Character vs. Talent

Which is the most important trait for a player to possess: character or talent?

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
#227
#227
Before I answer the OP's query, I will throw some qualifications out. I am answering the assumption based on a team full of 3* players with high character vs a team of 5* players with low character. And by character, I mean high level of ethics and morality, dedication not only to their sport but to their team and to winning.

I would take the team of 3*, high character players. This is because I don't believe there isn't a huge difference physically between 3* and 5* (yes significant, but not huge). And I believe that over the long run, the low character 5* will be a cancer to themselves. They will get in trouble, make mental mistakes on and off the field, fight among each other, and ultimately the lack of dedication to the team and winning will more than make up for their faster 40 time and vertical.

And just to speak to the whole Iverson topic, I'll say this. I've always been a huge Sixer fan. Even through the Shawn Bradley experiment. Until Iverson. I'm still trying to recover my passion for the Sixers. I just could not get myself to pull for him. Yes he was talented. But he was a piss poor teammate. His dedication to the concept of winning as a team was just not there (or he'd have realized the value of practicing as a team - yeah, I'm talkin bout practice).
 
Last edited:
#228
#228
Ihatethebuckeyes said:
Some of you need to read. Really read what people write on here. NO character. I didn't say some character issues. I didn't say a few character issues. I said NO Character. I person with no character has a very high chance of ending up in serious legal problems etc. On the same note, some kids with no talent still end up on good teams and are discovered later as being no talent and are let go. This happens all the time in the NFL.

Since some of you are using examples I'll use Pac-man, Plaxico, Big Ben. All have talent BUT NONE ARE PLAYING RIGHT NOW.
Click to expand...

Considering your calling the military service of several veterans into open question, and in continuing to chide and belittle their service once your allegations were thoroughly refuted (calling Marines, "jarheads" and "bullet sponges", etc.), I've been somewhat perpelexed in re-reading your comments here, in this thread.

An incongruence seems to exist between the value which you so seemed to so highly regard here, and that which you have personally displayed.

Could you elaborate and better explain your position?
 
#230
#230
Why is it considered an "either/or" situation? Is it so inconceivable to fill a team with players that posess both character AND talent?
 
#231
#231
JZVOL said:
He averaged 5.2 ypc @ Hampton.

The mighty Keith Davis averaged 5.3 @ UT.
Click to expand...

Now there is a name I haven't heard in a long time. He was a damn good RB at Overton. Whatever happened to him? Didn't he blow out his knee or something his sophomore year?
 
Last edited:
#232
#232
While not mutually exclusive of one another, by any means, few players seem to equally embody both the physical talent (i.e. size, speed, instinct, etc.) required to play at the highest level, and the highest personal characteristics (i.e. strong work ethic, lead by word and deed, participate in community / charitable activities, etc.) which our student-athletes are almost universally desired to possess and exhibit.

This begs the question: If a choice must be made between the two, which do you believe is preeminent as being most necessary - a player's character or talent?
 
#233
#233
You missed the boat D.

According to some, you can either have great talent or great character, there is no combining both.
 
#234
#234
You look at the whole package.

Dooley said from the start that you had to take some chances with highly talented guys that you might have to watch closely on academics and behavior.

But I think you have to build the foundation of your program on guys with character even if they are a LITTLE less talented than other guys you could have gotten.

I don't think you can dispute whether Denarius Moore has meant more to the program than Brent Vinson. Moore is talented but only the deluded would think he compares to Vinson athletically. The critical thing is that Moore has stayed out of trouble and therefore has the opportunity to contribute... Less talent but a lot more hard work (heart) and character.
 
#235
#235
Character is extremely important and needs to be strongly considered when signing players. However, you have to have talent, or you won't win many games.
 
#236
#236
Give me the talent and a coach like a stearn father figure to keep them in line. Most of these kids have character issues because of the leaders in their lives and the ways and circumstances that shaped them as they grew up. Add a positive role model to a talented kid and imo you are going to have success keeping most of them on the straight and narrow. I would also rather the kids who lack character because u may be the only positive influence those kids have ever had in their lives. If u can take a bunch of kids who lack character and positive influence in their lives and make a difference in 8 out of ten of those lives as well as put a good product on the field I think u are winning on two fronts. JMHO
 
Last edited:
#237
#237
It depends on where you draw the separating line. There is a certain balance of both that's needed to be successful. If you have a team with the most talent in the world and no character you will win a lot of games but also lose a few you really should have won. A team built purely on character and no real impressive talent won't win a lot of games but will win a few they shouldn't have against more talented teams.

Thing is in recruiting the two are not two sides of a coin as it is being presented here. They are two totally different measure's of a recruit's traits. A guy can have lots of character and not much talent or vice versa or lots of both. Also "character" is a dangerous word because it can mean a lot of different thing's depending on what you are talking about. A great example of that is T.O. this is a guy that most would consider a low character guy but truth be told his bad behavior has always been off the field and has never been a game time problem. Then go and take a guy like Marvin Harrison. A person who during his NFL career was nothing but a class act but it looks like he was anything but that off the field. Both in reality are the same thing guys who got it done on the field but for differing reasons had problems off it.

T.O. had a big mouth and it affected peoples perception of him. Harrison was very quiet and kept his off field stuff as just that and no one really cared to poke into it until he wasn't playing anymore. Now Harrison could be completely innocent of bad off field behavior but the media has put that mark out there so he is pretty much toast. That is the dangerous thing about "character". It can be twisted easily by those that want to paint their own picture. Brandon Marshall has been labeled as a guy with all kinds of off-field problems but reality is he hasn't ever really been in any trouble. Same with Pac-man Jones both had one real incident which they were never convicted of but they are bad boys because they like to go watch strippers and get a lot of DWB's.

Because both are really outspoken and boisterous they are seen as low character because they got hemmed up. Before the multiple sexual assault accusations most people would have considered Big Ben a character guy. Hack even after his first one. Same with Roger Clemens.. they say he used the juice and he is innocent until proven guilty and even after he was obviously guilty he was still looked at as innocent by most. But take Barry Bonds and he is the devil reincarnated when they have never found any real evidence he knowingly did anything wrong.

A bit of a rant but to me it comes down to this. To me a character guy is a guy that plays every down. A guy that plays through pain. A guy that plays where the team needs him even if it might drop his draft stock or his paycheck in free agency. Sorry outside of breaking laws/rules I don't give a damn what guys do outside of their sports. They don't have to be good people to have high football character.

Anyone who has played the sport for any length of time will know that some of the guys you want the most with you on the field are the last guys you would hang out with or have around your family. It is for the simple fact that football is a sport it is not real life. Most great athletes play as an escape and the field is their refuge. I played sports and served in the military and I don't know what the rest of the people that went through those types of experiences got out of it but that's what I got out of it.
 
#239
#239
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Taking guys who aren't going to leave and who will buy into what Dooley is selling is KEY at this point. We can't afford to have more players leaving, so we have to find guys who are going to stay and aren't too risky on character.
Click to expand...

So I say they should sign a document stating they are going to play football for four years at UT in exchange for a scholarship. It could be called a commitment letter.
 
#241
#241
rbroyles said:
So I say they should sign a document stating they are going to play football for four years at UT in exchange for a scholarship. It could be called a commitment letter.
Click to expand...

then the same should be true for the univ. which would have to guarantee their scholarship for 4 years
 
#242
#242
Big Orange Rock said:
Give me the talent and a coach like a stearn father figure to keep them in line. Most of these kids have character issues because of the leaders in their lives and the ways and circumstances that shaped them as they grew up. Add a positive role model to a talented kid and imo you are going to have success keeping most of them on the straight and narrow. I would also rather the kids who lack character because u may be the only positive influence those kids have ever had in their lives. If u can take a bunch of kids who lack character and positive influence in their lives and make a difference in 8 out of ten of those lives as well as put a good product on the field I think u are winning on two fronts. JMHO
Click to expand...

A typical father has no more than 4 or 5 kids. You're asking a HC to be a father to 100. Many of them haven't been fathered for the first 18 years of their lives... and you think suddenly a stearn father type is going to change them? He can't watch them 24/7... and if you start with curfews and living restrictions then you might as well take the character kids to start with because you aren't getting the ones who have problems.

A father can be good... do all he knows to do... and still have kids make bad, life changing decisions.

You aren't asking for something that's reasonable.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top