Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)

[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.