BillySims

Members
  • Content count

    391
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Training Camp Body

About BillySims

  • Rank
    Backup

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Team
    Eagles
  1. Why do people consider Terrell Owens so "talented?"

    No, there are also numbers involved. Combine numbers, drops numbers. NFL production statistics measure performance, but they don't measure talent.
  2. Why do people consider Terrell Owens so "talented?"

    No he didn't. Owens was well below average for an NFL receiver in terms of footwork. The scouts always noted how slow out of his breaks Owens was.
  3. Why do people consider Terrell Owens so "talented?"

    It's not just my definition of talent; it's everyone's. People in here are trying to redefine the meaning of the word from what everyone, including all of you, had already agreed on long ago. Here's a scout saying Johnny Manziel was more talented than Drew Brees: http://profootballzone.com/nfl/scout-johnny-manziel-talented-drew-brees/ Obviously, nobody in his right mind would ever say Manziel was better than Brees. But in terms of talent, this scout had him ahead. So all the numbers are meaningless when it comes to "talent," because that's not what people mean when they use the word.
  4. Why do people consider Terrell Owens so "talented?"

    He said he was too tired to run a good 40-yard-dash because of warming the bench in college basketball (he couldn't even start/barely got any playing time for a division 1-AA team)? Frickin' please. Owens was a three time all-conference selection taken late 3rd round. He was taken for size and production by a team that didn't care about receiver speed, since they ran the West Coast Offense and valued bigger receivers much more to catch the possession routes.
  5. Why do people consider Terrell Owens so "talented?"

    When people use the word talent, they're referring to the things I already listed. The people who call Terrell Owens "so talented" think he is great in those areas relative to his peers, when in reality, he was not. That's the whole argument. Terrell Owens was barely able to beat the Dancing With the Stars Maksim whatever his name is guy in a sprint in "The Superstars" back in 2009. He has brick hands. His change-of-direction is terrible. He had a 33-inch vertical jump, which is poor for an NFL receiver. He's not naturally strong, as he came out of high school a twig and had to lie in the weight room in order to put on muscle, and even with all that work, all he managed to do was tie Michael Westbrook (Redskins receiver) in the bench press at the 2000 Superstars competition.
  6. Why do people consider Terrell Owens so "talented?"

    Jerry Rice didn't run a 4.71. That's an internet myth. The times people actually got on him ranged anywhere from 4.4 to 4.6. Rice was WAY more talented than Owens, yet nobody talks about what an incredible talent Rice was, because it's generally accepted that he was a hard-working overachiever.
  7. Why do people consider Terrell Owens so "talented?"

    You clearly are not even bothering to read my posts at this point. Mike Mamula didn't fail because of a lack of talent. He failed because of a lack of work ethic. That is entirely my point. The fact that combine test success and failure (which measure physical talent) do not guarantee success or failure in the NFL is why Terrell Owens managed to be a great wide receiver. Look, this is very simple. It's two-pronged. Please pay attention. 1. Talent is defined by most people as being about physical abilities for the position. For a wide receiver, it's about speed, agility, leaping ability, and hand-eye coordination. When most people talk about a wide receiver being talented, they are talking about the receiver possessing those physical abilities. When they say Randy Moss was the most talented receiver in history, they are saying his physical abilities for the position were the greatest ever, regardless of where he ranks in history. When they say Chris Henry was a great talent, they mean he had incredible physical gifts. 2. The people who define Terrell Owens as "so talented," "a waste of talent," etc., define talent as it is defined in #1. Even you do, even though you are pretending you don't now because you can't figure out a way to argue for the position that Owens is so talented relative to his peers based on how you previously defined talent (the same way as everybody else). Even if the latter part of point 2 isn't true, and you have a different personal definition of talent than the rest of the world, it is irrelevant to this thread. This thread is not about how you define talent. The question is why do people, in general, consider Terrell Owens so talented? You are not answering the question. The answer is simply that most people think Owens was fast, agile, and had great leaping ability (most people acknowledge he had terrible hands relative to his peers). And my point in this thread is that people have no reason to believe this outside of assuming things based on media image, because in reality, Owens's combine measurements were awful. Hence, Owens should be seen as the personification of work ethic and will power. He is the game's all-time greatest overachiever. And if you really wish to debate whether or not my claim about how most people define talent is true: Here is a thread on reddit asking posters whom the most talented quarterback in history was. Take a look: Do you see the names that come up and the explanations for them? Not once does the name, "Joe Montana," appear, nor the name, "Tom Brady." Yet if you were to make a thread asking who the GREATEST quarterback of all-time was, they would come up CONSTANTLY. Now why do you think that is? You see, these are the same types of people who would name Terrell Owens among the most TALENTED receivers, while never mentioning Jerry Rice. That is the premise of this thread. These people consider Terrell Owens so talented because they falsely believe he was fast, agile, and just an incredibly gifted athlete relative to his peers. He wasn't. He was one of the worst athletes relative to his peers of any wide receiver in the game. He overachieved to an insane extent through sheer hard work to compensate for his lack of athletic ability relative to his peers.
  8. Why do people consider Terrell Owens so "talented?"

    I think you need to go back to previous posts. As I said before, talent does not guarantee success. Those first round busts had plenty of talent, but they were unsuccessful for other reasons (often a lack of work ethic). Anquan Boldin: Not that talented relative to his peers. Steve Largent: Not that talented relative to his peers. Both of them great overachievers, who were better wide receivers than many guys far more talented than them. So I need to stop posting all the measurements that people use to define talent for each position, and all the quotes from people who actually worked in the NFL for a living, being it management, scouting, coaching, or playing? What else is there? Numbers that only show he was a great player, not a great talent? Do you honestly still not understand what I am saying? I have made it as clear as I possibly could for literally dozens of posts now. Terrell Owens was a good NFL receiver relative to his peers. However, his talent wasn't good relative to his peers. He had to work harder than everyone else to compensate. Just like if there's a really good-looking guy, he has the potential to pick up lots of chicks. In this analogy, they're the ones with the talent. However, if they stay inside all day and never talk to anyone, they're going to fail in that area. Meanwhile, guys who don't look nearly as good but go out all the time and hit on women all the time will outperform them.
  9. Why do people consider Terrell Owens so "talented?"

    You are still pretending not to follow what I am saying (at this point, there is no way you could still fail to grasp it). The quotes I last provided are to show what most people mean when they use the word, "talent." People don't mean production. They mean physical ability for the position. Jeff George and Ryan Leaf were considered all-time great talents at the quarterback position based on their arm strength and ability to make all the throws. They were huge underachievers/colossal busts thanks to personality characteristics. Steve Emtman's talent was never in question; just his ability to live up to his potential. So the way you are trying to define talent is not the way most people define it. They define it as physical ability for the position, and when these same people refer to Owens as such a great "talent," it's because they think Terrell Owens had incredible physical abilities for the position relative to his peers. He didn't, and that's what this thread is about. That's the whole thread. "There are simply not facts to back it up." I provided all of Terrell Owens's measurables. What are those if not facts? It's like I'm talking to a damn wall. Owens's speed, agility, and leaping ability were measured, and those measurements were terrible. Owens's hand-eye coordination is not something that can be directly measured, but his awful drop percentages - some of the worst of any WR who played almost every year he played - point to a lack of ability in that area as well. And it wasn't for lack of effort, as all of Owens's former coaches and teammates have attested to. They say he was the hardest working player any of them ever saw. I am the one bringing all the math, all the evidence. You have continued to talk about something else entirely.
  10. Why do people consider Terrell Owens so "talented?"

    1. I never said he wasn't talented. I said he wasn't that talented relative to his peers. What part of this is so hard to grasp? 2. When people talk about talent in football, they aren't talking about production. The term "overachiever" is what is used to refer to an athlete who isn't that talented relative to his peers but somehow gets results way better than expected. This is Terrell Owens. Aaron Donald ran a better 40-yard-dash than Terrell Owens. A 285-pound defensive tackle ran faster than a 220-pound wide receiver whom people mistakenly believe was somehow an incredible talent relative to his peers. Explain to me how Terrell Owens was a great talent for a wide receiver. Bad hands, poor routes (any scout will tell you this), slow as molasses for a wide receiver, poor leaping ability. If it were about stats, Wes Welker would have been referred to as an incredible talent. Alas, he wasn't. Know why? Because people were aware of the fact that he was a 4.6-4.7 40 guy with little leaping ability. Also, because he's white, wasn't tall, and didn't spend 40 hours per week in the weight room, eating nothing but chicken and egg whites and obsessing over his body. Also, numerous players who don't produce are referred to as "underachievers" who have "great talent." Here's an article talking about what a great talent first round bust Steve Emtman was: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1995-07-26/sports/9507260027_1_dolphins-and-49ers-dolphins-camp-steve-emtman Here's an article talking about Ryan Leaf's talent never having been in question: http://uproxx.com/sports/2000-san-diego-chargers-ryan-leaf/2/ Jeff George being referred to as "one of football's all-time great talents." http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/still-idolizing-jeff-george-after-all-these-years-080510 Now, if talent was about statistics, explain that. Here are George's statistics: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GeorJe00.htm Those don't look very "all-time great" to me. How about you? Now, pay careful attention here: This thread has nothing to do with how you want to define "talent." It is not about people who apparently think that "talent" just means an athlete who produced, even though it's pretty obvious you're only changing the definition from what you really know it to be because this thread left you searching for an explanation. I'm pretty sure you and everyone else in this thread arguing otherwise have always thought of "talent" exactly as it is defined and used by nearly everyone else - referring to a player's physical abilities relative to his peers. I'll bet you guys, like everyone else, thought Mike Mamula was a talented player who never lived up to his potential. This thread is about why people who think of talent as great abilities for the position - speed, agility, hands, leaping ability - think Terrell Owens was such a great "talent" in that regard, when he really wasn't. And clearly this is the way they think of it, based on the context, as we have discussed earlier. Why else would they say he was a "waste of talent" when he had a 15 year career and finished second in NFL history in receiving yards and third in receiving touchdowns? Your argument, "but look at his numbers," makes this claim a contradiction. If it's simply about a receiver being able to produce, as you claim, then Owens certainly produced. Big time. In other words, he took advantage of his ability to produce, hence he didn't waste his talent.
  11. Why do people consider Terrell Owens so "talented?"

    The argument ------------------ Your head. Only your head is far further down than this, but there isn't enough room in the universe to do an adequate representation of this gulf.
  12. Why do people consider Terrell Owens so "talented?"

    That's exactly what your response means. You just called yourself an idiot.
  13. Why do people consider Terrell Owens so "talented?"

    You are intentionally being an idiot?
  14. Why do people consider Terrell Owens so "talented?"

    1. Didn't say he wasn't talented. Said he wasn't talented relative to his peers. 2. It says Owens was an incredible overachiever who out-worked everyone. The DBs and defensive coordinators couldn't stop a 226 pound receiver who played every down like it was his last any more than Michael Jordan could stop Shawn Bradley from dunking on him if it were one-on-one. But was Shawn Bradley as talented as Michael Jordan? Ha!
  15. Why do people consider Terrell Owens so "talented?"

    And now you revert to ignoring the fact that having great numbers isn't what gets someone called, "talented." It's not Wes Welker and Steve Largent and Anquan Boldin who were considered great talents. It's Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, and Chris Henry who were. People think Owens was talented because they falsely think he was some kind of great athlete relative to his peers. He wasn't. He was a great player relative to his peers, but he did this in spite of having extremely limited athleticism relative to others at this level of football. You also just intentionally ignored my copy-and-paste of Steve Young talking about how much he liked Terrell Owens from a teammate perspective. Yet he thinks John Taylor was a better wide receiver. Perhaps he just wasn't that impressed with Terrell Owens's, you know, talent, and what I have been saying for 5 years now has been right all along? It's just a case of constantly talking past each other, but that's not on me. I could not have possibly been any more consistent or any clearer. You people are either disingenuous, or flat-out unintelligent.