Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Imo Colin Kaepernick skillset is easily on the same tier as Luck and Tannehill yet he went in the second round.

*sighs*

I know Kaepernick is tall and athletic and throws a good bucket pass, but I'm going to say that lumping him in with Luck is worse than lumping Tannehill with Luck.

I do see Kaepernick and Tannehill though. Very different offensive schemes, but more similar than different in skills.

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

*sighs*

I know Kaepernick is tall and athletic and throws a good bucket pass, but I'm going to say that lumping him in with Luck is worse than lumping Tannehill with Luck.

I do see Kaepernick and Tannehill though. Very different offensive schemes, but more similar than different in skills.

I agree Kaepernick and Tannehill are similar, but Kaepernick has no reason to even be honored in the same discussion as Luck or RG3. Watch Kaepernick at Nevada, played against awful defenses, had an odd throwing motion/release. Luck and Griffin played against talented teams and produced week in and week out.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

*sighs*

I know Kaepernick is tall and athletic and throws a good bucket pass, but I'm going to say that lumping him in with Luck is worse than lumping Tannehill with Luck.

I do see Kaepernick and Tannehill though. Very different offensive schemes, but more similar than different in skills.

*sighs* Skill set is not the sum of a prospect.
2 QBs can have the same physical skill set yet grade out completely differently.
For some reason you struggle with the notion of physical skill set being part of a QBs profile yet not the sum of that propsect.
Kaepernik has a much bigger arm then Griffin, Luck and Tannehill and he's at least the athletic equal to Tannehill and superior to Luck.
He's on the same tier as Griffin although not his equal.

But, I guess I should expect this from you since for whatever reason you cannot admit that Tannehill is a better athlete then Luck.
http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-l...tml#post889702

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

*sighs* Skill set is not the sum of a prospect.
2 QBs can have the same physical skill set yet grade out completely differently.
For some reason you struggle with the notion of physical skill set being part of a QBs profile yet not the sum of that propsect.
Kaepernik has a much bigger arm then Griffin, Luck and Tannehill and he's at least the athletic equal to Tannehill and superior to Luck.
He's on the same tier as Griffin although not his equal.

But, I guess I should expect this from you since for whatever reason you cannot admit that Tannehill is a better athlete then Luck.
http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-l...tml#post889702

Pushing falsehoods is not the same as grading quarterbacks. Of course Andrew Luck is a better athlete than Tannehill.

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.

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.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Pushing falsehoods is not the same as grading quarterbacks. Of course Andrew Luck is a better athlete than Tannehill.

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by 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.
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.

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.

If I was judging on physical skill set alone I would have Tannehill ahead of Luck. (especially arm talent and athletic ability)
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.

more Luck related opinion here: http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-l...tml#post887349

Originally Posted by me

However their is a clear distinction or separation between Luck/Griffin and Tannehill.
Where Tannehill is raw Luck/Griffin are both high efficiency QBs that exhibit high level command of their respective team's passing offense.

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

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.

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.

I just wish you would retract.