Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)

[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.

[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.

[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.