We all say, "with the talent we have we should"... add your comment, bring in coaches, win more games.. etc.

My father, especially when interviewing potential employees, defined talent this way- "Talent equals values plus attitude plus competency, and if you have half of any of those components you don't have the skill set I want" Makes me wonder how much "talent" we really have when I think of it that way and in which of those three do we lack the most?

This post was edited on 10/13/21 at 8:03 am

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Chicken

Jackassistan

Member since Aug 2003

26925 posts

Posted on 10/13/21 at 8:00 am to YellinTiger50

Yellin, can you fix your thread title?

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by BornAndRaised_LA

Springfield, VA

Member since Oct 2018

6590 posts

Posted on 10/13/21 at 8:12 am to YellinTiger50

I think your Dad defined “potential”.

Talent is raw skill, independent of motivation or values. It isn’t a guarantee of success, because there are plenty of examples of immensely talented athletes that couldn’t make it work due to bad coaching, bad attitudes, or just poor choices.

Your Dad’s three criteria certainly point to a candidate with a high potential, but in athletics I’m not sure that is the same as “talent”.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Redmann

Member since Oct 2021

275 posts

Posted on 10/13/21 at 8:13 am to Chicken

Good point. To be successful, you need the obvious skills plus smarts, character and a strong work ethic. Being physically skilled is only half of the equation.

Watched a guy on internet examine ucla game. On pass play, guard and running back set up to pass block. Middle linebacker blitzed and ran by both of them. Both just sat there while linebacker pile drived Max.

Quit watching analysis of LSU after. Those 2 guys would sit on the bench the rest of the year if I were the coach. I would play walkons before them.

Page 1