And as for McCarron, I'll actually state my opinion now because others seem delusionally intent on doing that for me: The part of the brain that deals with execution, planning and social inhibitions is the prefrontal cortex. It is the last of the four major lobes to develop. The final stage of development, when most of the other areas are fully developed, is between around the end of the teen years and ends at around 25. It can go a bit further when we specialize in something technical. It is also the part of the brain that has the most tranposable elements in the genome and has the most wide and varied transcriptions factors, the more TEs and TFs, the more it adapts to the environment. In laymen's term, it means it's the part of the brain that is the least constrained by genes. It's the part of the brain that is the most adaptive to the environment. And it is highly logical that it is this way. It completely destroys any notion of genetic determinism when it comes to human behavior. All of this is fact. I can point to all the sources I've read and they are giants in their field. Now, knowing all of this, the notion of putting it on the player is kinda silly before the age of 25. The kid's brain isn't fully developed. It's looking to fill the void how? With cues from his surrounding. Some people might get me wrong or browsed too quickly to notice, but genes do have a max yeild over one generation. You won't make a Crosby out of a pee-wee, as much as you won't make a Crosby out of a McCarron. That's the usual strawman argument used. Taking extremes which belies the whole complicated and long process of biological and behavioral development. It's usually used by people who just sheepishly parrot the sensationalistic headlines they've heard. Someone like Crosby won the situational lottery (not to confuse with the mythical genetic lottery) where chromosone crossings went ideally, where hereditary epigenetic effects were mostly positive. In those, there might have been a few specific markers for certain traits. Pattern recognition is one. High individuation/differentiation and empathic capacity (among other things, to imitate and replicate actions). But then all of this would've worth noth if it weren't for the ideal social environment he grew up in. I've seen his parents. Not surprised they look like an overwhelmingly empathic and compassionate lot. This is key for certain features like passion, determination, discipline (real compassion demands that we work as much for ourselves as for others), drive and self-esteem. Anyway, long story short, mostly everything went right. For McCarron, a lot of things went right, but not as much as Crosby. His capacity for self-correction was clearly lower. As was his capacity for pattern recognition. We already knew this when he was 20. Now the point is not to make him a Crosby. The point is that there was this 5 year period where what he already had could've been worked upon and upgraded further if trainers and coaches actually informed themselves on a subject that is central to developing young players. The most important part when they are groomed at that age is finding out which psychological and mental attributes they need to work on. Pretty much any aspect that has to do with execution and planning can be upgraded at that age, but you need to know what you are doing. Saying these things can't be taught is a testament of how backwards the prevailing understanding of our biology is, and also how little attention people are paying to actual science.
