Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)

This easily falls in the category of nitpicking, but I have a tough time seeing how a once in a decade QB would be available with the second pick in his own draft. And how the team with the second pick would then trade the pick because "you know what, we're good!"

The last QB with his physical skill-set was Vick in 2001. It's been 11 years since an athlete at the QB position like RG3 has come along so thats what I meant by once in a decade. Of course unlike his predecessor he can actually complete passes especially the deep ball as I'm learning from watching his game against TCU. Being in the same draft as Luck is just a crazy coincidence.

Pushing falsehoods is not the same as grading quarterbacks. Of course Andrew Luck is a better athlete than Tannehill.Ah, of course anyone with a different view point then yours is 'pushing' falsehoods.

For some reason you think posting your opinion as a declarative statement makes it something more then your opinion, but it doesn't.
It just makes for a needlessly childish/tedious discussion.
Anyone can say 'Of course Tannehill is a better athlete then Luck'
But unlike you I've stated why I think that.
Namely that Tannehill was a good enough athlete to not only play WR but he was the leading WR on A&M for 2 years in a row.

Of course you haven't responded to the above fact you just keep repeating your opinion: Luck is a better athlete then Tannehill, Luck is a better athlete then Tannehill rinse, repeat.

It's an irrelevant argument since you're the only guy here who starts the quarterback discussion with athleticism, and then gets involved in this quarterback virtual reality where Andrew Luck is this unremarkable first round quarterback who anyone with a good build and a good arm gets compared to....I thought comparing Tannehill and Kaepernick was a useful way to make your point about Kaepernick being undervalued last year, but your desire to make Luck seem like "one of the guys" undermined the argument you were actually trying to make.
Oh, sweet now you're gonna just completely fabricate my position?
Why don't you at least use the quote feature and show where I've done any of the above?

http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/46687-eight-qbs-where-latest-rumors-have-25.html#post888736
I think a large portion of what separates Luck from the other prospects is directly related to Harbaugh.
And I mean that as a compliment to both.
I think Jim Harbaugh is currently the premiere QB guru in the NFL.
His success with Josh Johnson and San Deigo State followed by Luck at Stanford and Alex Smith in the NFL is proof positive for me that Harbaugh know how to coach the QB position.
Consequently Luck is one of the most ready to play NFL QBs I can remember.
And you couple that with his physical skill set (size, mobility, playmaking); he's clearly the top QB in this draft class.
But, even if he Luck didn't have the benefit of Harbaugh's 'AP QB classes' his physical skill set would still make him a top prospect.

But, the QB prospects imo are viewed differently from coaches then by GMs.
Imo when a GM sees a QB like Luck they value his 'pro-readiness' more then coaches especially ones that view themselves as QB gurus.
Pro-readiness to a GM means: QB's X success is less contingent upon my coaching staff's ability to 'coach him up' and to a GM that is very valueable.
But, coaches might think QB's Y skill set is near QB X's skill set and my coaching can make QB's Y skill set produce the same results as QB X.

Saying that Tannehill is in the class of Luck or Griffin in terms of physical assets seems more like trying to see exactly how much bs will stick before someone calls you on it. If I was judging on physical skill set alone I would have Tannehill ahead of Luck. (especially arm talent and athletic ability)
But, of course evaluating any prospect is based on far more then physical skill set alone.
And for that reason I have Luck and Griffin ahead of Tannehill.
more Luck related opinion here: http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/46687-eight-qbs-where-latest-rumors-have-14.html#post887349
However their is a clear distinction or separation between Luck/Griffin and Tannehill.
Where Tannehill is raw Luck/Griffin are both high efficiency QBs that exhibit high level command of their respective team's passing offense.
I disagree that NFL Network is pushing a conspiracy to compare Luck and Newton as athletes. But Luck is in that kind of class as an athlete. Whether or not he'll be a better QB than Newton is up for debate and won't be answered for many years. But we already know that this is the kind of athlete we're talking about here.Did you pay attention to the post I was responding to at all or now you're just gonna invent fictional positions then claim I was making them?

Why you so salty tonight bro?

I saw a quote from mike wilbon that said something like "it doesn't matter who the skins get, they'll screw it up somehow " I've seen him bash us before what's up with that? Doesn't he live in DC?

The last QB with his physical skill-set was Vick in 2001. It's been 11 years since an athlete at the QB position like RG3 has come along so thats what I meant by once in a decade. Of course unlike his predecessor he can actually complete passes especially the deep ball as I'm learning from watching his game against TCU. Being in the same draft as Luck is just a crazy coincidence.Well, it's not like Vick is the only quarterback in the last decade that has had an undeniably positive effect on his own running game. Newton, Rodgers, and maybe Tebow fall into that same category.

But really, that skill set is held by any quarterback who can force the defense to keep a pair of safeties deep. That's the key: if safeties are alley players, you can defend the zone-boot action easily, whether Tebow, Vick, Newton, or Griffin is running it. If the safeties have to stay over the top to prevent the big play, then the zone-boot game works wonders.

And obviously the fact that Griffin comes out so much more polished a passer than Vick is the big deal here.

I saw a quote from mike wilbon that said something like "it doesn't matter who the skins get, they'll screw it up somehow " I've seen him bash us before what's up with that? Doesn't he live in DC?

He's a Chicago sports fan at heart, and has never been well liked by the Washington area ever since his article about Taylor which was written in very poor taste, and I think he's well aware of it.

they constantly hate on the redskins on PTI. hopefully soon we will have a good team back and they will have not choice but to give us credit

Ah, of course anyone with a different view point then yours is 'pushing' falsehoods.

For some reason you think posting your opinion as a declarative statement makes it something more then your opinion, but it doesn't.
It just makes for a needlessly childish/tedious discussion.
Anyone can say 'Of course Tannehill is a better athlete then Luck'
But unlike you I've stated why I think that.
Namely that Tannehill was a good enough athlete to not only play WR but he was the leading WR on A&M for 2 years in a row.

Of course you haven't responded to the above fact you just keep repeating your opinion: Luck is a better athlete then Tannehill, Luck is a better athlete then Tannehill rinse, repeat.

Oh, sweet now you're gonna just completely fabricate my position?
Why don't you at least use the quote feature and show where I've done any of the above?

http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/46687-eight-qbs-where-latest-rumors-have-25.html#post888736


Did you pay attention to the post I was responding to at all or now you're just gonna invent fictional positions then claim I was making them?

Why you so salty tonight bro?I am not inclined to take responsibility for this argument being stupid/childish/tedious or whatever else you can describe it as. But I will add 'dumb' to the list.

The burden of proof was always on you with these comparisons. And Tannehill having a background as a wide receiver (which yes, I saw before) is obviously insufficient to back what you are using it to assert. Was I supposed to accept that any quarterback with a wide receiver background is more athletic/has a more complete skill set than one without one?

I realize that Tannehill being unable to work out in advance of his pro day -- not your fault or his -- kind of puts you out on a limb with no evidence to back a position that most people don't hold (which is why you use the 'to my eye' qualifier), but I disagree that the way to account for the gap between evidence and position is to be more assertive.

For the record, I did not contest any point about Tannehill or Kaepernick that you put any substantial effort in making. I only contested the laziness of lumping Luck in that group.

You've already seen my position on Luck as an athlete: he's one of the best in years. There's Cam Newton, Robert Griffin, Vince Young, Andrew Luck, Aaron Rodgers, and then there's everyone else. Josh Johnson was probably a great athlete as well, though not a particularly high draft choice. Maybe Jay Cutler in his younger days?

And that everyone else includes a lot of good athletes, and some really good athletes for the position. But on the heels of their combine numbers, my position is easily defensible. And the fact that Andrew Luck put a whole bunch of athletic marvels on tape meant the combine was more a confirmation of what we already should have known.

He's a Chicago sports fan at heart, and has never been well liked by the Washington area ever since his article about Taylor which was written in very poor taste, and I think he's well aware of it.

What did he say about ST?

What did he say about ST?

Michael Wilbon - Dying Young, Black (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/27/AR2007112702680.html)

Nothing over the top, just poor timing on the article.

Tannehill having a background as a wide receiver (which yes, I saw before) is obviously insufficient to back what you are using it to assert. Was I supposed to accept that any quarterback with a wide receiver background is more athletic/has a more complete skill set than one without one?Its funny how you frame your opinion vs how you frame opposing opinions and that is essentially the heart of this disagreement.
Don't mince words, you know with certainity that I didn't day anything about Tannehill having a 'more complete skillset', that would be another of your invented claims. (which btw is what makes this discussion tedious).

And actually Tannehill did not have a 'background' as a WR prior to 2008.
And his 'background' as a WR includes leading A&M in receiving 2 years in a row, some would argue that he is still A&M's best WR.

Maybe you honestly believe that it takes more athletic ability to play QB then WR, who knows.
But, I think most honest people would acknowledge that playing WR is more athletically challenging then playing QB.

kind of puts you out on a limb with no evidence to back a position that most people don't hold (which is why you use the 'to my eye' qualifier), Right, nevermind Tannehill leading A&M in receiving 2 years in a row; I guess anyone could have done that.
I have no idea what people think about the difference in athleticism between Tannehill and Luck, I was stating my opinion.
And I try to use qualifiers to avoid presenting my opinion as a declarative, which I find pretentious.

You've already seen my position on Luck as an athlete: he's one of the best in years. There's Cam Newton, Robert Griffin, Vince Young, Andrew Luck, Aaron Rodgers, and then there's everyone else. Josh Johnson was probably a great athlete as well, though not a particularly high draft choice. Maybe Jay Cutler in his younger days?And I disagree.
The difference is that I explain why I disagree as opposed to restating my opinion in a declarative form and being testy.
Luck, like I've said before is an above average athlete sure, however; he's not 'the best in years' like you assert.
Just last year there was Newton, Locker, Kaepernick, Tyrod Taylor, Josh Portis, and Terrelle Pryor and that's just from last year.
How can Luck be one of the 'best athletes' in years when there are at least 6 QBs who's athleticism is on the same level if not superior to Luck's?

Especially when you use the combine numbers as your argument.
But on the heels of their combine numbers, my position is easily defensible.If you wanna show how Luck's combine numbers are superior to Locker, Kaepernick, Tyrod Taylor, Josh Portis and Terrelle Pryor be my guest.
But, off the top of my head I would aim for beating Gabbert and Ponder first.

I have no idea why Luck's athleticism is such a point of contention for you?
Athleticism is only a part of a QBs evaluation and its not Luck's athleticism that makes him thee elite prospect in this draft class.

Anyhow,
Cheers