[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

One would think that this late in the argument you wouldn't attempt a strawman i.e claiming that i think your methodology is stupid.
If i thought it was stupid i would say so.
My point is that evaluation isn't done by looking at stats.
And stats alone don't paint the picture of a prospects ability especially a QB, the position that many consider the most dependent position on the field.
No.
I responded to your post where you used a statistical model to pan a prospect without any mention of the prospect abilities.
My position is that if you've seen Locker play you wouldn't have the opinions you have about him especially about him being a 'wild thrower'.

You're toeing a line that doesn't exist. There's no room to tell someone that something isn't done by people without implying that a methodology is wrongheaded. Your position that anyone, specifically talking about me, that has seen Locker play wouldn't be of the opinion that he is a wild thrower is wrong. Wild is my word, but that's the scouting report on him.

Originally Posted by Mike Mayock

He's got all the tools to be a top-level quarterback, all the physical tools. The size and the arm strength. I just question his pocket awareness. And that's where his accuracy issues come into play. When he moves outside the pocket, either right or left, and not just scrambling, because they did a good job with plays that moved him outside the pocket and had him throw on the run, he has good vision and is as accurate as any quarterback you'll see. But he gets into some trouble in the pocket, seeing the field, and that's where his accuracy breaks down. I'm really excited to see him at the Senior Bowl (in two weeks) and see him working with other receivers. To me he's got first-round ability. But I just need to get more comfortable with him, and his pocket awareness.

Mayock, for the record, supports Locker as a first rounder. I do not.

I was asking you about which games you've watched to hopefully spur a discussion based on what we actually see from the game.
To see if Locker's wild throwing or accuracy was evident from watching some commonly available games on the internet like the USC game i posted in my OP.

The difference is that i wanted to discuss actual plays from actual games, but you didn't want to budge from your scouting via stats.

Well, I don't know exactly what you wanted to discuss. I thought you made your position very clear that you didn't think Locker was a particularly wild thrower. I thought you had a minority position, but I was willing to -- and still do -- respect your position. If what you really wanted to do was go play by play through a film cutup and debate pros and cons, then I'm just confused by the way you went about it.

You have made it equally clear that you don't respect my position because you don't believe I should be allowed to defend a player's ability to complete passes with stats. I have concluded that your criticism is ridiculous and cannot be taken seriously. Next issue.

I don't see what the point would be.
You've already demonstrated your posting style and its tedious and needlessly contentious.
Also, i actually like talk about the prospects play in games and you thus far have only mentioned stats and an only a statistically supported claim of Locker's 'wild throwing'.
And you already showed to grade prospects w/ a double standard in the case of Newton/Gabbert.
Oh, and you've also shown that you ignore any question you don't like e.g. about Gabbert vs Locker's efficiency rating.

For someone who is offended by the word bitching, you sure are adept at getting your hands dirty and slinging the mud around.

I'm not bothered by a little bit of jabbing, though you probably already know that by now. I give as good as I get. Just be careful to keep composure, or you get paragraphs like this. If you have anything insightful on Gabbert or Newton, I hope you do post it as I do value your opinion. I just have a tendency to be more receptive to opinions that make sense in the context of everything I already read/see/use.