Lazy with talent vs. hard working with no talent

[michigancat]

Let's say you're a football coach at a major university.

You have two players competing for a position:

Player A has plenty of talent, but doesn't work as hard as he should and fails to max out his potential
Player B is marginally talented, but works his ass off and maxes out his potential.

Even though he is lazy, Player A will still outperform Player B nine times out of ten.

How do you handle playing time in this situation?


I say play the lazy player most of the time and win...use the hard worker for occasional motivation, kind of like Roy Williams pulling his starters to put in five walkons, only not that extreme/flamboyant.

[waks]

Let's say you're a football coach at a major university.

You have two players competing for a position:

Player A has plenty of talent, but doesn't work as hard as he should and fails to max out his potential
Player B is marginally talented, but works his ass off and maxes out his potential.

Even though he is lazy, Player A will still outperform Player B nine times out of ten.

How do you handle playing time in this situation?


I say play the lazy player most of the time and win...use the hard worker for occasional motivation, kind of like Roy Williams pulling his starters to put in five walkons, only not that extreme/flamboyant.

you could put player A on the second team in practice leading up to the game to make him think that he is not starting so that he works his ass off to get back on first team and then start him and say it was because of the hard work, and do the same thing the next week and so on and so forth.

[Racquetball_Ninja]

I do believe that Marcus Watts and Thomas Clayton have already answered this question for you.  That is of course if you buy into the theory that Clayton is talented.

[catzacker]

Let's say you're a football coach at a major university.

You have two players competing for a position:

Player A has plenty of talent, but doesn't work as hard as he should and fails to max out his potential
Player B is marginally talented, but works his ass off and maxes out his potential.

Even though he is lazy, Player A will still outperform Player B nine times out of ten.

How do you handle playing time in this situation?


I say play the lazy player most of the time and win...use the hard worker for occasional motivation, kind of like Roy Williams pulling his starters to put in five walkons, only not that extreme/flamboyant.

This sounds like a Quintin Echols v. Blake Seiler situation.  I really can't stand the "player A's" of the world; they will win you ball games, but I find it hard to cheer for them.  I'd take 8-9 player B's and 2-3 player A's.  Make sure the player A's are at the skill positions (RB, WR, ) on offense and on defense (DE, CB, LB).  

[michigancat]

I do believe that Marcus Watts and Thomas Clayton have already answered this question for you.  That is of course if you buy into the theory that Clayton is talented.

Who would outperform Watts?

I think playing Erker was dumb unless Watts wasn't 100%.

All our RB's are bad...I'm more concrned with our O-line.  I think we have lazy talent.

[catzacker]

I do believe that Marcus Watts and Thomas Clayton have already answered this question for you.  That is of course if you buy into the theory that Clayton is talented.

Who would outperform Watts?

I think playing Erker was dumb unless Watts wasn't 100%.

All our RB's are bad...I'm more concrned with our O-line.  I think we have lazy talent.

If you were specifically talking about the o-line with your scenario, I'll take an offensive line composed of player B's. 

[michigancat]

I do believe that Marcus Watts and Thomas Clayton have already answered this question for you.  That is of course if you buy into the theory that Clayton is talented.

Who would outperform Watts?

I think playing Erker was dumb unless Watts wasn't 100%.

All our RB's are bad...I'm more concrned with our O-line.  I think we have lazy talent.

If you were specifically talking about the o-line with your scenario, I'll take an offensive line composed of player B's. 

I wasn't talking specifically about any one position, just a general philosophy.  Again, one of the requirements would be that Player B's miss more blocks/our team sucks more.

[PoetWarrior]

You always play the most talented, ALWAYS.

The job of a coach is to motivate and coordinate the talent, that's it.

If the coach can't do that, he's failing.

Talent is what wins the games.

This type of talent.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

[catzacker]

I do believe that Marcus Watts and Thomas Clayton have already answered this question for you.  That is of course if you buy into the theory that Clayton is talented.

Who would outperform Watts?

I think playing Erker was dumb unless Watts wasn't 100%.

All our RB's are bad...I'm more concrned with our O-line.  I think we have lazy talent.

If you were specifically talking about the o-line with your scenario, I'll take an offensive line composed of player B's. 

I wasn't talking specifically about any one position, just a general philosophy.  Again, one of the requirements would be that Player B's miss more blocks/our team sucks more.

I think our o-line might be made up of player B's but lazy as well. 

[michigancat]

I do believe that Marcus Watts and Thomas Clayton have already answered this question for you.  That is of course if you buy into the theory that Clayton is talented.

Who would outperform Watts?

I think playing Erker was dumb unless Watts wasn't 100%.

All our RB's are bad...I'm more concrned with our O-line.  I think we have lazy talent.

If you were specifically talking about the o-line with your scenario, I'll take an offensive line composed of player B's. 

I wasn't talking specifically about any one position, just a general philosophy.  Again, one of the requirements would be that Player B's miss more blocks/our team sucks more.

I think our o-line might be made up of player B's but lazy as well. 

LOL...probably true.

PW nailed it.

[ksuno1stunner]

Let's say you're a football coach at a major university.

You have two players competing for a position:

Player A has plenty of talent, but doesn't work as hard as he should and fails to max out his potential
Player B is marginally talented, but works his ass off and maxes out his potential.

Even though he is lazy, Player A will still outperform Player B nine times out of ten.

How do you handle playing time in this situation?


I say play the lazy player most of the time and win...use the hard worker for occasional motivation, kind of like Roy Williams pulling his starters to put in five walkons, only not that extreme/flamboyant.

This sounds like a Quintin Echols v. Blake Seiler situation.  I really can't stand the "player A's" of the world; they will win you ball games, but I find it hard to cheer for them.  I'd take 8-9 player B's and 2-3 player A's.  Make sure the player A's are at the skill positions (RB, WR, ) on offense and on defense (DE, CB, LB). 

congrats, you now have ksu football 2004-2006

[catzacker]

Let's say you're a football coach at a major university.

You have two players competing for a position:

Player A has plenty of talent, but doesn't work as hard as he should and fails to max out his potential
Player B is marginally talented, but works his ass off and maxes out his potential.

Even though he is lazy, Player A will still outperform Player B nine times out of ten.

How do you handle playing time in this situation?


I say play the lazy player most of the time and win...use the hard worker for occasional motivation, kind of like Roy Williams pulling his starters to put in five walkons, only not that extreme/flamboyant.

This sounds like a Quintin Echols v. Blake Seiler situation.  I really can't stand the "player A's" of the world; they will win you ball games, but I find it hard to cheer for them.  I'd take 8-9 player B's and 2-3 player A's.  Make sure the player A's are at the skill positions (RB, WR, ) on offense and on defense (DE, CB, LB). 

congrats, you now have ksu football 2004-2006

Actually, I was under the impression that Rusty was talking about player A's being All Big 12 type caliber players but were inconsistent and lazy and player B's were 2nd or 3rd Team All Big 12 players but were just slightly less talented.

 KSU's current "player A's" are 2nd and 3rd Team All Big 12 players and inconsistent and lazy and the player B's aren't even honorable mention and incredibly less talented. 

[WILDCAT NATION]

I'll take the lineman that busts his ass every time...not even a question.

If you're talking skill guys, that's much more difficult...effort can only get you so far in the skill positions...

[fatty fat fat]

The talented ones are the hard workers. They go hand in hand.

[michigancat]

The talented ones are the hard workers. They go hand in hand.

False.

[WILDCAT NATION]

The talented ones are the hard workers. They go hand in hand.

False.

Not just false...extremely false.

The really talented ones that are hard workers are the ones that become truly great ones.

[fatty fat fat]

The talented ones are the hard workers. They go hand in hand.

False.

Yes, I'm sure TO is good because he sits on the couch all day.

btw: congrats on having the same opinion as WN! 

[McGrowlTowelZac]

Hey, I was a player B type in high school, worked my ass off, hoping to get PT.  Then after never getting PT, I sadly became a player C type....a cancer, oh well, could only take getting the shaft for so long

[michigancat]

The talented ones are the hard workers. They go hand in hand.

False.

Yes, I'm sure TO is good because he sits on the couch all day.

btw: congrats on having the same opinion as WN! 

You're proving WN's point.  TO is a workaholic with talent, which makes him great.

A hard-working Jonathan Beasley will never be better than a lazy Michael Bishop.

[PoetWarrior]

Talent comes in 2 different forms.

The natural, Kamerion Wimbley, type of talent, who was born a freak and stayed a freak and was picked 13th in the NFL draft because of it.

Or the talent that is made, like Terrell Owens, who devoted himself to building his body to freakish proportions, succeeded and worked his way into being the best receiver in the NFL, though he was only picked in the 3rd round and went to Tennessee Chattanooga.

Talent is born or built, it doesn't have much to do with attitude, and the results are the same.

[fatty fat fat]

The perception is that TO isn't a hard worker. It's that he "wastes" talent. That is why I used it as an example.

If Michael Bishop was lazy, you bet your ass Beasley would be better. However, I don't think anyone doubts that Bishop was a harder worker than Beasley.

Why do you think all the Chinese kids do well in school? Are they all just academically talented?

[PoetWarrior]

Randy Moss=born talented.

Awesome.

[WILDCAT NATION]

Who knew a Tennis dork wouldn't understand this?

 

[fatty fat fat]

WN, when you retake Chem 1 again next semester go ahead and blame your academic "lack of talent"

[Racquetball_Ninja]

You always play the most talented, ALWAYS.

The job of a coach is to motivate and coordinate the talent, that's it.

If the coach can't do that, he's failing.

Talent is what wins the games.

This type of talent.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

Finally... someone is willing to admit that Bill Snyder has been FAILING!   

[McGrowlTowelZac]

Hey, Jeff Schwin worked out well for us. 

See sometimes playing the player B type pays in the end   

[opcat]

The problem with some our talent is that they don't even play well.

Clayton = Frank Murphy.