Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaorange
Nash is not a winner because he doesn't have a ring? About as ignorant a statement as can be made. No one EVER said that the only winners wear rings. Anyone that watched Nash last year in the playoffs and still says he is not a winner is a *******. Also if you think that characteristics that lend themselves to leadership and performance are entirely learned, you need to go back to school. I can't tell you how many families have kids raised exactly the same way, with the same values, turn out entirely different. Peyton vs. Eli? It isn't just the way they drop back and throw. They lead differently as well. Those qualities you mention are NOT entirely learned. You think MJs father TAUGHT him to have that killer instinct? Please...inborn. The content of that last post is complete, inaccurate trash. If successful leaders could be "made", there wouldn't be such a shortage. West Point and Annapolis strive to turn all their young men into leaders. Best training in the world working with the best talent available. Does the majority go on to be leaders in their given professions?
BTW, Dallas became a "bona fide" contender when they got AJ as coach. Two days ago the thread would have been the same from my point of view. People are so desperate for a winner in NY they want to believe anything positive is a sign of great things on the horizon. This team is not even close to having what it takes mentally and from a discipline POV.
|
whats ignorant is declaring some1 a winner based off of a bias award win .
is bob macadoo a winner ?
he has also won 2 MVP's and unlike nash he actually has a title under his list of accomplishments ...history has a funny way of depicting him a selfish scorer yet according to what makes nash a winner he has to be considered a great winner.
winners win , nash has never won anything that has mattered as a team player at any level....you wanna declare nash a winner because he lost valiantly against the spurs ?
are you serious , heck marbury has done that and even as a sun .
you are grasping at straws , because you know in your heart its really simple , you are what you constantly do (thats not me thats Socrates)
Nash is no great winner proven by the fact the Mavs lost him for nothing and got better , if was so great and so important that couldn't have happened.
what winner in history of the NBA could claim that .
could the spurs lose duncan, the bulls lose MJ or any team really what team can lose a great player for nothing and replace him with a significantly lower caliber level of player and get better ...if nash were some great winner who made every1 better around him it would seem to be an impossible thing to have happen.
and who cares about payton and eli the decisions that make you a better player are personal and every1 decides on their own(provided you have enough talent for it to matter) what their mentality is and their priorities are as a player, archie manning cant make that decision for his kids, no one can but the person themselves.
MJ's killer instinct wasn't enough for him to make his high school team at 1st , he had to make the personal choices after that point that made him the player he is , the simple truth is he didn't win many basketball games at that stage in his life , in fact he himself credits his older brother Larry for honing his killer instict by virtue of the daily buttkickings he got in their backyard b-ball court until after his growth spurt allowed him something like a an 8 inch heigh advantage in MJ's jr.& sr. years in HS and he could finally beat him.
If jordan himself doesn't consider his "killer instinct" inborn how do you think you sound being so insistent that it was?