Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;890515]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!"[/quote]

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.

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;890509]Pushing falsehoods is not the same as grading quarterbacks. Of course Andrew Luck is a better athlete than Tannehill.[/quote]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.

[quote]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.
[/quote]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?

[url]http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/46687-eight-qbs-where-latest-rumors-have-25.html#post888736[/url]
[quote=me 02-25-2012, 05:48 AM]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.
[I][B][U][COLOR="Olive"]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.[/COLOR][/U][/B][/I]

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.

[QUOTE=you]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.[/quote] If I was judging on physical skill set alone I would have Tannehill ahead of Luck. (especially arm talent and athletic ability)
[U][I][B][COLOR="olive"]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.[/COLOR][/B][/I][/U][/QUOTE]
more Luck related opinion here: [url]http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/46687-eight-qbs-where-latest-rumors-have-14.html#post887349[/url]
[quote=me]However their is a clear distinction or separation between Luck/Griffin and Tannehill.
[I][B][U][COLOR="Olive"]Where Tannehill is raw Luck/Griffin are both high efficiency QBs that exhibit high level command of their respective team's passing offense[/COLOR][/U][/B][/I].[/quote]
[quote=GT]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.[/quote]Did you pay attention to the post I was [I]responding[/I] 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?

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;890517]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.[/quote]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.

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;890520]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?[/quote]

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.

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

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

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=30gut;890519]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?

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


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

Why you so salty tonight bro?[/quote]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.

[QUOTE=Mahons21;890525]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.[/QUOTE]

What did he say about ST?

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;890530]What did he say about ST?[/quote]

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/27/AR2007112702680.html]Michael Wilbon - Dying Young, Black[/url]

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

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;890527]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?[/quote]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 [I][B]leading[/B][/I] 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.

[quote]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), [/quote]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.

[quote]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?[/quote]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 [I][B]last[/B][/I] year there was Newton, Locker, Kaepernick, Tyrod Taylor, Josh Portis, and Terrelle Pryor and that's just from [I]last[/I] 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.
[quote=you] But on the heels of their combine numbers, my position is easily defensible.[/quote]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

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=30gut;890504]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....[/quote]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

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=Bubba305-ST21-;890526]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[/quote]

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

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=30gut;890532]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[/quote]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:

[quote=30gut;890486]But, I guess I should expect this from you since for whatever reason you cannot admit that Tannehill is a better athlete then Luck.[/quote]

Your assertion was that I (me) [B]could not admit[/B] 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.

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=Bubba305-ST21-;890526]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[/quote]

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

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=GusFrerotte;890500]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;890539]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[/quote]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?

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=30gut;890545]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 [B]shouldn't his combine numbers surpass those of last years draft class?[/B][/quote]

No...but whatever you both are incorrigible.

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=30gut;890545]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?[/quote]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?

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

...need I say more?

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=Mahons21;890485][url=http://draftbreakdown.com/?s=Kirk+Cousins]Draft Breakdown — Search Results — Kirk Cousins[/url]

Some good footage of cousins for those of you with some spare time on their hands.[/quote]Check this out too:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9rAeq_Y9vk]Kirk Cousins NFL Draft Analysis - 2010 Season - YouTube[/ame]

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

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=The Goat;890548]...need I say more?[/quote]Do you wish to?

Thoughts on pie? Quarterbacks? Anything?

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;890547]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?
[/quote]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
[url=http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/players.php?genpos=QB&draftyear=2011&sortby=tsxpos&order=ASC&startspot=0]NFL Draft Scout Rankings, From Prep to Pro Coverage - Powered by the Sports Xchange[/url]

2012 Class
[url=http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/players.php?genpos=QB&draftyear=2012&sortorder=tsxpos&order=ASC]NFL Draft Scout Rankings, From Prep to Pro Coverage - Powered by the Sports Xchange[/url]

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;890551]Do you wish to?

Thoughts on pie? Quarterbacks? Anything?[/quote]

Mmmmmmmmmmm pie...

[IMG]http://drool.popey.com/droooool.png[/IMG]

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;890551]Do you wish to?



Thoughts on pie? Quarterbacks? Anything?[/QUOTE]

Pie? Cheesecake (Don't care what you say it's a pie) Quarterbacks? Robert Griffin III Anything? Why do fast food places give you water in a 4oz cup and fill it 90% with ice?

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;890554]Pie? Cheesecake (Don't care what you say it's a pie) Quarterbacks? Robert Griffin III Anything? [B]Why do fast food places give you water in a 4oz cup and fill it 90% with ice?[/B][/quote]Beggars can't be choosers?

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;890555]Beggars can't be choosers?[/QUOTE]

Then why charge me a quarter for it but I can get a cup of ice for free? It's that kind of oxymoronic hypocrisy that allowes me to chuck the dine in tray in the garbage when I leave along with 50 napkins that I didn't use. Yessir, I'm a rebel.

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[url=http://www.footballsfuture.com/2012/combine/qb.html]2012 NFL Combine: QB[/url]

[url=http://www.footballsfuture.com/2011/combine/qb.html]2011 NFL Combine: QB[/url]

----------------------------------40 Yard Vertical Shuttle Cone Broad Jump
Andrew Luck Stanford-----------------------4.67 - 36.0 4.28 6.80 10'4

Blaine Gabbert Missouri----------------------4.62 33.5 4.26 6.84 10'0
Jake Locker Washington--------------------4.59 35 4.12 6.77 10'0
Josh Portis California (PA)------------------4.62 40 4.12 6.84 10'6
Tyrod Taylor Virginia Tech-----------------4.51 37.5 4.09 6.78 10'6
Colin Kaepernick Nevada------------------4.53 32.5 4.18 6.85 9'7
Cam Newton Auburn ---------------------4.59 - 35 4.18 6.92 10'6
Christian Ponder Florida State------------4.65 34 4.09 6.85 9'8

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

53 pages later i'm still shaking my head .. Orakpo trade .. REALLY .. look I want RGIII just as bad as everyone else but shipping off our YOUNG PRO BOWL BAD ASS LB opposite our other YOUNG PRO BOWL BAD ASS LB doesn't sound like something that makes any sense. Trade the picks ... this year's #1., #2., 2013 #1, 2014#1 .. then figure out a way to get back into the 1st round in 2014.

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=30gut;890552]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
[url=http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/players.php?genpos=QB&draftyear=2011&sortby=tsxpos&order=ASC&startspot=0]NFL Draft Scout Rankings, From Prep to Pro Coverage - Powered by the Sports Xchange[/url]

2012 Class
[url=http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/players.php?genpos=QB&draftyear=2012&sortorder=tsxpos&order=ASC]NFL Draft Scout Rankings, From Prep to Pro Coverage - Powered by the Sports Xchange[/url][/quote]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[quote=30gut;890486]But, I guess I should expect this from you since for whatever reason you cannot admit that Tannehill is a better athlete then Luck.[/quote] (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 [B]not [/B]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.

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;890558]Then why charge me a quarter for it but I can get a cup of ice for free? It's that kind of oxymoronic hypocrisy that allowes me to chuck the dine in tray in the garbage when I leave along with 50 napkins that I didn't use. Yessir, I'm a rebel.[/quote]A quarter? That's ridiculous. Once you're a customer, you can make those ice demands.

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=30gut;890562][url=http://www.footballsfuture.com/2012/combine/qb.html]2012 NFL Combine: QB[/url]

[url=http://www.footballsfuture.com/2011/combine/qb.html]2011 NFL Combine: QB[/url]

----------------------------------40 Yard Vertical Shuttle Cone Broad Jump
Andrew Luck Stanford-----------------------4.67 - 36.0 4.28 6.80 10'4

Blaine Gabbert Missouri----------------------4.62 33.5 4.26 6.84 10'0
Jake Locker Washington--------------------4.59 35 4.12 6.77 10'0
Josh Portis California (PA)------------------4.62 40 4.12 6.84 10'6
Tyrod Taylor Virginia Tech-----------------4.51 37.5 4.09 6.78 10'6
Colin Kaepernick Nevada------------------4.53 32.5 4.18 6.85 9'7
Cam Newton Auburn ---------------------4.59 - 35 4.18 6.92 10'6
Christian Ponder Florida State------------4.65 34 4.09 6.85 9'8[/quote]Do you think these combine results had anything to do with Kaepernick slipping to the second round?

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

Should have drafted Tony Pike then this whole QB thing would be over.

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;890564]Racial component retracted, on the grounds of being not necessary to the argument.[/quote]I'm glad for you.

[quote]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 [B]not [/B]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. [/quote]Dude, you're all over the place.

[quote]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.[/quote]lol, right now that the numbers are posted you're backpedalling.

[quote]But, I guess I should expect this from you since for whatever reason you cannot admit that Tannehill is a better athlete then Luck.[/quote]Of course the above statement cannot be supported.
But neither can this statement:
[quote]Of course Andrew Luck is a better athlete than Tannehill.[/quote]

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

-Cheers

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;890566]Do you think these combine results had anything to do with Kaepernick slipping to the second round?[/quote]
You're the king of presuppostion.
Kaeprnick didn't 'slide' to the second round he ascended to the second round.

oh btw:

Andrew Luck Stanford-----------------------4.67--36.0 4.28 6.80 10'4
Colin Kaepernick Nevada---------------------4.53--32.5 4.18 6.85 9'7

Do you always resort to this behavior?

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=30gut;890568]A better statement would be that for whatever reason you choose to diminish Tannehill athletic accomplishments yet overstate Lucks.

-Cheers[/quote]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.

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=30gut;890532]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.[/quote]

[quote=30gut;890486]But, I guess I should expect this from you since for whatever reason you cannot admit that Tannehill is a better athlete then Luck.[/quote]

I just wish you would retract.

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

I wish FA started today.

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;890573]I wish FA started today.[/quote]Agreed.

Wow, I'm legit depressed with that ending.

You know what will cheer me up? Steak and Shake! Well, that and NFL free agency. Hey, the Chiefs signed Zeke Markshausen today. That's something, right?

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;890567]Should have drafted Tony Pike then this whole QB thing would be over.[/quote]Can still get Zach Colleros.

Re: Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;890497]After hearing about the concerns scouts have with Barkley I think it's pretty safe to say that he would have been the 3rd QB in this draft.

Don't get me wrong, Barkley is a quality prospect and certainly much more promising then the Tannehill's of the world. However he doesn't have the greatest arm and is athletically average if that. RG3 has both the arm and athleticism not to mention he can match Barkley on the intangibles front.

Another thing to remember is Barkley's supporting cast is miles better then what RG3 had at Baylor. I think had the two gone head to head in this draft class Griffin would have gone first.[/quote]

Hey Dirt totally agree, this was more of why not to wait till 2013 for Bark or any other QB for that matter. USC Qbs scare the hell of me. Im def behind all in for Grif.