on their varsity high school football teams (Owens got little playing time in high school, look it up).

Didnt Micheal Jordan get cut before!! Damn that no talent working so hard to be Great Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William Sims you are a real dunce.

You seem to think you decide what is and isn't "talent". Natural gifts like having a knack for catching the ball with pillow like hands, such as Randy Moss, are a talent...

So is working your a** off until you become a physical specimen that puts up cinch hall of fame numbers. Both are a form of talent, and to suggest that TO isn't absurdly "talented" is to suggest that any scrub can do what he did.

You say "numbers ==/== talent"

I raise you

genetics ==/== talent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are people even reading my posts? This is a pro-Terrell Owens thread. I'm saying he doesn't have much talent, but he has the heart of a lion, and that's what made him such a great receiver.

I admire guys who work their asses off to make themselves successful a lot more than guys who are just born with great natural ability and succeed mostly on that.

That's like saying because a guy is born into a wheelchair, he isn't "talented" enough to walk.

Being able to work your a** off relentlessly to the point that you're a lock hall of famer is a talent. Especially if you "don't have natural gifts" which is just obviously not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever hear of the well publicized fact of Randy Moss being lazy, and only playing when he feels like playing? True story. Look it up

They all have faults. I get the hate that Eagles fans have for the guy, but TO, while in his prime, was a monster. The guy tried, and damn near succeeded, in winning the Birds a SB by himself on a broken leg.

Very good point.....on the biggest stage, he played his a** off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's like saying because a guy is born into a wheelchair, he isn't "talented" enough to walk.

Being able to work your a** off relentlessly to the point that you're a lock hall of famer is a talent. Especially if you "don't have natural gifts" which is just obviously not true.

If you think that hard work is talent, then you simply don't know what "talent" means.

What you're saying is being able to walk is a talent. Because, with rare exception, everyone is able to work hard.

Sure, if Owens were in a wheelchair because of a genetic condition, or grew to be only 4'8," he'd never have played professional football, regardless of the work he put in.

But height isn't a freak'n talent. Nor is the ability to walk.

I love how people are taking me completely out of context, too, as if I said Owens has "no natural gifts." I'm talking in relative terms, here. What part of that don't you understand?

Todd Pinkston and James Thrash had natural gifts, too. They made it to the NFL, after all. But nobody is talking about how they were "great talents," or "squandered their incredible natural ability" or "could have been one of the greatest ever." Because they didn't. They pretty much did what they were expected to do at this level of football.

But Owens went as far above and beyond his level of talent as anyone who has ever played the game. Nobody expected him to be a great NFL receiver. Here's an abbreviated list of receivers in NFL history who had more natural ability than Terrell Owens, just so you can get what I'm talking about (though you probably still won't):

Randy Moss

Calvin Johnson

Andre Johnson

Torry Holt

Charles Rogers

Roy Williams

Steve Smith

Larry Fitzgerald

Tyrone Calico

Julio Jones

Miles Austin

Dez Bryant

Mike Quick

Braylon Edwards

David Terrell

Plaxico Burress

Koren Robinson

Santana Moss

Koren Robinson

Chris Chambers

Quincy Morgan

James Lofton

Bob Hayes

Stanley Morgan

Roy Green

Tim Brown

Andre Rison

Donte Stallworth

Javon Walker

Lee Evans

Reggie Williams

Marvin Harrison

Jerry Rice

Some of these guys lived up to their talent, some of them didn't. None of them exceeded their level of talent the way Owens did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didnt Micheal Jordan get cut before!! Damn that no talent working so hard to be Great Man

First of all, that story is a myth:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/michael-jordan-really-cut-high-school-team-215707476.html

Secondly, Jordan wound up going to North Carolina. He wound up being selected 3rd overall in the NBA draft.

Terrel Owens went to University of Tennessee-Chattanooga. He wound up being selected 89th overall in the NFL Draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how many times the OP tries to explain himself, it continues to make no sense. Love him or hate him, TO was a great talent. Where he was drafted is irrelevant. Rod Smith was undrafted I believe. That doesn't make him not talented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll bite.

If you think that hard work is talent, then you simply don't know what "talent" means.

No...I do...you're simply struggling with your application of the word.

It means to have natural aptitude/skill. Aptitude is Competency to do a certain task/ work/etc.

So how, on earth, is being naturally more driven/hardworking/etc. not a skill, but naturally catching a ball is? They are each a natural attribute, critical to success in said activity, this case being WR, and yes, both of them are talents. Besides the obvious other natural gifts that he has such as size+Speed (both of which are maximized by drive/determination/dedication).

What you're saying is being able to walk is a talent. Because, with rare exception, everyone is able to work hard.

No. I'm not saying that. The point of that example was to showcase the same logic that you had already presented, just in different terms so that it was easier to see how absurd it was.

Sure, if Owens were in a wheelchair because of a genetic condition, or grew to be only 4'8," he'd never have played professional football, regardless of the work he put in.

You're going into left field here.

But height isn't a freak'n talent. Nor is the ability to walk.

Precisely.

I love how people are taking me completely out of context, too, as if I said Owens has "no natural gifts." I'm talking in relative terms, here. What part of that don't you understand?

Don't know why you're playing the victim here. You started a thread called "why do people consider terrell owens so 'talented'" People are answering that question for you, and you've got your fingers in your ears screaming "LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU." He is very obviously a special talent. I hate Terrell Owens just as much as any player I can think of, and I'm still not going to be a big enough moron to question his talent.

Todd Pinkston and James Thrash had natural gifts, too. They made it to the NFL, after all. But nobody is talking about how they were "great talents," or "squandered their incredible natural ability" or "could have been one of the greatest ever." Because they didn't. They pretty much did what they were expected to do at this level of football.

You're right, they did. But I don't really think I need to explain to you what the difference in talent is between Terrell Owens, and Thrash and Pinkston. Or do I? I mean that seems like it should be quite obvious. You're basically proving MY point here. Everyone in the NFL has talent, it takes a real supreme talent to skyrocket to the level of Owens in the prime of his career. You simply can't do that without an absurd amount of talent.

But Owens went as far above and beyond his level of talent as anyone who has ever played the game. Nobody expected him to be a great NFL receiver.

Couple things. 1, who told you that talent level was a quantitive value, and how exactly are you measuring this talent? How many milliliters of talent did TO have? Cuz if you can't measure talent quantitively (which you can't) then you can't tell me that you know for sure he far and above exceeded that level, since you can't put a value on it in the first place. That's just ABC logic.

Another thing, expectations by peers and critics, and talent level are two mutually exclusive things. That's the end of that nonsense.

Here's an abbreviated list of receivers in NFL history who had more natural ability than Terrell Owens, just so you can get what I'm talking about (though you probably still won't):

Randy Moss

Calvin Johnson

Andre Johnson

Torry Holt

Charles Rogers

Roy Williams

Steve Smith

Larry Fitzgerald

Tyrone Calico

Julio Jones

Miles Austin

Dez Bryant

Mike Quick

Braylon Edwards

David Terrell

Plaxico Burress

Koren Robinson

Santana Moss

Koren Robinson

Chris Chambers

Quincy Morgan

James Lofton

Bob Hayes

Stanley Morgan

Roy Green

Tim Brown

Andre Rison

Donte Stallworth

Javon Walker

Lee Evans

Reggie Williams

Marvin Harrison

Jerry Rice

Some of these guys lived up to their talent, some of them didn't. None of them exceeded their level of talent the way Owens did.

No. Those are people whose have talents that you seem to value higher than the talents that Owens posesses.

And even if we were going by your incorrect "definition" of talent, (which is basically you picking and choosing things that you have no idea if they were even naturally gifted at or if they worked relentlessly at it to get to that point by the time we see them) a good portion of those names you listed are still not more talented than Owens. Even by your own ridiculous sentiment of what talent is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll bite.

No...I do...you're simply struggling with your application of the word.

It means to have natural aptitude/skill. Aptitude is Competency to do a certain task/ work/etc.

No, you're making up a false definition to suit your argument.

"Talent" does not mean "having skill."

For instance, you apparently don't know how to quote properly on this board. That's a skill you don't yet possess. I do, but my ability to do that isn't a talent.

Talent pertains to the potential to do something at a high level. Talents exceed the norm. Skills can be developed by just about anyone.

So how, on earth, is being naturally more driven/hardworking/etc. not a skill, but naturally catching a ball is?

Who said anything about whether or not it's a "skill?" We're talking about talent, not skill. The two words are not synonyms.

Your apparent belief that hard work is a "talent" is laughable. Talent has absolutely nothing to do with working hard. Talent is natural. You're born with talent. Hard work isn't natural. You're not born with hard work. You work hard.

And claiming someone is "naturally a hard worker" is silly. That's like saying we don't really have "free choice." So-and-so is naturally a murderer/rapist. Can't blame them, it's just their talent for murdering/raping people. Right? Since working hard is just a talent, not a personal choice. Just like eating. If someone eats, it's a talent, obviously. Born driven to eat food.

They are each a natural attribute, critical to success in said activity, this case being WR, and yes, both of them are talents. Besides the obvious other natural gifts that he has such as size+Speed (both of which are maximized by drive/determination/dedication).

These "gifts" are nothing out of the ordinary for a guy good enough to make it to the NFL. That's the point I'm making. It's relative. Relative. Relative. Relative. Relative. Relative. Relative. Relative.

Has the part about it being relative sunk in yet?

What's out of the ordinary is how hard Owens worked. He made a choice to do everything he could to go above and beyond what anyone thought he could. And he did. It's remarkable how much he got out of such unremarkable athletic ability for a professional athlete.

No. I'm not saying that. The point of that example was to showcase the same logic that you had already presented, just in different terms so that it was easier to see how absurd it was.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

I said: "I'm saying he doesn't have much talent, but he has the heart of a lion, and that's what made him such a great receiver."

You said: "That's like saying because a guy is born into a wheelchair, he isn't "talented" enough to walk."

That response has no discernible meaning in this context and is a complete non-sequitur.

You're going into left field here.

No, actually you did. You brought up a completely incompatible comparison that has absolutely no relevance to what we are discussing. It doesn't even make sense.

Precisely.

What do you mean, "precisely?" You're the one who thinks Owens's "size" is an argument for his "talent." Size isn't a talent. That hurts anyone's counter-argument that relies heavily on Owens's mere height (which isn't remarkable to begin with).

Don't know why you're playing the victim here. You started a thread called "why do people consider terrell owens so 'talented'" People are answering that question for you, and you've got your fingers in your ears screaming "LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU." He is very obviously a special talent. I hate Terrell Owens just as much as any player I can think of, and I'm still not going to be a big enough moron to question his talent.

Nobody has effectively answered the question. Predictably, nobody in this thread seems to understand what I'm saying, nor what "talent" means (most of all, you).

You're right, they did. But I don't really think I need to explain to you what the difference in talent is between Terrell Owens, and Thrash and Pinkston. Or do I? I mean that seems like it should be quite obvious. You're basically proving MY point here. Everyone in the NFL has talent, it takes a real supreme talent to skyrocket to the level of Owens in the prime of his career. You simply can't do that without an absurd amount of talent.

This is the quintessential example of circular logic.

How did Owens put up big numbers? Because he's talented.

How do we know Owens is talented? Because he put up numbers.

You simply can not do that without an absurd amount of talent? False. Owens himself is proof that that statement is false. Owens is not absurdly talented. Not relative to the rest of the NFL. He is a middling talent...a guy most scouts would have projected to be a backup at the professional level, based on his...you know...talent.

Being successful in life isn't always about talent. Some people aren't particularly naturally gifted, relative to others in their field, but they work hard to compensate for a lack of natural gifts. Terrell Owens is one such man.

People were already calling Roger Federer one of the most talented players in the history of tennis before he'd ever won a single Grand Slam title. They said this because, based on his natural abilities, they knew he had the potential to win a lot of Grand Slam titles. They also said this about Marat Safin.

But Federer now has 17 Grand Slam titles, and Safin retired with 2. Meanwhile, Lleyton Hewitt, a guy who is known as the quintessential overachiever, won just as many as Safin. Talent does not guarantee results, and results do not necessarily reflect outstanding relative talent.

And what's the difference between Owens and Thrash/Pinkston? As a breakdown, Pinkston was faster than Owens. Thrash had similar speed. Pinkston was a better all-around prospect than Owens. Thrash, not so much. He was another hard worker, but he was more of a journeyman #3 type receiver.

Couple things. 1, who told you that talent level was a quantitive value, and how exactly are you measuring this talent? How many milliliters of talent did TO have? Cuz if you can't measure talent quantitively (which you can't) then you can't tell me that you know for sure he far and above exceeded that level, since you can't put a value on it in the first place. That's just ABC logic.

What is a "quantitive" value? "Quantitive" isn't a word. The word you are looking for is, "quantitative."

Some aspects of talent are measurable, such as athletic components. Owens had poor speed for a receiver. He had average leaping ability for a receiver. He had poor agility (cone drill). He had poor explosion (slow 10 yard time).

Other aspects are empirical. Owens isn't a natural "plucker." He has poor hand-eye coordination. He doesn't have very good timing, which is why he's never been particularly effective on jump balls, despite his above average height. He grunts and groans when he runs because it's not natural for him.

That's how you evaluate talent. What, do you think talent is an intangible?

And you just hypocritically contradicted everything you said before. If you can't measure talent...then you can't measure talent. And therefore, you can't tell me I'm wrong.

Another thing, expectations by peers and critics, and talent level are two mutually exclusive things. That's the end of that nonsense.

No, they are not. Scouts are paid to determine how talented players are. Their expectations are largely based on that.

The scouting report on Owens was that he was a good kid (yes, it was) and a very hard worker, but extremely raw and not an exceptional athlete.

No. Those are people whose have talents that you seem to value higher than the talents that Owens posesses.

What talents does Owens possess that they don't?

Everyone on that list is/was faster than him.

Everyone on that list is/was quicker than him.

Everyone on that list had a better vertical leap than him.

Everyone on that list is a more natural pass catcher than him.

Everyone on that list is smoother than him in all areas of the receiver position.

Any scout worth his salt would be able to verify the five aforementioned statements.

And even if we were going by your incorrect "definition" of talent, (which is basically you picking and choosing things that you have no idea if they were even naturally gifted at or if they worked relentlessly at it to get to that point by the time we see them) a good portion of those names you listed are still not more talented than Owens. Even by your own ridiculous sentiment of what talent is.

Except, half the guys on that list underachieved in the NFL. Work as hard as Owens to get there? Uh, that'd be negative.

I suggest you read up on how hard Owens worked in college. He hit the weight room like a man possessed. But he went to the combine and was absolutely terrible. Imagine if he hadn't worked his tail off when he got to Chattanooga. He would never have made the NFL. Not a chance.

Randy Moss...he bounced around from college to college before landing at Marshall. Because he could. Because he's so much more naturally talented than Owens, it pretty much can not be overstated. Yet people put Owens in the same sentence as Moss when it comes to natural gifts, and then talk about how Owens "squandered them." And that's what this thread is about. That's utterly ridiculous...and disgusting distortion of reality.

And no, they most certainly are/were.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TL;DR

Not 1 person agrees with you, think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TL;DR

Not 1 person agrees with you, think about it.

Translation: BillySims, you just made me look like an absolute fool, and I have absolutely no response to that. However, it hurts my ego too much to admit you bested me in an argument on the internet, so I'm going to just pretend I won in one line to maintain pretenses.

By the way, appeal to the majority opinion is a fallacy. But what you said is wrong, anyway. There's at least one NFL General Manager who agrees with me. I posted his quote in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Translation: BillySims, you just made me look like an absolute fool, and I have absolutely no response to that. However, it hurts my ego too much to admit you bested me in an argument on the internet, so I'm going to just pretend I won in one line to maintain pretenses.

By the way, appeal to the majority opinion is a fallacy. But what you said is wrong, anyway. There's at least one NFL General Manager who agrees with me. I posted his quote in this thread.

no, translation, I saw your post...scrolled down and saw it was a book, decided not to even read it because you're a moron and it would be a waste of time. So in turn you wasted yours instead by writing out idiodic ramblings that no one cares to pay attention to anymore because your opinion has already been laughed to death.

And no, one NFL GM doesn't agree that TO isn't talented, he thinks its not worth it to sign him right now. Tell me you know the difference for the sake of humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh gee, this is a tough one!

2nd in Receiving Yards

5th in Receptions

2nd in Receiving Touchdowns

Nope. No Talent There At All.

LOL. Plus he is.one of the best blocking wrs of his era.

Its pretty funny how much fishing this thread is doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what the OP is saying and I agree with him. What T.O. lacked in natural talent he made up with in pure determination and hard work.

LOL. Plus he is.one of the best blocking wrs of his era.

Its pretty funny how much fishing this thread is doing.

Blocking is just want to. It has nothing to do with talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta be the rams.

Probably Matt Millen.

"TO is no Charles Rogers, Roy Williams, Mike Williams, Calvin Johnson!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, translation, I saw your post...scrolled down and saw it was a book, decided not to even read it because you're a moron and it would be a waste of time. So in turn you wasted yours instead by writing out idiodic ramblings that no one cares to pay attention to anymore because your opinion has already been laughed to death.

Uh, you're the one who made it a book with all of your "idiodic" (your English teacher is pondering suicide right now) block quotes. I just responded to each of your block quotes (the same thing you did). I don't believe for one second you didn't read it. You were overwhelmed and are now trying to save face with the hackneyed, "it would be a waste of time for me to actually defend my idiotic statements in an argument" statement.

And no, one NFL GM doesn't agree that TO isn't talented, he thinks its not worth it to sign him right now. Tell me you know the difference for the sake of humanity.

Yet again with the straw man argument. I never said Owens isn't talented. I said he doesn't have great talent relative to his peers.

Here's what the GM said:

“I hear that he’s one of the greatest of all time, but I don’t buy it – never did,” said one general manager. “He drops balls. He’s not a natural catcher. He’s not a great route runner, blah, blah, blah. He’s big and strong and good with the run after the catch, if he catches it. I can give you 100 negatives. It’s just not worth it."

The GM never said anything about him being a distraction or a bad teammate or any of that other jazz. He kept the focus on his actual abilities, and went against the grain of the general public sentiment and said that he's never bought that Owens was what people make him out to be as a player.

Ryan Clark of the Steelers has said similar things on ESPN.

I disagree with this GM on Owens not being one of the greatest of all-time, though. Despite those flaws and his athletic limitations, his sheer work ethic and will power is remarkable. It's not just the cumulative production that is impressive, it's the fact that he's managed to be a premier deep threat despite having only 4.6-4.7 speed. Anquan Boldin has similar speed and he's not a deep threat. There were plenty of other tall guys who weren't burners, but were often still a step faster than Owens, who never were anywhere near the deep threat Owens has been over the years.

The list of deep threats with similar speed to Owens is very short. It starts with Jerry Rice and Steve Largent, and it ends with Owens. But nobody talks about what incredible talents Rice and Largent were. People just rave about their heart and their work ethic.

Owens compensated for his lack of physical ability with technique. He listened to his receivers coaches and perfected his ability to get releases at the line of scrimmage. He hit the weight room like nobody else to develop good strength (despite all that work, his 260 pound bench press is no better than Michael Westbrook's was, a career underachiever, so so much for "natural strength"). And he has the determination to fight off tacklers after the catch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, that story is a myth:

http://sports.yahoo....-215707476.html

Secondly, Jordan wound up going to North Carolina. He wound up being selected 3rd overall in the NBA draft.

Terrel Owens went to University of Tennessee-Chattanooga. He wound up being selected 89th overall in the NFL Draft.

:roll:

He said Jordan to McNabb, Rodman to Owens. Not Owens to Jordan.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now