Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain
I do have experience with athletes and a degree in sports management plus 40 years of fandom as well, thanks for asking, but that's not the full basis of my point.
My point is that athletes want to play, succeed and win. They don't want to be 'along for the ride' on a winning team, they want to contribute. That's what separates the pros from the joes and the good from the great, the desire to be the best. I'm not saying that guys come out WANTING to play for losing teams per se but they would rather play immediately for a loser and try to turn them around than sit for a winner and not contribute anything.
|
First, I was really asking about your experience to see if you had a different, and better, perspective than me and, if so, I would be more willing to accept your conclusions. If it came across differently, it was not meant to be so.
Secondly, and more to the point, I don't really disagree with your assertion that these guys come out wanting to play and are hard wired that way. At the same time, it has been my observation that
some are mature enough to put their long term interests over their short term interests without losing that competitive burn. Sure he may be chomping at the bit to play, but maybe, just maybe, Luck sees the long term benefit of playing behind Manning for a year or two as opposed to coming into a poor situation where he is condemned to losing, possibly for the long term.
Really, I agree with your premise - these guys come out wanting, burning even, to play. AND, if we were talking about playing behind Grossman for a year or two, I would not expect Luck to be peachy with that. I am suggesting, however, that a Manning/Luck QB situation would be something special in and of itself and comparable to Montana/Young. Maybe Luck recognizes that and says - "Okay, I can deal with being behind Manning. I don't particularly like it, but I can deal with it." As I said, Rivers came in behind Brees and was a team player while still, clearly, burning to play.