That's not really the issue we're looking at though. Gal is stating that there is no natural talent required to be a good curler, and he's basing that opinion on the few curling matches he has seen. My contention is that this is not enough for him to form an informed opinion to how much of what makes a good curler is determined by training or by natural talent.
Going back to your example though, you don't consider yourself a natural "freak" to get to your position now, because you had to work hard and train. At the same time, that still puts you as his number 2, ahead of other people. Would you say that "anyone" could have been his number two, or was there something that placed you ahead of number three?
EDIT: do you guys play with just the one WR? I'm writing under the assumption you guys don't just run one-receiver sets, so you do get to play, not just if he is injured.
Going back to your example though, you don't consider yourself a natural "freak" to get to your position now, because you had to work hard and train. At the same time, that still puts you as his number 2, ahead of other people. Would you say that "anyone" could have been his number two, or was there something that placed you ahead of number three?
EDIT: do you guys play with just the one WR? I'm writing under the assumption you guys don't just run one-receiver sets, so you do get to play, not just if he is injured.
Comment