Portis, Fletch, Moss The Rest no heart

I dont think the giants are necessarily more talented than the redskins. I think the success is with better coaching and continuity over the last few years.

I like the defense of a cliche using every possible cliche that can be thought of. It's classy, yet unrefined.

And how do you debate with someone full of cliches? More cliches?

I dont think the giants are necessarily more talented than the redskins. I think the success is with better coaching and continuity over the last few years.

Not sure about better coaching, I'm not really sold on that part, but I think their O-line has been together for 2 to 3 full years without injury. Line play absolutely thrives in that state. When each player knows what the others are doing based on years together in the trench. The Giants deserve the kudos right now, I just would like to get a 3rd shot at them this season.

heart, motivation, concentration, focus whatever you want to call it does have meaning in football; it was motivation that brought carlos in this offseason to actually start studying film FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HIS CAREER and the results have shown and he has attributed alot of his success to that dedication to the film study . . .it was heart (and monetary incentive) for portis to be in the redskins facilities this offseason working out and the players noticed portis working his butt off and it gave them motivation to do the same . . it is heart that djnemo is so quick to say doesnt exist then post a wilbon article talking about how portis plays with heart . . .

some people on this board are so quick to discount or laugh at anyone who thinks or wants to talk about something other than 40 times or specific plays . . . there are certain intangibles in this league that seperate a great player from a good player and great teams from good teams and lil bit of that involves the "heart" . . .but yeah anyone who thinks other than you is an idiot and clearly doesnt know football like you guys . . .give me a break

heart, motivation, concentration, focus whatever you want to call it does have meaning in football; it was motivation that brought carlos in this offseason to actually start studying film FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HIS CAREER and the results have shown and he has attributed alot of his success to that dedication to the film study . . .it was heart (and monetary incentive) for portis to be in the redskins facilities this offseason working out and the players noticed portis working his butt off and it gave them motivation to do the same . . it is heart that djnemo is so quick to say doesnt exist then post a wilbon article talking about how portis plays with heart . . .

some people on this board are so quick to discount or laugh at anyone who thinks or wants to talk about something other than 40 times or specific plays . . . there are certain intangibles in this league that seperate a great player from a good player and great teams from good teams and lil bit of that involves the "heart" . . .but yeah anyone who thinks other than you is an idiot and clearly doesnt know football like you guys . . .give me a breakI don't think anyone is disputing the effects of the human element on the game of football, I mean, DeAngelo Hall keeps doing dumb crap when every outside observer in the world thinks he needs to show more sense.

But it's when people come in here and say "You need to have heart and this team has none." where people start to be skeptical of said poster, and when the poster claims that he can see on television or from the stands that this team has no heart, then he's sort of thrown his credibility and maybe his sanity as well to the wind.

Intangibles are by definition not tangible. You can't see them. We can speculate all day about their effect on the game, but you can't use them in an argument and cite observation as your source. Then, satire starts.

But most of all, it's flat out uninformed, and insulting to the players on a team that prides itself on things like heart and toughness. I know if any member of the Redskins was around someone who said they lacked heart, they'd probably be very offended and realize that they are probably dealing with a less-than-intelligent source.

So if it's a dumb argument on every level, my advice would be not to make it.

Additonally, there ARE tangible issues that we all can see. To ignore them and blame poor play on an intangible is intellectually dishonest. It really is a cop-out. It is saying "All those complicated real things can be fixed in one fell swoop with just a little more caring" That is just silly. As Tripp mentioned the human effects on the game do exist and in some cases they can be the cause of poor play but they don't explain everything, espcially the real tangible things we CAN see and they certainly can't be quantified in anyway. To those who think "heart" is the answer I'd suggest just being honest and objective about your team. Watch some replays and see if you can find the spots where a guy gets overmatched because he wasn't as good as the other guy and look for the spots where a guy just gave up or got beat because he didn't care. You'll find a lot more of the former.

I don't think anyone is disputing the effects of the human element on the game of football, I mean, DeAngelo Hall keeps doing dumb crap when every outside observer in the world thinks he needs to show more sense.

But it's when people come in here and say "You need to have heart and this team has none." where people start to be skeptical of said poster, and when the poster claims that he can see on television or from the stands that this team has no heart, then he's sort of thrown his credibility and maybe his sanity as well to the wind.

Intangibles are by definition not tangible. You can't see them. We can speculate all day about their effect on the game, but you can't use them in an argument and cite observation as your source. Then, satire starts.

cheers to that

i dont think i have ever posted this, but this thread is dumb. anyone that lines up, and plays a down in the N.F.L has heart

Puppets