Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)

[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?

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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?

Its amusing how instead of simply supporting your own assertion with the combine numbers that are readily available you fall back into your argumentative quibbles in lieu of proof.

Naturally you're gonna quibble over a contention I didn't make i.e that Pryor was at the combine; instead of simply proving your won contention.

I'm sure you're well aware that the combine measurables are repeated at the school pro days and NFL try outs but of in our haste to change the subject you probably overlooked that.
You've also added a racial component and a throwaway statement about Locker, still you haven't made one attempt to support your statement.

Let me help you: 2011 Class
NFL Draft Scout Rankings, From Prep to Pro Coverage - Powered by the Sports Xchange

2012 Class
NFL Draft Scout Rankings, From Prep to Pro Coverage - Powered by the Sports Xchange

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Its amusing how instead of simply supporting your own assertion with the combine numbers that are readily available you fall back into your argumentative quibbles in lieu of proof.

Naturally you're gonna quibble over a contention I didn't make i.e that Pryor was at the combine; instead of simply proving your won contention.

I'm sure you're well aware that the combine measurables are repeated at the school pro days and NFL try outs but of in our haste to change the subject you probably overlooked that.
You've also added a racial component and a throwaway statement about Locker, still you haven't made one attempt to support your statement.

Let me help you: 2011 Class
NFL Draft Scout Rankings, From Prep to Pro Coverage - Powered by the Sports Xchange

2012 Class
NFL Draft Scout Rankings, From Prep to Pro Coverage - Powered by the Sports Xchange

Racial component retracted, on the grounds of being not necessary to the argument.

Here's the big conclusion: the burden of proof to prove your original statement

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.

(and the less controversial belief that caused you to make it) remains on you, and it also remains (to this moment) indefensible. I think Luck's combine numbers are an excellent piece of evidence that you've vastly underrated his athleticism in this comparison. You've chosen to focus on how strong the evidence is, rather than the fact that the opinion it's supporting is the important thing.

This is not a court of law, and Andrew Luck is everything I have suggested he is. Your best argument remains "I disagree." Except here's the thing: you don't disagree. You agree with me. You just think you're justified to put Tannehill in his tier. And by your own extension, Kaepernick. Which I don't think can be justified. Maybe it can. But you haven't been particularly convincing despite carrying the burden of proof.

I want to keep this from drifting into an analysis of Andrew Luck's combine results. If you actually are going to make the case that Andrew Luck's combine results suggest he's not one of the better athletes to come out in years at the QB position, I'll probably respond (if I can) to your case. If you're not going to make it, drop the argument.

I will stand on just the skin deep comparison to Newton, and the similarity/superiority to Griffin in the non-running tests. I have little intention of analyzing combine numbers for their greater meaning, and yet, still feel very comfortable concluding that we don't see athletes like Luck at the QB position very often.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Racial component retracted, on the grounds of being not necessary to the argument.

I'm glad for you.

This is not a court of law, and Andrew Luck is everything I have suggested he is. Your best argument remains "I disagree." Except here's the thing: you don't disagree. You agree with me. You just think you're justified to put Tannehill in his tier. And by your own extension, Kaepernick. Which I don't think can be justified. Maybe it can. But you haven't been particularly convincing despite carrying the burden of proof.

I want to keep this from drifting into an analysis of Andrew Luck's combine results. If you actually are going to make the case that Andrew Luck's combine results suggest he's not one of the better athletes to come out in years at the QB position, I'll probably respond (if I can) to your case. If you're not going to make it, drop the argument.

Dude, you're all over the place.

I will stand on just the skin deep comparison to Newton, and the similarity/superiority to Griffin in the non-running tests. I have little intention of analyzing combine numbers for their greater meaning, and yet, still feel very comfortable concluding that we don't see athletes like Luck at the QB position very often.

lol, right now that the numbers are posted you're backpedalling.

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

Of course the above statement cannot be supported.
But neither can this statement:

Of course Andrew Luck is a better athlete than Tannehill.

A better statement would be that for whatever reason you choose to diminish Tannehill athletic accomplishments yet overstate Lucks.

-Cheers

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

A better statement would be that for whatever reason you choose to diminish Tannehill athletic accomplishments yet overstate Lucks.

-Cheers

Oh my f-cking god, you're not retracting your ridiculous statement after all that? You're a hundred times harder headed than I could ever hope to be.

You know who wasn't on the combine list? Tannehill.

I wish not to overstate Luck's case. He's still one of the best athletes to come out in years. I recognize your point about the 2011 combine, and accept that it weakens the evidence used here. The 2012 combine results though continue to reinforce what Luck put on tape. They don't do anything re: Tannehill.

Your persistence to save some face amazes me. Congrats, I guess.

[Alvin Walton]

GTripp wants the home grown west Michigan product under center.