BillySims

Why do people consider Terrell Owens so "talented?"

Recommended Posts

He anchored the track team in college to an NCAA championship and had a chance to play for the basketball team in the ncaa championship. But, yeah completely talentless. Even says in one of his bios 49ers drafted him for his size and wait for it....... SPEED

 

He warmed the bench for a division 1-AA basketball team and apparently occasionally got involved with a 1-AA track team. Wow. Not like I can find tons and tons of even the slowest receivers/DBs/etc. running track in high school or college.

 

The 49ers drafted him because of his size and being a 3-time all-conference selection at wide receiver. The 49ers didn't care about receivers lacking speed because it didn't matter in the West Coast Offense, as proven by the likes of Dwight Clark and even to an extent Jerry Rice. They took J.J. Stokes in the 1st round the year before and he ran like a 4.7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He warmed the bench for a division 1-AA basketball team and apparently occasionally got involved with a 1-AA track team. Wow. Not like I can find tons and tons of even the slowest receivers/DBs/etc. running track in high school or college.

The 49ers drafted him because of his size and being a 3-time all-conference selection at wide receiver. The 49ers didn't care about receivers lacking speed because it didn't matter in the West Coast Offense, as proven by the likes of Dwight Clark and even to an extent Jerry Rice. They took J.J. Stokes in the 1st round the year before and he ran like a 4.7.[/quote

]so the Niners lied about drafting him for his speed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is you simply don't understand what the word "talent" means. Talent is a natural ability to do something. Relative to his peers, Owens didn't have great natural talent. He out-worked them to compensate, while many of them squandered their talent.

 

Everything Owens did well on the field was the product of his unparalleled work ethic (along with being born with the tall gene). None of that is talent. Height isn't an innate ability, and he is not naturally a strong guy. He's not naturally smart, either - he's a slow-witted country bumpkin who can't even articulate a proper sentence. But he worked relentlessly, and while you can say that's an innate personality characteristic, claiming that as "talent" is antithetical to the definition of talent. Maybe working hard comes naturally to him, but working hard is still a choice and everybody has the ability. Being athletic is not.

 

You seem to be arguing that talent is somehow synonymous with successful. It isn't. That's not what the word means.

So you're one of those people that believe a hard worker can achieve anything?  I don't.  I don't subscribe to that at all.

 

You're only defining talent with NFL metrics.  I'm defining it with definable statistics.  No matter how hard I try, I could never be a WR in the NFL.  I could spend 10,000 hours practicing with the worlds best trainers and I wouldn't make it.  Hard work is not enough to get you in the game, you need talent to get you in that conversation.

 

To catch all the balls he caught, make all the cuts and runs, reach the end zone so many times, you have to be talented.  Maybe not in a single category, but as a whole package.  He was Top Five in every meaningful category that defines a great WR.  No one can work hard enough to get there without talent.  For you to say that he is not talented because he did not post some number in a given test that is practically irrelevant to the game that is played is ludicrous.  It is.  It's crazy.

 

If metrics were so important to judge one's talent to play a sport then the draft would not have so many busts.  Metrics should be used as a part of a larger body of work to define the success of player, not be the indicator of one' success.

 

Earlier I said I could never be a WR in the NFL.  With 10,000 hours of world class training, I bet I could kill it in some of the tests.  Then you could start a post and tell me how talented I was, even though I could never play the game.

 

Go buy yourself a copy of Outliers.  You will learn a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're one of those people that believe a hard worker can achieve anything?  I don't.  I don't subscribe to that at all.

 

You're only defining talent with NFL metrics.  I'm defining it with definable statistics.  No matter how hard I try, I could never be a WR in the NFL.  I could spend 10,000 hours practicing with the worlds best trainers and I wouldn't make it.  Hard work is not enough to get you in the game, you need talent to get you in that conversation.

 

To catch all the balls he caught, make all the cuts and runs, reach the end zone so many times, you have to be talented.  Maybe not in a single category, but as a whole package.  He was Top Five in every meaningful category that defines a great WR.  No one can work hard enough to get there without talent.  For you to say that he is not talented because he did not post some number in a given test that is practically irrelevant to the game that is played is ludicrous.  It is.  It's crazy.

 

If metrics were so important to judge one's talent to play a sport then the draft would not have so many busts.  Metrics should be used as a part of a larger body of work to define the success of player, not be the indicator of one' success.

 

Earlier I said I could never be a WR in the NFL.  With 10,000 hours of world class training, I bet I could kill it in some of the tests.  Then you could start a post and tell me how talented I was, even though I could never play the game.

 

Go buy yourself a copy of Outliers.  You will learn a lot.

 

No, because luck enters into the equation as well. Kurt Warner was the Browns taking him in the 99 expansion draft away from being a short term backup who was out of football within a few years.

 

For every one of those guys who gets lucky and makes it, there are others who don't.

 

It's not a simple matter of, "this guy is better than this guy who is better than this guy." It's actually a convoluted mess.

 

And you don't seem to get that I'm not saying that talent alone guarantees success. Quite the opposite. Those draft busts were all talented but they failed for other reasons. The metrics proved they were talented. But the metrics didn't measure their work ethic or competitiveness.

 

The point of this thread is Owens wasn't very talented compared to his peers, not compared to you and me. I can't crack 5.0 in the 40 or leap 30 inches.

 

But there are hundreds of college players who can. There are hundreds of college players who are faster, quicker/more agile, have better hands, and can jump higher than Terrell Owens ever could.

 

Only a small fraction of those are willing to pay anywhere near the price he paid with hard work, and only some of those guys have good height. Of those, some of them are backing up others who are more talented than both them and Terrell Owens, some of them will get injured in college, some will get injured in the NFL, some of them will wind up backing up more talented receivers than both they and Terrell Owens in the NFL and never get much playing time.

 

Oh, and some will wind up in terrible situations, not put up numbers as a result, and not be so well-regarded in the NFL as a result. Terrell Owens in Buffalo demonstrates that sort of thing. Imagine if a team like the recent Rams had drafted Owens in the 3rd round instead of the 49ers. Where would he have been?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let's see, who is in that race. Tiki and Ronde Barber, who were notoriously slow. 

 

Bwahahahahaah.  Ronde was a 110m hurdler for UVA's track team, and has the 7th fastest time in school history.  But yeah, he's slow.......smh....

 

I mean, all you have to do is watch Owens play to see his speed.  The dude was explosive.  Did he have top elite speed like Desean Jackson?  No.  But he was still fast.  Jason Avant, now there is a receiver who actually is slow.  And watching him run looks nothing like watching Owens run. And he's actually a perfect example for this: He's a receiver with great hands, great technique, great strength, great knowledge of the game, yet he's actually slow as molasses, and as a result his stats aren't great.  Yet we're to believe Owens is also slow as molasses, but in addition to that also has bad hands, and all he has going for him is strength, size, and knowledge of the game, yet was able to finish his career as one of the best statistical receivers of all time?????

 

By the way, the previous year, Owens won that 100 yard race as well, beating Michael Westbrook and Isaac Bruce.  Let me guess, those guys are all slow too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The metrics proved they were talented.

This is where we disagree. I'm telling you all metrics prove is a guy is good at that particular performance task, it doesn't prove talent.

I'm done. You rely on metrics proving talent and I'll stick to the indisputable career statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Owens by any measure was a great player and belongs in the HOF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bwahahahahaah.  Ronde was a 110m hurdler for UVA's track team, and has the 7th fastest time in school history.  But yeah, he's slow.......smh....

 

I mean, all you have to do is watch Owens play to see his speed.  The dude was explosive.  Did he have top elite speed like Desean Jackson?  No.  But he was still fast.  Jason Avant, now there is a receiver who actually is slow.  And watching him run looks nothing like watching Owens run. And he's actually a perfect example for this: He's a receiver with great hands, great technique, great strength, great knowledge of the game, yet he's actually slow as molasses, and as a result his stats aren't great.  Yet we're to believe Owens is also slow as molasses, but in addition to that also has bad hands, and all he has going for him is strength, size, and knowledge of the game, yet was able to finish his career as one of the best statistical receivers of all time?????

 

By the way, the previous year, Owens won that 100 yard race as well, beating Michael Westbrook and Isaac Bruce.  Let me guess, those guys are all slow too?

 

Sure, Avant was slow.

"Gil Brandt, of NFL.com, reports Michigan WR Jason Avant (hand) measured a height of 6-0 1/2 and a weight of 209 pounds at his Pro Day. He ran the 40-yard dash twice with a time of 4.80 seconds, but it is possible the cast on his hand hurt his performance. He will run the 40-yard dash again in the near future. He ran the short shuttle in 4.19 seconds and the three-cone drill in 7.02 seconds while measuring a 35 1/2-inch vertical jump and a 10-foot-4 broad jump."

 

A 4.8 pro day would be a 4.9 realistically. So yeah, that's pushing slowness a bit too far. Combine that with being 2 inches shorter and, if nothing else, coaches are immediately thinking, "let's find someone better." And Avant was a career #3 receiver, so he didn't have the same opportunities Owens had as far as producing as a starter to the point they wouldn't take him off the field.

 

Hurdles is a completely different beast from sprinting. Ronde Barber was known to be a 4.7 40 guy coming out of college, and since Tiki is his identical twin, well...I don't think it's realistic to think he was much faster, although he got a much better start in that 100 yard race than Ronde did which seems to be why he was much closer to Owens at the end.

 

Westbrook and Bruce weren't burners, either. But I'd bet they'd have easily beaten him had it been only 40 yards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok then look at Jordan Matthews.  He ran a 4.46 at the combine.  He does not play as fast as Owens.  It's not even close. If you think it's too hard to compare since obviously they didn't play at the same time, then fine compare him to Jeremy Maclin who ran a 4.48. Maclin without a doubt is faster than Matthews, yet the 40 time doesn't show that.

 

You are so hung up on 40 times when it has been proven over and over again that 40 time does not equal game speed.

 

Roy Williams (former safety for the Cowboys, not the receiver), ran a 4.51 40.  Yet he got burnt on big plays plenty in his career. Heck he once lost a footrace against tight end Matt Schobel on a 60 yard TD, and Schobel definitely did not run a 4.51 40. 

Brian Westbrook ran a 4.58.  Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that Westbrook was faster than Roy Williams?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok then look at Jordan Matthews.  He ran a 4.46 at the combine.  He does not play as fast as Owens.  It's not even close. If you think it's too hard to compare since obviously they didn't play at the same time, then fine compare him to Jeremy Maclin who ran a 4.48. Maclin without a doubt is faster than Matthews, yet the 40 time doesn't show that.

 

Based on what?

 

And when was it "proven" that 40 time does not equal game speed?

 

"Game speed" is one of those mythical concepts invented by people who don't understand what they're seeing. They think they're seeing a guy with a slower 40 time outrun a guy with a faster 40 time and don't take into account who started accelerating first, who had their hips turned, who is playing with an injury, etc.

 

Nobody thought Owens "played fast" coming out of college, anyway. He was a big-bodied receiver who broke tackles after the catch. West Coast Offenses such as Green Bay and San Francisco were interested in that type of receiver. The end.

 

It's interesting you mention Roy Williams and how slow you think he was, because he caught Owens from behind in the open field when he broke his leg on the horse collar tackle in 2004. Kind of backfired on you, didn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on what?

And when was it "proven" that 40 time does not equal game speed?

"Game speed" is one of those mythical concepts invented by people who don't understand what they're seeing. They think they're seeing a guy with a slower 40 time outrun a guy with a faster 40 time and don't take into account who started accelerating first, who had their hips turned, who is playing with an injury, etc.

Nobody thought Owens "played fast" coming out of college, anyway. He was a big-bodied receiver who broke tackles after the catch. West Coast Offenses such as Green Bay and San Francisco were interested in that type of receiver. The end.

It's interesting you mention Roy Williams and how slow you think he was, because he caught Owens from behind in the open field when he broke his leg on the horse collar tackle in 2004. Kind of backfired on you, didn't it?

My God your stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roy Williams was up the field from Owens. Owens was going around him to go up field when Williams grabbed him horse collar style. But go ahead and phrase it differently than how it actually happened to try to prove a point. After all, facts are something you don't use anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roy Williams was up the field from Owens. Owens was going around him to go up field when Williams grabbed him horse collar style. But go ahead and phrase it differently than how it actually happened to try to prove a point. After all, facts are something you don't use anyway.

 

It's at 30:25

 

 

Owens was trying to run away from Williams and turn it up field and couldn't. They may not have been at a dead sprint, but if Owens played so fast and Williams was admittedly so slow, he should have had no trouble getting away from him with a couple of steps on him.

 

I also remember seeing a clip of Kevin Greene (yes, the recent HOF induction linebacker/end) catching Owens from behind in his rookie year, but I guess Greene must have played at Deion speed or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting you mention Roy Williams and how slow you think he was, because he caught Owens from behind in the open field when he broke his leg on the horse collar tackle in 2004. Kind of backfired on you, didn't it?

 

Please tell me you are joking.  The fact that you think Owens was "caught from behind" on that play just tells me that there's no need to continue further with this silly conversation.  Owens was starting from a standstill meanwhile Williams was running at him.  

 

As far as 40 time not equalling game speed, there are tons of examples.  Again, just look at our own team. Jordan Matthews ran a 4.46 40, Nelson Agholor ran a 4.42, which suggests they are almost the same speed.  But all you have to do is watch them play and it's not even close as to who is faster.  Josh Huff ran a 4.51.  But again, anyone watching the games can easily see that Huff is faster than Matthews. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell me you are joking. The fact that you think Owens was "caught from behind" on that play just tells me that there's no need to continue further with this silly conversation. Owens was starting from a standstill meanwhile Williams was running at him.

As far as 40 time not equalling game speed, there are tons of examples. Again, just look at our own team. Jordan Matthews ran a 4.46 40, Nelson Agholor ran a 4.42, which suggests they are almost the same speed. But all you have to do is watch them play and it's not even close as to who is faster. Josh Huff ran a 4.51. But again, anyone watching the games can easily see that Huff is faster than Matthews.

not to mention the guy at 41 yrs old can still get above the rim like it's nothing but, he can't jump either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time I read this thread title I LOL.

Every. Time. :roll:

Agreed. Some people on this board are straight f heads

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell me you are joking.  The fact that you think Owens was "caught from behind" on that play just tells me that there's no need to continue further with this silly conversation.  Owens was starting from a standstill meanwhile Williams was running at him.  

 

As far as 40 time not equalling game speed, there are tons of examples.  Again, just look at our own team. Jordan Matthews ran a 4.46 40, Nelson Agholor ran a 4.42, which suggests they are almost the same speed.  But all you have to do is watch them play and it's not even close as to who is faster.  Josh Huff ran a 4.51.  But again, anyone watching the games can easily see that Huff is faster than Matthews. 

 

And Williams had to change direction to chase Owens, pretty much negating any forward momentum he had.

 

How is it that you "see" this? When did any of these guys race each other during a game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Williams had to change direction to chase Owens, pretty much negating any forward momentum he had.

 

How is it that you "see" this? When did any of these guys race each other during a game?

What are you talking about?  TO literally changed direction as he was pivoting off of just catching a curl route.  Williams was running towards Owens direction the whole time. 

 

And yes it's pretty easy to see that Maclin, Huff, and Aghalor are all faster than Matthews.   It's evident when they play.  Matthews is a perfect example of 40 time not matching his game speed.  He does not play as fast as his 40 time indicates.

 

You shouldn't get hung up on 40 times.  Getting hooked up with the right sprint coach and mastering your start out of the blocks can shave off at least a tenth off your time, which has absolutely nothing to do with what happens on a football field.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you talking about? TO literally changed direction as he was pivoting off of just catching a curl route. Williams was running towards Owens direction the whole time.

And yes it's pretty easy to see that Maclin, Huff, and Aghalor are all faster than Matthews. It's evident when they play. Matthews is a perfect example of 40 time not matching his game speed. He does not play as fast as his 40 time indicates.

You shouldn't get hung up on 40 times. Getting hooked up with the right sprint coach and mastering your start out of the blocks can shave off at least a tenth off your time, which has absolutely nothing to do with what happens on a football field.

not too mention that TO even said why his 40 time was so bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you talking about?  TO literally changed direction as he was pivoting off of just catching a curl route.  Williams was running towards Owens direction the whole time. 

 

And yes it's pretty easy to see that Maclin, Huff, and Aghalor are all faster than Matthews.   It's evident when they play.  Matthews is a perfect example of 40 time not matching his game speed.  He does not play as fast as his 40 time indicates.

 

You shouldn't get hung up on 40 times.  Getting hooked up with the right sprint coach and mastering your start out of the blocks can shave off at least a tenth off your time, which has absolutely nothing to do with what happens on a football field.  

 

Williams was running down field towards Owens and when Owens turned and ran towards the sideline to try to turn up field, Williams had to change direction from running downhill at Owens to chase him from behind.

 

I don't see what you see with Matthews. What exactly are you doing to say that he's slower than them? Trying to gauge their speed separately with your own eyes and comparing it? Unless guys are actually running against each other, or at the very least, against the same player for comparison, that's just unreliable nonsense.

 

And since Owens ran track, as was mentioned in this thread, he already received coaching. That was the best he could do.

 

The whole point here is people think Owens was so "talented" because they think of him as this great athlete, and he wasn't. Compared to the average slob, sure. Compared to professional NFL receivers, he was bottom tier in athletic ability. That's what the workout numbers show. They measured his athletic ability and it was sorely lacking for an NFL receiver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Williams was running down field towards Owens and when Owens turned and ran towards the sideline to try to turn up field, Williams had to change direction from running downhill at Owens to chase him from behind.

I don't see what you see with Matthews. What exactly are you doing to say that he's slower than them? Trying to gauge their speed separately with your own eyes and comparing it? Unless guys are actually running against each other, or at the very least, against the same player for comparison, that's just unreliable nonsense.

And since Owens ran track, as was mentioned in this thread, he already received coaching. That was the best he could do.

The whole point here is people think Owens was so "talented" because they think of him as this great athlete, and he wasn't. Compared to the average slob, sure. Compared to professional NFL receivers, he was bottom tier in athletic ability. That's what the workout numbers show. They measured his athletic ability and it was sorely lacking for an NFL receiver.

No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.