Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard. *
- Thread starter skydawg1
- Start date
Therefore, YES you did agree that we have talent. Do you not even pay attention to what you type? Damn.
have acknolwdged your definition of talent. I've given you mine. If you refuse to give me the same thing that's your problem, not mine. Mine has worked pretty wellfor me over the last 30 or soyears.I won't change it because you, or everyone else, doesn't like it.
They lack talent and are poorly coached. That is the reason why MSU is "underachieving"...as you guys call it.
If we had switched coaches for the game.....State wins easily. <div>
</div><div>Mark Fox would have gotten more out of our guys and Stans would have made UGA worse.</div>
</div><div>Mark Fox would have gotten more out of our guys and Stans would have made UGA worse.</div>
Starkville high school? Hopefully not because it's not "our" definition of the word "talent". It's Websters! Did you ever read what all the other COACHES (not some dumbass typing on his Iphone who's opinion doesn't matter) in the SEC said about our team prior to yesterday? Every ONE of them said we have "great talent". And anybody who disputes this is a dumbass & doesn't know **** about basketball!
players with all heart and no talent is a shame, and players with all talent and no heart is tragedy. I am in the belief that hard work and hustle will beat talent more times than not. This was evident last night when I watched Djurisic, a freshmen no less, almost single handily take State down as he continuously outworked State on both ends of the floor.
It is very easy to get offensive and defensive rebounds when you are able to jump over the back of everyone to get said rebounds. He should have fouled out in the first half due to over the backing (Djurisic (SP)). He was never in position and the funny thing was when the ref finally called the correct call of over the back he looked at the ref and said but I have been doing this all night...
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">The sooner everyone understands this...the quicker MSU can move on to something better.</div>
<div>
You think A&M and Arizona are quality wins.
Oh, the SEC...such a powerhouse in basketball...NOT. MSU doesn't have
anyone special that can't be found on any other team...with the
exception of Moultrie (when he shows up to play).
</div>
You think A&M and Arizona are quality wins.
Oh, the SEC...such a powerhouse in basketball...NOT. MSU doesn't have
anyone special that can't be found on any other team...with the
exception of Moultrie (when he shows up to play).
</div>
it's not Starkville High School. I haven't read a dictionary lately. Thanks for the heads up. I have said all along, my definition of talent is different and isn't the same as Webster's. I've never tried to hide that and have gone to great lengths to explain it. I have also said all along that we have some athletically gifted players on our team. What we don't have is an abundance of players with the talent to effectively use those gifts. The heart of this debate is that I think the ability to work hard and use athletic gifts is a talent just like every other. Most of you seem to think that can be imposed from without. I think it can be enhanced from without but if it ain't there it ain't there. I've seen too many gifted athletes over the years who were coached by coaches that were universally regarded as great coaches fall flat on their faces. That fire has to come from within.
That **** happens all the time in basketball and is an integral part to the appeal of the game and March Madness. An extreme example is Bird taking Indiana State to the NC.
that the common, nonathletic, couch potato doesn't understand is that most athletes (when compared to others in their position) can run as fast, jump as high, bench press the same amount, squat the same amount, etc etc etc. However, what can separate them from the pack, is their mental state or discipline and preparedness. Ones willingness to succeed and do what it takes to surpass and distance himself from other is not achieved by lifting weights. Now for you geniuses out there, I did not say this was the case every single 17ing time. I am just saying that this is the case more than often.
And Rudy's character foil, played by Vince Vaughn, was a former High School All-American with zero talent? Because that is what you are saying.
Basically, you are saying that (in your bizzaro world) "talent" = "hard work".... but you refuse to admit that your inaccurate definition is as such. Instead, you use lengthy, roundabout, and poorly written ramblings to disguise your simple misconception as something more profound. Is that about right?
Also, please re-read your messages aloud before posting.
Basically, you are saying that (in your bizzaro world) "talent" = "hard work".... but you refuse to admit that your inaccurate definition is as such. Instead, you use lengthy, roundabout, and poorly written ramblings to disguise your simple misconception as something more profound. Is that about right?
Also, please re-read your messages aloud before posting.
to say (and may not be doing a good job conveying) is that to be the best, it takes more than just natural (physical) talent. You have to also have the discipline, positive attitude, and work ethic to go along with it, to be superior. Or maybe he isn't. Who knows.
It's also how Lyle got his title
http://sixpackspeak.yuku.com/reply/446568/Let-s-beat-this-horse-again-and-analyze-the-situation#reply-446568</p>
http://sixpackspeak.yuku.com/reply/446568/Let-s-beat-this-horse-again-and-analyze-the-situation#reply-446568</p>
That's it. Rudy was a guy that had the mental side, but didn't have a thing on the on the physical gift side of the equation.That doesn't add up toa talented player anymore than one who has all the physical gifts but none of the mental ones does.KurtRambis4 said:
the only player I could see no one getting the most out of is Sidney. We have unreal physical talent. It's Stansbury's responsibility to mesh the talent and make it become cohesive.
there is nothing that I have seen from our players where I don't think some sort of discipline couldn't be administered to make them realize who is boss. Of course, Stansbury's style isn't to be a hard *** from viewing from a far.
Moultrie doesn't seem like a problem. Bost doesn't seem like a problem and Hood seems like a dream. Teams take on the personality of their coach and Stansbury is soft when it comes to running his team.
Moultrie doesn't seem like a problem. Bost doesn't seem like a problem and Hood seems like a dream. Teams take on the personality of their coach and Stansbury is soft when it comes to running his team.