2013 College Football Thread (Realer than Real Deal Holyfield -->S/O Craftsy)

ibnebUncDqYMkL.gif
 
[COLOR=#red]Looking at the live press conference with J Winston. This guy has the best sports personality we've seen in awhile. Guy is made for this. Natural born leader point blank period.[/COLOR]
 
[COLOR=#red]Looking at the live press conference with J Winston. This guy has the best sports personality we've seen in awhile. Guy is made for this. Natural born leader point blank period.[/COLOR]

In the YT comments section (of his pre-game speech vs. Clemson), they're saying he's Cam Newton on crack :lol:

He's so fun to watch.
 
What makes Winston more of a natural born leader w/ a sports personality than Manziel? luck? Rgiii? Aj mccarron? ?? Etc.?
 
how do you even quantify how much a natural born leader someone is? :lol:

that's just the crap espn spews to hype up or downgrade a prospect
 
What makes Winston more of a natural born leader w/ a sports personality than Manziel? luck? Rgiii? Aj mccarron? ?? Etc.?


how do you even quantify how much a natural born leader someone is? :lol:

that's just the crap espn spews to hype up or downgrade a prospect

[COLOR=#red]Why we bringing other names into this though? Who said I was even comparing? :lol:

Do work son...it's not necessarily quantifiable, its more a qualitative type description. Come on you're an Aggie I'd suppose you'd know the difference :lol:

But to answer y'all question I saw the paper he wrote in middle school about the qualities of a great QB and where he broke down the intricacies of various defenses even back then. Also I'm in a class that studies and researches various leadership skills, traits, and applications at least in theory.

But then again King Gunna has spoken and his word is final in here so I guess I don't know what I'm talking about :lol:[/COLOR]


1000
 
Last edited:
my comment was in response to gunna, didn't see your response at the top of the page. and even then, the point of you mentioning him having certain qualitative descriptions eventually is used to describe why he's better or worse of a prospect than someone else. my point being, since there is no way to quantify personal characteristics, it's useless for this type of discussion.

best example i can think of is people saying how much of a "gamer" manziel is. in theory, that sounds nice. but that doesn't mean he'll play better than someone who isn't characterized as a gamer.
 
my comment was in response to gunna, didn't see your response at the top of the page. and even then, the point of you mentioning him having certain qualitative descriptions eventually is used to describe why he's better or worse of a prospect than someone else. my point being, since there is no way to quantify personal characteristics, it's useless for this type of discussion.

best example i can think of is people saying how much of a "gamer" manziel is. in theory, that sounds nice. but that doesn't mean he'll play better than someone who isn't characterized as a gamer.

[COLOR=#red]No, you are wrong sorry bro. It's not useless and quantifying something is not the only way to make something valid. This is not science where emperical evidence is paramount, these are human qualities we are talking about which tend to be on the more abstract side of things, this is where qualitative assessments are more important. Stop now and don't try to explain further my dude. Thanks and Gig Em :lol:[/COLOR]
 
my comment was in response to gunna, didn't see your response at the top of the page. and even then, the point of you mentioning him having certain qualitative descriptions eventually is used to describe why he's better or worse of a prospect than someone else. my point being, since there is no way to quantify personal characteristics, it's useless for this type of discussion.

best example i can think of is people saying how much of a "gamer" manziel is. in theory, that sounds nice. but that doesn't mean he'll play better than someone who isn't characterized as a gamer.

[COLOR=#red]No, you are wrong sorry bro. It's not useless and quantifying something is not the only way to make something valid. This is not science where emperical evidence is paramount, these are human qualities we are talking about which tend to be on the more abstract side of things, this is where qualitative assessments are more important. Stop now and don't try to explain further my dude. Thanks and Gig Em :lol:[/COLOR]

so in your opinion, what would you make of him being a natural born leader? how does that make him better or worse than other QB prospects?
 
my comment was in response to gunna, didn't see your response at the top of the page. and even then, the point of you mentioning him having certain qualitative descriptions eventually is used to describe why he's better or worse of a prospect than someone else. my point being, since there is no way to quantify personal characteristics, it's useless for this type of discussion.

best example i can think of is people saying how much of a "gamer" manziel is. in theory, that sounds nice. but that doesn't mean he'll play better than someone who isn't characterized as a gamer.

[COLOR=#red]No, you are wrong sorry bro. It's not useless and quantifying something is not the only way to make something valid. This is not science where emperical evidence is paramount, these are human qualities we are talking about which tend to be on the more abstract side of things, this is where qualitative assessments are more important. Stop now and don't try to explain further my dude. Thanks and Gig Em :lol:[/COLOR]

so in your opinion, what would you make of him being a natural born leader? how does that make him better or worse than other QB prospects?

Intangibles :rofl: :rofl:
 
Back
Top Bottom