Character vs Talent

[The Dark Knight]

Which is more important to you?

A low character guy that is slightly more talented than average

or

A high character guy that is slightly less talented than average


Just wanted to see what everyone's stance is on this.

The poll is public.

[Alps2315]

I want to have a good mix of both. Work ethic is also another key factor when evaluating a player.

[The Dark Knight]

I want to have a good mix of both. Work ethic is also another key factor when evaluating a player.



So do I, but that is not the question.

[OmegaBum]

how much "low character" are we talking about?

[Alps2315]

So do I, but that is not the question.

yes and no. i would take high character and less than average talent. I.E., The Bengals

[The Dark Knight]

how much "low character" are we talking about?


Enough to fill a thimble.

:confused:

[saltybuggah]

cream always rises to the top
id rather cheer for a bunch of guys w high character and less talent
having a good character does wonders for a football team in their quest for glory

[dogfish]

depends on the situation! is the "bad character" wife-beating, laziness and lack of work ethic, gun-toting thuggery and general pacman jones behavior. . . or an occasional liking for the chronic like our guy mike anderson? and are we talking about big-dollar free agent signings, or picking up an undrafted free agent? i'd generally lean towards character, but i don't want to draft rudy in the first round. . . .

[Warhawk]

The type of character issues definitely matter. I'd happily take a guy like Brandon Meriweather (S, Miami), but not Marcus Thomas (DT, Florida).

[The Dark Knight]

depends on the situation! is the "bad character" wife-beating, laziness and lack of work ethic, gun-toting thuggery and general pacman jones behavior. . . or an occasional liking for the chronic like our guy mike anderson? and are we talking about big-dollar free agent signings, or picking up an undrafted free agent? i'd generally lean towards character, but i don't want to draft rudy in the first round. . . .



Yeah, it depends.

I didn't give specifics in reguards to how much character or talent.

Assume the ratio's are as follows, and decide which trait is more important to you.

I'll assign numbers from my imaginary scale.....

Let's say

Bronco prospect "A" has a character rating of 4 and a talent level of 8

compared to

Bronco prospect "B" which has a character rating of 8 and a talent level of 6


Which one do you prefer?

Bronco prospect "A" has a better chance of reaching elite levels of play but also has a better chance of being a bust.

Bronco prospect "B" may never reach elite levels of play, but he will be an extremely hard worker, good team guy and other intangibles that go with higher character guys.

[UnderArmour]

Character isn't really something that can be rated... Look at TO who has great worth ethic and is someone on the field you KNOW is going to give his all come Sunday. But he's considered to have bad character. I know I'd much rather have a TO than a Randy Moss or Michael Vick, that's for sure.

[BigBroncLove]

To many variables in this question. I think you have to take certien players and offer them as opposites to get any worth while ansers for this questions. Offering character and talent numbers ala madden style just doesn't tell a whole picture IMO.....

I understand your question TDK, and I think it is a good one, but I think character problems are such a wide range of issues (And the fact that all individuals are differnt, as one "bad character" player is usualyl wildly different from the next) that it would have to be narrowed down big time...

Personally I like talented players with good character :D but as far as preference personally I think character is a big part of a player and is as important when evaluating aplayer as talent. But as dogfish said, it just depends on the person and circumstances surroundng them.....

[Grover]

I'd much rather root for a team of good guys that tried really hard and were a credit to their families, community and profession. As long as we win games of course! :salute:

But your qualification was high character and SLIGHTLY lower talent, and I'm cool with that.
I really like rooting for John Lynch for example. He's a bit past his prime. But he's a good guy, nice family, plays hard, and plays really hard when the playoffs are in sight.

If I wanted to root for a winner no matter what, then I'd just be some bandwagon fan for whatever team was the flavor of the year, rather than a Broncos fan for almost 30 years.

[Jared]

No question to me.


A slightly less physically talented team with good work ethic and smarts generally plays better football anyway.


Those who are immensely physically talented, but are locker room problems are probably more likely to try an rely on that talent, or take plays off, which leads to more breakdowns and mistakes.

In their own twisted, self-centered viewpoint, they are trying to teach the team a lesson.

A high character athlete generally won't do that unless he/she is given no choice or put in a position where they feel that what they are being asked to do is actually hurting the team.

[champbronc2]

High character players can get better.


Low character players get worse.

[foolio2000]

The type of character issues definitely matter. I'd happily take a guy like Brandon Meriweather (S, Miami), but not Marcus Thomas (DT, Florida).

I would be fine with both these guys as long as they did not cause problems in Denver, I think past character problems are ok (within reason - stayout Pacman) I would be willing to give Thomas a clean slate, heck I would give Haynesworth a clean slate because he seemed sincere in his apology. So I am a little more towards less character, but I do have limits like causing problems in Denver. We have let it be known that we are a team of second chances (Clarett, I even heard Wilson had character problems before Denver) but we don't take no crap (Sauerbrun), which I think is a good way to present ourselves to the public.

[xX-Bronco-Xx]

Damn maybe I should've read the thread first. :doh:

[OrangeCrush4082]

I would definately vote for character over talent. The NFL is filled with guys who have loads of character and not as much talent,i.e. Mike Furrey,Wes Welker,Zach Thomas,etc.

On our Super Bowl teams,our best players weren't the most talented coming out of college,Terrell Davis,6th round pick,Rod Smith,Unrestricted Free Agent,Ed McCaffrey,Free Agent. While we also had talented players,we also had guys who had incredible work ethic,and when I think "character" I think "work ethic".

[evendelae]

I would be fine with both these guys as long as they did not cause problems in Denver, I think past character problems are ok (within reason - stayout Pacman) I would be willing to give Thomas a clean slate, heck I would give Haynesworth a clean slate because he seemed sincere in his apology. So I am a little more towards less character, but I do have limits like causing problems in Denver. We have let it be known that we are a team of second chances (Clarett, I even heard Wilson had character problems before Denver) but we don't take no crap (Sauerbrun), which I think is a good way to present ourselves to the public.
What happened with Wilson? I've heard this before, but never figured out what it was, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot on it out there.

I'd rather have players with work ethic. Just look at some of the monumental busts over the past few years. Leaf, Williams, Smith. They all had incredible talent, but totally squandered it due to lack of motivation. Then you see guys like Rod Smith, who really shouldn't have made it in the NFL. But he worked his frickin tail off and now he's probably headed to the HOF. Sharpe said it himself, attitude is much more important then talent. He was a 5th (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) rounder, and now he's easily a first ballot HOFer. He also has no shortage of attitude, lol, but he did work extremely hard to play at the level he did. Look at what Champ and Lynch do in order to be elite. They have talent, but they actually utilize it, unlike some busts.

[tommy1986]

Randy Moss - strange ranger, great player with off-the-charts talent, questionable work-ethic, exciting to watch (as a Viking)

Tedi Bruschi - not the biggest, strongest, or fastest linebacker out there by any means, but does everything well and is a leader on his team


I'll take Randy Moss and from that, I'll usually take the guy with the questionable character over the straight-laced team-player because the bad guys make the league more interesting and tend to fill the stadium better.

[foolio2000]

While we also had talented players,we also had guys who had incredible work ethic,and when I think "character" I think "work ethic".

I guess that is why our votes differ, because I do not see work ethic as being apart of character. When I think of Terrell Owens I do not think character, but the guy is a work horse. He thinks he is the best, but he also works at keeping his own self proclaimed title.

When I think of character issues I think of Mike Anderson having possessions of marijuana or Sauerbrun on the juice, not a lazy turd. I see work ethic as being a part of talent.

As a side note, I admittedly cannot find what if any character issues that al wilson allegedly had, just something I read on I believe an espn article.

[xX-Bronco-Xx]

Randy Moss - strange ranger, great player with off-the-charts talent, questionable work-ethic, exciting to watch (as a Viking)

Tedi Bruschi - not the biggest, strongest, or fastest linebacker out there by any means, but does everything well and is a leader on his team


I'll take Randy Moss and from that, I'll usually take the guy with the questionable character over the straight-laced team-player because the bad guys make the league more interesting.
You'd fit right in with the Bengals! :D

[Emancipator]

Good character and great talent.

That's what I like.

[22cannon]

Ok lets make this easy:

would you like:

Shawne Merriman or DJ Williams?

Even though I love Dj I would be tempted to take Merriman

[tpryce93]

It's like Rod Smith (in his prime anyways) vs. Randy Moss


not being a homer i would take Rod Smith. A team player, plays his heart out every play of the game, doesn't slack off like Randy.

Although Randy will make some big catches he doesn't have the work ethic.

[Snapping Turtle]

Why do you think I like Clint so much. :P

[CB123]

No question to me.


A slightly less physically talented team with good work ethic and smarts generally plays better football anyway.

I agree, even though I accidentally voted for the wrong one. :ugh:

[draco193]

Its one of the things I have admired about Denver for so long, they have been so good at attracting good charactered players. Players that the fans here can look up to.

[DancingHorsey]

Its one of the things I have admired about Denver for so long, they have been so good at attracting good charactered players. Players that the fans here can look up to.

We've had our fair share of turds as well. :coffee:

[Kaylore]

Who says these two things are inversely related?

[Doggcow]

Randy Moss or Marvin Harrison. I think we can all agree on this one.

[TXBRONC]

I would take the slightly less talented player high character guy because as much as talent is important being team player in team sport is more important. Look at guys like Randy Moss and Terrell Owens talented players yes but distractions to their teams. And imo TO worst kind because he's cancerous to team unity.