Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)

[Bubba305-ST21-]

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

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

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-l...tml#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.

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by Mahons21

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?

[Mahons21]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

What did he say about ST?

Michael Wilbon - Dying Young, Black

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

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

Originally Posted by you

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

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Flame suit on: I was actually dissappointed in Griffin's 40 time considering what he's capable of running.
We're talking about a rare specimen here.
A true to life Olympic caliber sprinter.

Now this has nothing to do with football, its not coming from that persepective at all but from a track prospective.
Marshall Faulk hinted at it but stopped short of explaining it.
I have a little bit of background in track myself and knowing that Griffin ran a 21.46/200m (IIRC) 2 years ago when he was a finalist for the Olympic trials, suggests using simple track logic that he should be around around a low 4.4 without breaking a sweat really.
If Griff really wanted to (i.e. trained) he could/should be capable of a lower 40 time, I'm talking low 4.3's.
And who knows he might put up that number at Baylor's pro day where the track will undoubtedly be faster.
BTW Vick's 4.33 was not ran at the combine so I'm not sure why he gets credit for that as his 'official' time.

end track specific rant back to football....

yeah I was gonna say a track will be faster. His time is still fast.. he doesn't NEED to be faster.. I imagine a lot of his preparation was just maintaining physically.. but mostly mental prep

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

Originally Posted by Bubba305-ST21-

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

We aren't going to get any credit for going 15-33 the last three years.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

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

Simply put, there weren't six athletes last year above Luck and we needn't go any further about something that I don't care about -- though if you'd at any point like to make the argument that Terrelle Pryor had a better combine than Andrew Luck, knock yourself out. But you've gone here and completely changed the argument. This is what you need to defend/retract that I took exception to:

Originally Posted by 30gut

But, I guess I should expect this from you since for whatever reason you cannot admit that Tannehill is a better athlete then Luck.

Your assertion was that I (me) could not admit that Tannehill is a better athlete than Luck, which is an incredibly far fetched assertion given Luck's athleticism established in this thread/on tape/at combine. This was a ridiculous thing of you to say, and you have not retracted this. As far as I know, I am only disagreeing with you 1) writing this, 2) not retracting it.

Your assertion was not, despite your attempts to frame it as such, that I thought my opinion was more important than your opinion. It was not that we have a difference of opinion at all. Your assertion was that I knew Tannehill was a better athlete than Luck, and won't admit that.

You provided the evidence of Tannehill being a very effective Big XII receiver as evidence that I am being hardheaded that I would dare think Luck is the better athlete. This despite 1) you know that I already know Tannehill's history as a Texas A&M football player, and 2) you already know that I think Luck is the better athlete. If you don't think Luck could have been a great college receiver in another career, well, I disagree with that but also don't want to deal with hypotheticals for weak arguments.

Look, I don't know whether you typed the above as a personal attack, or as a declarative sentence, or just to be salty. I don't think it matters much.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by Bubba305-ST21-

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

Hell yeah Bubba, hopefully we get to tell off all the doubters out there soon...the Skins will dominate again and it's gonna be oh so sweet yo

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

Why are you ready to give up the bank for one player? I wouldn't give up the bank for Luck either. This team has no depth and most of our starting O line would be backups for the better teams in the league. Yeah go ahead and break the bank for RG III and with no O line to block for him he will result to being Vick in ATL. No thanks. Build the team right for a change. We have broken the bank trying to get the "sexy" pick only to have it blow up in our face all the time. Not knocking RG III, but we have serious holes on our fav team, and giving up mulitple first rounders or even multiple second round picks would be detrimental. Go for Tannehill or Weeden, or even Moore if it means keeping picks or gaining them. We need fresh young talent. What happens to our D if Fletcher leaves, or other stalwarts decide to bolt? Then you are in a big hole without picks in the future. RG III is a very talented guy, but so is Cam Newton and I am not sure Cam is going to win a SB in the near future if at all. A QB can't win a game on his own.

I'm ready to give up the bank for one player, because that one player just doesn't simply come out every year. I would give up the bank for Luck, because the risk is way smaller with the reward. Theres a reason why he's been talked about as a first overall pick since day one when he got to Stanford. Theres a reason why scouts can't find a negative on him. But anyway back to RG3.

True, we have holes in our whole team, and yeah we should start thinking more of the worst case scenarios like if London and LaRon leave, then that top 10 defense goes bye bye. Our OL has holes, yes, but keep this in mind; Our LT is considered a top ten LT by a lot of football analysts. Our LG tore his ACL last year, but he was considered to be our best OL up to that point. Our Center surprised a lot of people and played very well. Our RG was probably the most consistent player on the whole OL. Our RT is where we suck. We have depth at Guard with Hurt, Polumbus/Smith could easily be good back ups for us. Really, and this is IMO, we just need to get another guard FA or draft, and a RT which we can draft. There is a LOT of great tackles in this years draft, and RT's are easier to find then LTs.

But back to the QB, keep this in mind:

If you hit on the right QB, then suddenly all those holes on your team will disappear.

Players on your defense start playing at a higher level because they know mentally "hey if we just make a stop here, we can put our great QB back on the field to get us some points." instead of "crap, whether we make a stop or not, Rex is just gonna put us back on the field in two snaps anyway."

And on offense players try harder when they have a good QB. And OL, they look a lot better when they have a good QB who has good awareness and pocket prescience. Look at Big Ben, he, like RG3, makes plays with his feet and buys time in the pocket. There is absolutely no way you can tell me that his OL is better than ours. NO WAY. Peytons OL in Indy for many years wasn't as good as ours, but they won games because their QB was smart.

RG3 is athletic, fast, has a good pocket prescience, is smart, and is a quick passer. He's the kind of player that makes teams put 8 in the box respecting his running game, then Bam! he throws a beautiful dart downfield on play action, which forces the other team to put 7 in the box now, which gets the running game and RG3 rollouts going again.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Simply put, there weren't six athletes last year above Luck and we needn't go any further about something that I don't care about

Ah, of course another declarative statement in lieu of proof.
Newton, Locker, Kaepernick, Tyrod Taylor, Josh Portis and Terrelle Pryor and Blaine Gabbert all have similar or superior combine numbers to Luck.

I don't care either, but if you're gonna keep throwing it out there that Luck is one of the best athletes in years shouldn't his combine numbers surpass those of last years draft class?

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Ah, of course another declarative statement in lieu of proof.
Newton, Locker, Kaepernick, Tyrod Taylor, Josh Portis and Terrelle Pryor and Blaine Gabbert all have similar or superior combine numbers to Luck.

I don't care either, but if you're gonna keep throwing it out there that Luck is one of the best athletes in years shouldn't his combine numbers surpass those of last years draft class?

No...but whatever you both are incorrigible.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Ah, of course another declarative statement in lieu of proof.
Newton, Locker, Kaepernick, Tyrod Taylor, Josh Portis and Terrelle Pryor and Blaine Gabbert all have similar or superior combine numbers to Luck.

I don't care either, but if you're gonna keep throwing it out there that Luck is one of the best athletes in years shouldn't his combine numbers surpass those of last years draft class?

No, they don't.

I actually don't know how valid the argument is (it certainly seems a lot sounder than your Tannehill argument), but I can tell you that as you have presented it, it is a false statement. At least one of the players in your example has never been to a combine. Which tells me you didn't look any of this up (or you would have known that). Which tells me you don't really know, you just suspect Luck's combine numbers aren't measurably different from some black quarterbacks in last year's draft (plus Jake Locker).

It's possible I missed Locker as a great athlete at quarterback from a past draft. He's kind of forgettable, so you'll have to forgive me.

I did notice you didn't retract the statement you made before. Would it be wrong of me to assume you continue to stand by it?

P.S. if you are trying to convince me that declarative statements have no place on a message board, maybe, I don't know, stop?

[The Goat]

...need I say more?

[30gut]

Originally Posted by Mahons21

Draft Breakdown — Search Results — Kirk Cousins

Some good footage of cousins for those of you with some spare time on their hands.

Check this out too:

Kirk Cousins NFL Draft Analysis - 2010 Season -...

Haven't had time to digest the whole thing but even early you can see flashes of NFL level arm talent that some may doubt:

o deep out @55s mark