Great new Vince Young article in SI [Archive] - The Orange Mane

epicSocialism4tw

04-15-2006, 05:20 PM

I totally agree. Can you imagine Vince Young on the PA bootleg!

I had mixed feelings about Young's great 2005 season. I felt so happy for him after his triumphs in Columbus and Pasadena, but I was sad that he played so well that he was no longer a mid-1st pick.

:D

Me too.

IMO, Young is the top player in the draft. It's amazing how people will try to diminish his capability despite having a better pro day than Leinart after beating the entire USC team on his own.

The dude could be the Micheal Jordan of football. Ive never seen another player (especially in college) dominate games like he did in the Rose Bowls that he played in. Big time player in big time games.

Bold prediction: Young will go before Leinart, and Leinart will be the guy that drops.

Hulamau

04-15-2006, 06:04 PM

I agree here too. I just have my doubts about Jake being able to close the deal and we have to make a lot of adjustments in the structure of our team and game plans just to accomdate that possiblity.

Thing is, Shanny wants to win now to reestablish his legacy and I doubt he wants to pass up the immedate benefit of a playmaker like Vernon Davis for Young who could be all world and have a much bigger impact on our fortunes for many years.

Plus I HATE the idea of the Raiders getting him!

ludo21

04-15-2006, 06:06 PM

VY would be sick!!!

As would Bush! If we made a move for any of those guys (including VD or MArio) I would be ecstatic!!

WOW!

epicSocialism4tw

04-15-2006, 06:10 PM

Here's a nice quote from the article:

"I'm telling you," he said, "this guy's John Elway. All those people saying he won't be good, what are they thinking? He's a rare passer -- the guy can be on the run, under pressure and flip the ball on a line. You watch him do these things and it goes on and on and on. Normally, if you watch a guy on film over and over again, he gets a little less attractive than what you'd thought. This guy gets better.
"His poise is just incredible, and he's so explosive. There's a reason Texas averaged 50 points a game. When they got the ball to the 30-yard line, he scored, period. He may not have the greatest test score, but he definitely has the leadership skills to compensate."
It should be pointed out that this scout is a huge Bush fan. "Bush is terrific," he said. "But if you've got the Number 1 pick, do you take Barry Sanders or John Elway?"

Jason in LA

04-15-2006, 06:36 PM

hey I got an idea, Houston takes Young then they trade us Carr for our #22.

That's a horrible idea.

Jason in LA

04-15-2006, 06:40 PM

""I'm telling you," he said, "this guy's John Elway."

Someobody stole my quote. I said that a few weeks ago.

People want to compare him to Vick. He's nowhere near Vick. Totally different QB. Nobody would compare Culpepper, McNabb, McNair, or Plummer to Vick. Going back in history, nobody would compare Elway, Steve Young, or Tarkenton to Vick. But I'd compare Vince Young to all those QBs mentioned. Mobile QBs are different from running QBs. Young is a mobile QB, not a running QB.

Young is going to be good. Most of the questions about him are silly.

TexanBob

04-15-2006, 07:32 PM

I think Young most resembles Steve McNair or Randall Cunningham. Neither one of them were polished passers when they came to the NFL and both were thought to be "running QBs". Cunningham's throwing motion looked worse than Young's.

If Denver traded their two number 1s to keep him away from the Raiders, I would not be upset. He's a great fit for the Broncos offense if Shanny will allow him to run some.

epicSocialism4tw

04-15-2006, 07:42 PM

Rohirrim

04-15-2006, 09:11 PM

greatest college football player of all time????

You made me burp up a pepperoni. I understand the sickness. A lot of us CU fans thought Rashaan Salaam would be the next Walter Payton. Live and learn, :homer:

Ratboy

04-15-2006, 09:14 PM

I'd take him in the 7th round. Let him be a bust on someone elses team.

epicSocialism4tw

04-15-2006, 09:15 PM

Rohirrim

04-15-2006, 09:30 PM

I'm an OU fan queenie.

You CU fans should know better. Who ever comes out of CU?

Matt Lepsis? :rofl:

-Slap-

04-15-2006, 09:50 PM

Great new Vince Young article in SI

Who's going to read it to him?

epicSocialism4tw

04-15-2006, 09:56 PM

Matt Lepsis?

You forgot Kordell Stewart.

Lestat

04-15-2006, 11:15 PM

i'm not so sure Young wouldn't help Denver this year, he may be a QB but he's also a 6-5 210 lb athlete with 4.5 speed & knows how to make people miss

i think Denver would throw him in on some sets & let him play RB & WR a bit

doonwise

04-15-2006, 11:28 PM

Who's going to read it to him?
LOL

Play2win

04-15-2006, 11:37 PM

Who's going to read it to him?
He'll just catch the Podcast...

Play2win

04-15-2006, 11:38 PM

Seriously, would rather have Matt Leinart.

watermock

04-15-2006, 11:45 PM

Dr. Broncenstein

04-15-2006, 11:52 PM

The guy is dynamic, and a winner. I seriously think he's illiterate though. As long as he can read coverages....

epicSocialism4tw

04-16-2006, 12:08 AM

The guy is dynamic, and a winner. I seriously think he's illiterate though. As long as he can read coverages....

Does it matter? Have you ever heard Darrent Williams or Shannon Sharpe speak? Those two are goobers. At the same time they are more intelligent athletically than anyone on this board and are getting paid for it pretty handsomely.

Young will be fine. People are looking for any reason to bring him down because he's the black phenom QB that knocked off the pretty boy LA school by himself.

Vince Young is the greatest college QB of all time.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 12:11 AM

bad footwork, bad mechanics overall, played in a one read offense and mostly used his athleticism and improvisation.

he is nothing like elway(who threw a ton at stanford) nor is he like air mcnair.

epicSocialism4tw

04-16-2006, 12:15 AM

bad footwork, bad mechanics overall, played in a one read offense and mostly used his athleticism and improvisation.

he is nothing like elway(who threw a ton at stanford) nor is he like air mcnair.

His footwork isnt that bad at all. His pro day included 3 step and 5 step drops and the scouts didnt seem to have any problems with it. He was used in the shotgun because it immediately puts the defense at a huge disadvantage. For the same reason that your boy Manning plays from the shotgun. To make easier reads and to have a step on the safeties / linebackers. Ive seen the kid play for 3 years, and he's special. No doubt. He'll be the most liked player on his team by players and fans alike, and he'll make coordinators on both sides of the ball work for their money. Young is a special player.

The ideas that he's too stupid to make reads and deliver throws within the offense are unfounded. Racist garbage. He's a decent kid. He doesnt deserve that treatment. I'll be glad when he proves you all wrong.

Play2win

04-16-2006, 12:17 AM

Does it matter? Have you ever heard Darrent Williams or Shannon Sharpe speak? Those two are goobers. At the same time they are more intelligent athletically than anyone on this board and are getting paid for it pretty handsomely.

Young will be fine. People are looking for any reason to bring him down because he's the black phenom QB that knocked off the pretty boy LA school by himself.

Vince Young is the greatest college QB of all time.

Just as long as I NEVER have to hear Portis **ATTEMPT** to speak ever again, I'll be happy... ;D

yavoon

04-16-2006, 12:17 AM

His footwork isnt that bad at all. His pro day included 3 step and 5 step drops and the scouts didnt seem to have any problems with it. He was used in the shotgun because it immediately puts the defense at a huge disadvantage. For the same reason that your boy Manning plays from the shotgun. To make easier reads and to have a step on the safeties / linebackers. Ive seen the kid play for 3 years, and he's special. No doubt. He'll be the most liked player on his team by players and fans alike, and he'll make coordinators on both sides of the ball work for their money. Young is a special player.

I've heard from several articles that his ingame footwork is relatively nonexistant. which makes sense, he was a one read and run guy and thats not who I want at qb.

the future of qb's is peyton manning, not vick or young. increasingly smart, accurate, and poised ppl who can deliver the ball successfully and advantageously to the OTHER athletes on the field.

Dr. Broncenstein

04-16-2006, 12:18 AM

Does it matter? Have you ever heard Darrent Williams or Shannon Sharpe speak? Those two are goobers. At the same time they are more intelligent athletically than anyone on this board and are getting paid for it pretty handsomely.

Young will be fine. People are looking for any reason to bring him down because he's the black phenom QB that knocked off the pretty boy LA school by himself.

Vince Young is the greatest college QB of all time.

When did I ever question his intellegence? I said the dude cannot read... probably because he never had to. I think the guy is a weapon at QB, and agree that he is one of the greatest college quarterbacks of all time.... and I thoroughly enjoyed watching him take USC down a peg.

epicSocialism4tw

04-16-2006, 12:24 AM

I've heard from several articles that his ingame footwork is relatively nonexistant. which makes sense, he was a one read and run guy and thats not who I want at qb.

I suggest watching him play a little. You can find some clips on youtube.com, Im sure.

the future of qb's is peyton manning, not vick or young. increasingly smart, accurate, and poised ppl who can deliver the ball successfully and advantageously to the OTHER athletes on the field.

I disagree with this. Manning was already here. His name was Marino. The best QB in history (Elway IMO) was a dual threat. He pulled the same type of stuff that Young does. He exploited defenses by pulling the linebackers and safeties out of position and punishing them with a strong arm. If that wasnt there, he got the yards with his feet.

You should like this one...Young was the MOST ACCURATE thrower in college football last season. Its amazing to me that people overlook this little doozy and point at things like release point and footwork. I question the validity of anyone who claims that he never made reads and just took off running. He's got field vision as both a passer and a rusher. Watch the games. He went through progressions. Watch his head bounce from one...two..etc. It happens. I promise.

Any number of variables go into being the most accurate passer in the NCAA in regards to Young. The most important of which are #1 accuracy/smarts in ball delivery, #2 defenses put a spy on him and left guys in single coverage, #3 he made the RIGHT reads.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 12:27 AM

I suggest watching him play a little. You can find some clips on youtube.com, Im sure.

I disagree with this. Manning was already here. His name was Marino. The best QB in history (Elway IMO) was a dual threat. He pulled the same type of stuff that Young does. He exploited defenses by pulling the linebackers and safeties out of position and punishing them with a strong arm. If that wasnt there, he got the yards with his feet.

You should like this one...Young was the MOST ACCURATE thrower in college football last season. Any number of variables go into that result. The most important of which are #1 accuracy/smarts in ball delivery, #2 defenses put a spy on him and left guys in single coverage, #3 he made the RIGHT reads.

I'm not saying slow white guys are new I'm saying they are the future. and I've seen young play nothing leads me to believe he is great inside the pocket. infact in the national championship game I remarked at how often he threw to guys ridiculously open and at a dead stop.

IMO his accuracy is a mirage created by his athleticism and the system. if no1 is wideass open just run the ball vince, easy decision.

epicSocialism4tw

04-16-2006, 12:34 AM

IMO his accuracy is a mirage created by his athleticism and the system. if no1 is wideass open just run the ball vince, easy decision.

That's ignorant speculation, and Im calling you on it. You may not want the QB to be an athletic position, but its going to be. I think that Young is going to be the missing link. If its not him, than it will be another QB soon. Elway did it in the 80's, its going to happen again soon. I hope that a black dude does it so that you guys can all be misrable for 10 years while he's making waves.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 12:38 AM

yavoon

04-16-2006, 12:54 AM

even more fuel, outsiders top qbs in 2005:
manning - pocket
palmer - pocket
brady - pocket
green - pocket
hasselbeck - pocket
plummer - scrambler
brees - pocket
cheeseburger - tweener maybe
mcnair - prolly a pocket qb now, didnt watch him
delhomme - pocket
collins - pocket
brunell - tweener
leftwich - pocket
bledsoe - pocket
favre - pocket
johnson - pocket

noticing any trends?

Bronco LB 59

04-16-2006, 01:09 AM

yavoon

04-16-2006, 01:11 AM

McNabb and Culpepper were ranked in the top 4 of your favorite rankings in 2004.

yah and plummer is sixth. the overwhelming majority are pocket qbs though. like I said, there is nothing detrimental about being athletic. it just isnt nor will it ever be the dominant trait of qbs as can plainly be seen by any reasonable person. nor are we headed in any sort of direction to bring this about.

epicSocialism4tw

04-16-2006, 01:23 AM

yah and plummer is sixth. the overwhelming majority are pocket qbs though. like I said, there is nothing detrimental about being athletic. it just isnt nor will it ever be the dominant trait of qbs as can plainly be seen by any reasonable person. nor are we headed in any sort of direction to bring this about.

You havent seen an increase of the athletic QB at the college level?

OU has one now, UT had Young, Penn State, Notre Dame (before Quinn), Ohio State, Nebraska, Georgia, Texas A&M, Missouri, Kansas State, Va Tech, etc are all big time programs who have brought athletic versatile QB's in in recent seasons, just to name a few. If they come through at the college level, the pro-style offense will have to adapt a little.

I see zero reason why an NFL offensive coordinator cant take a chance on creating an effective run/throw option offense for these guys. The Shotgun and the bootleg are about all there is right now.

If you ever coach any type of sport, one of the first things you'll learn is that you place your best athletes in positions to effect the game the most. Young is just that, and he needs the ball with the ability to destroy the defense by whatever means neccesary. You BUILD an offense around a guy like him.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 01:26 AM

You havent seen an increase of the athletic QB at the college level?

OU has one now, UT had Young, Penn State, Notre Dame (before Quinn), Ohio State, Nebraska, Georgia, Texas A&M, Missouri, Kansas State, Va Tech, etc are all big time programs who have brought athletic versatile QB's in in recent seasons, just to name a few. If they come through at the college level, the pro-style offense will have to adapt a little.

I see zero reason why an NFL offensive coordinator cant take a chance on creating an effective run/throw option offense for these guys. The Shotgun and the bootleg are about all there is right now.

supposedly bellicheck looked into this and found out that any option style offense was defeated by two simple rules.

1)stop all options that aren't the qb running
2)kill the qb

and stopped pursuing it any further. and no the pro offenses do not have to adapt to the college game.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 01:31 AM

You havent seen an increase of the athletic QB at the college level?

OU has one now, UT had Young, Penn State, Notre Dame (before Quinn), Ohio State, Nebraska, Georgia, Texas A&M, Missouri, Kansas State, Va Tech, etc are all big time programs who have brought athletic versatile QB's in in recent seasons, just to name a few. If they come through at the college level, the pro-style offense will have to adapt a little.

I see zero reason why an NFL offensive coordinator cant take a chance on creating an effective run/throw option offense for these guys. The Shotgun and the bootleg are about all there is right now.

If you ever coach any type of sport, one of the first things you'll learn is that you place your best athletes in positions to effect the game the most. Young is just that, and he needs the ball with the ability to destroy the defense by whatever means neccesary. You BUILD an offense around a guy like him.

a qb can effect the game most by distributing the ball successfully and advantageously to the other 5 athletes. its all well and good to be athletic but thats simply not a large part of the equation.

the future of qbs is peyton manning. accurate, increasingly smart and poised.

epicSocialism4tw

04-16-2006, 01:33 AM

supposedly bellicheck looked into this and found out that any option style offense was defeated by two simple rules.
1)stop all options that aren't the qb running
2)kill the qb
and stopped pursuing it any further. and no the pro offenses do not have to adapt to the college game.

Wow. That's a definitive no. You are right. About everything. ::)

We'll just stop there and you can go along with your obsession with Peyton Manning (who can only dream of having the impact on a game the way Young already has in his career).
:tearhair:

Have a nice night.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 01:34 AM

Wow. That's a definitive no. You are right. About everything. ::)

We'll just stop there and you can go along with your obsession with Peyton Manning (who can only dream of having the impact on a game the way Young already has in his career).
:tearhair:

Have a nice night.

ur an exceedingly useless poster. atleast try to put up some kind of logical argument. all u do is grandstand and bluster.

Bronco LB 59

04-16-2006, 01:39 AM

yah and plummer is sixth. the overwhelming majority are pocket qbs though. like I said, there is nothing detrimental about being athletic. it just isnt nor will it ever be the dominant trait of qbs as can plainly be seen by any reasonable person. nor are we headed in any sort of direction to bring this about.

Of course, the cerebral aspect will always be the key component of a successful quarterback. However, Vince Young's athleticism is exceptional. He's a rare breed that comes around once in a blue moon. Young is not a sure thing but he's a good roll of the dice with the right organziation.

11 years ago, Tennessee drafted Steve McNair who was a raw, athletic specimen who played against weak competition in Division 1-AA. McNair sat for awhile and he struggled as a passer early in his career as he was heavily dependent on his legs. Eventually, he blossomed into a complete quarterback winning the NFL MVP in 2003.

Given Jeff Fisher and Floyd Reese's success with McNair, I think Young can succeed in Nashville. They would probably bring him along slowly ala McNair career path. High IQ quarterbacks have been the constant of Norm Chow's coaching career dating back to his days with West Coast guru Lavell Edwards and he's in love with Vince.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 01:42 AM

Of course, the cerebral aspect will always be the key component of a successful quarterback. However, Vince Young's athleticism is exceptional. He's a rare breed that comes around once in a blue moon. Young is not a sure thing but he's a good roll of the dice with the right organziation.

11 years ago, Tennessee drafted Steve McNair who was a raw, athletic specimen who played against weak competition in Division 1-AA. McNair sat for awhile and he struggled as a passer early in his career as he was heavily dependent on his legs. Eventually, he blossomed into a complete quarterback winning the NFL MVP in 2003.

Given Jeff Fisher and Floyd Reese's success with McNair, I think Young can succeed in Nashville. They would probably bring him along slowly ala McNair career path. High IQ quarterbacks have been the constant of Norm Chow's coaching career dating back to his days with West Coast guru Lavell Edwards and he's in love with Vince.

I believe I said this already but mcnair threw the ball a ton in college and it is not a good comparison. to say a qb struggled early in his career is not particularly meaningful.

Bronco LB 59

04-16-2006, 01:52 AM

I believe I said this already but mcnair threw the ball a ton in college and it is not a good comparison. to say a qb struggled early in his career is not particularly meaningful.

Vince Young averaged 25 passing attempts a game against BCS conference competition last season and chucked the ball 40 times in the Rose Bowl against USC.

McNair did throw a lot at Alcorn State, but the competition was weak.

My point being with McNair struggling early in his career is meaningful because his passing production mirrored Michael Vick. He was a run first QB during the 90s. It took McNair a long time to develop into the polished pocket passer he is today.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 01:57 AM

Vince Young averaged 25 passing attempts a game against BCS conference competition last season and chucked the ball 40 times in the Rose Bowl against USC.

McNair did throw a lot at Alcorn State, but the competition was weak.

My point being with McNair struggling early in his career is meaningful because his passing production mirrored Michael Vick. He was arun first QB during the 90s. It took McNair a long time to develop into the polished pocket passer he is today.

my point was that any qb struggling early is pretty normal and if they are athletic it is only reasonable to assume they will run more.

anyway, sure young could be successful, one might try to model his use after a plummer/vick style. but its more likely than not that most of the best qbs of tomorrow will be pocket passers.

Rock Chalk

04-16-2006, 02:06 AM

my point was that any qb struggling early is pretty normal and if they are athletic it is only reasonable to assume they will run more.

anyway, sure young could be successful, one might try to model his use after a plummer/vick style. but its more likely than not that most of the best qbs of tomorrow will be pocket passers.
I disagree with this statement.

Defenses are faster, and far more difficult to spot blitzes in now and mobile QBs are highly attractive.

Brady isnt a pure pocket passer and can get out and move, Big Ben, Plummer, Garcia, Carr and thats just a few of the white guys, not to mention the athletic black QBs like Vick, McNabb, Culpepper, and even Leftwhich.

I see fewer Pocket passers in the future, at least, pure pocket passers like Manning and Marino anyway. Gonna have to be more versatile.

watermock

04-16-2006, 02:08 AM

UT had Young, Penn State, Notre Dame (before Quinn), Ohio State, Nebraska, Georgia, Texas A&M, Missouri, Kansas State, Va Tech, etc are all big time programs who have brought athletic versatile QB's in in recent seasons, just to name a few. If they come through at the college level, the pro-style offense will have to adapt a little.

Don't pull the race card. Couch, Leaf and Harrington have all failed. Sorry, but I explained Vick would strggle but was treated like an idiot, and people are talking Shaub now.

I'm not interested in a QB anyway.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 02:13 AM

I disagree with this statement.

Defenses are faster, and far more difficult to spot blitzes in now and mobile QBs are highly attractive.

Brady isnt a pure pocket passer and can get out and move, Big Ben, Plummer, Garcia, Carr and thats just a few of the white guys, not to mention the athletic black QBs like Vick, McNabb, Culpepper, and even Leftwhich.

I see fewer Pocket passers in the future, at least, pure pocket passers like Manning and Marino anyway. Gonna have to be more versatile.

brady is slow as crap, brady moves around great in the pocket, which is just fine because the best way to beat the blitz is to throw the ball not run away from it. manning has one of the highest qb ratings ever versus the blitz(its somewhere over 120).

so u see manning is great against the blitz, and incredibly hard to sack. all this about " u have to be fast cause ppl blitz" is hogwash.

and if u think leftwich is athletic there's no hope for u:)

Rock Chalk

04-16-2006, 02:16 AM

brady is slow as crap, brady moves around great in the pocket, which is just fine because the best way to beat the blitz is to throw the ball not run away from it. manning has one of the highest qb ratings ever versus the blitz(its somewhere over 120).

so u see manning is great against the blitz, and incredibly hard to sack. all this about " u have to be fast cause ppl blitz" is hogwash.

and if u think leftwich is athletic there's no hope for u:)
Brady is not "slow as crap", because I have seen him elude the rush, get outside of the pocket and make a play. He is probably the best QB in the NFL IMO, because he is more versatile than Manning and just as smart.

Yeah, you dont have to be fast because the flying Hawaiian is blitzing. Naw, that's why Manning has all those superbowl rings.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 02:21 AM

Brady is not "slow as crap", because I have seen him elude the rush, get outside of the pocket and make a play. He is probably the best QB in the NFL IMO, because he is more versatile than Manning and just as smart.

Yeah, you dont have to be fast because the flying Hawaiian is blitzing. Naw, that's why Manning has all those superbowl rings.

tom brady ran a 5.23 in the 40 (slower than most Linemen). he is great at sidestepping but he is like I said, slow as crap. u needn't be athletic to sidestep.

and if u wish to talk about great scrambling qb's with superbowl rings I'm all ears. because the last one was steve young. and even then he was an amazing pocket passer.

Kaylore

04-16-2006, 03:00 AM

There is a lot of stuff being thrown around here.

Scrambling Quarterbacks genreally get sacked WAY more than pocket quarterbacks. Low sack numbers are a result of a good line and the Quarterback's ability to step into the pocket and get rid of the ball.

Even so, a quarterback's ability to run is huge. Elway, Steve Young, Frank Tarkenton, and even Brett Favre are guys who won consistantly who would use their legs to make plays. The difference between these guys and Michael Vick types is that they usually would use their legs to buy more time to throw, and then try to get upfield and gain yardage (or score a TD if you're Steve Young).

People forget that Joe Montana rushed for almost sixty yards in Super Bowl XIX rushing for a lot of first downs with his legs.

Vince Young is a run to buy time and try to throw first kind of player. He is NOT another Michael Vick "halfback option".

And seperating "Scrabling QB" from "Pocket Qb" wrongfully suggests that you have to be one or the other. You certainly need to throw from the pocket but your ability to scramble makes you that much more dangerous. It's the reason that Peyton Manning and Drew Bledsoe break down under any kind of preasure.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 03:03 AM

Kaylore

04-16-2006, 03:12 AM

blah blah fluff talking about how good being a running qb is. the fact is when u look at it "that much more dangerous" is a lot less than most ppl's perception. and pocket qbs like manning are the future.

and the mere fact that there exist times when a qb makes plays with his legs does not make him a scrambler.
Blah, blah, blah I'm Yavoon and I like to argue in the face blatant logic because it makes my penis feel big.

Bronco LB 59

04-16-2006, 03:12 AM

my point was that any qb struggling early is pretty normal and if they are athletic it is only reasonable to assume they will run more

An athletic quarterback who struggles is more valuable than a young pocket passer who struggles, given they are equal in passing ability.

anyway, sure young could be successful, one might try to model his use after a plummer/vick style. but its more likely than not that most of the best qbs of tomorrow will be pocket passers.

I went back and looked at a 12 year window of 1st round QBs. I see three franchise QBs in the athlete group and two in the pocket group. The scramblers are riskier, but I don't think its a bad risk-reward proposition at all. If you don't land a franchise pocket passer like Manning, you have a decent chance of setting for a happy medium of Kerry Collins, Trent Dilfer or Chad Pennington.

One other thing I noticed, Carr and Vick have been given more leeway than Harrington/Ramsey because they are athletic.

1st round picks scramblers, 1991-2002

2002: David Carr
2001: Michael Vick
1999: Tim Couch
1999: Donovan McNabb
1999: Akili Smith
1999: Cade McNown
1999: Daunte Culpepper
1995: Steve McNair
1994: Heath Shuler
1993: Rick Mirer

1st round picks pocket passers, 1991-2002

2002: Patrick Ramsey
2002: Joey Harrington
2000: Chad Pennington
1998: Peyton Manning
1998: Ryan Leaf
1997: Jim Drunkenmiller
1995: Kerry Collins
1994: Trent Dilfer
1993: Drew Bledsoe
1992: Tommy Maddox
1992: David Klingler
1991: Dan McGwire
1991: Todd Marinovich

yavoon

04-16-2006, 03:17 AM

Blah, blah, blah I'm Yavoon and I like to argue in the face blatant logic because it makes my penis feel big.

u only gave me fluff. "wow this guy makes a play and its awesome and that adds an extra dimension" u know even though we have been infused with athletic qbs for many years now and still very few of the top qbs and even fewer of the superbowl winning qbs are athletes. I mean its almost to the point that mere coincidence would produce a higher rate than what we have.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 03:18 AM

An athletic quarterback who struggles is more valuable than a young pocket passer who struggles, given they are equal in passing ability.

I went back and looked at a 12 year window of 1st round QBs. I see three franchise QBs in the athlete group and two in the pocket group. The scramblers are riskier, but I don't think its a bad risk-reward proposition at all. If you don't land a franchise pocket passer like Manning, you have a decent chance of setting for a happy medium of Kerry Collins, Trent Dilfer or Chad Pennington.

One other thing I noticed, Carr and Vick have been given more leeway than Harrington/Ramsey because they are athletic.

1st round picks scramblers, 1991-2002

2002: David Carr
2001: Michael Vick
1999: Tim Couch
1999: Donovan McNabb
1999: Akili Smith
1999: Cade McNown
1999: Daunte Culpepper
1995: Steve McNair
1994: Heath Shuler
1993: Rick Mirer

1st round picks pocket passers, 1991-2002

2002: Patrick Ramsey
2002: Joey Harrington
2000: Chad Pennington
1998: Peyton Manning
1998: Ryan Leaf
1997: Jim Drunkenmiller
1995: Kerry Collins
1994: Trent Dilfer
1993: Drew Bledsoe
1992: Tommy Maddox
1992: David Klingler
1991: Dan McGwire
1991: Todd Marinovich

yes athletic qbs definitely get more leeway.

Kaylore

04-16-2006, 03:22 AM

u only gave me fluff. "wow this guy makes a play and its awesome and that adds an extra dimension" u know even though we have been infused with athletic qbs for many years now and still very few of the top qbs and even fewer of the superbowl winning qbs are athletes. I mean its almost to the point that mere coincidence would produce a higher rate than what we have.
Yavoon did you even read what I wrote? Half of it agreed with what you said earlier but you're so weird about having to argue with everyone you totally missed it.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 03:24 AM

Yavoon did you even read what I wrote? Half of it agreed with what you said earlier but you're so weird about having to argue with everyone you totally missed it.

well then I didnt disagree with that part. and its still fluff:)

Bronco LB 59

04-16-2006, 03:24 AM

and if u wish to talk about great scrambling qb's with superbowl rings I'm all ears. because the last one was steve young. and even then he was an amazing pocket passer.

Favre and Big Ben have more in common with the scramblers than they do with your buddy Peyton Manning.

Bronco LB 59

04-16-2006, 03:29 AM

Even so, a quarterback's ability to run is huge. Elway, Steve Young, Frank Tarkenton, and even Brett Favre are guys who won consistantly who would use their legs to make plays. The difference between these guys and Michael Vick types is that they usually would use their legs to buy more time to throw, and then try to get upfield and gain yardage (or score a TD if you're Steve Young).

Don't forget Roger Staubach, Donovan McNabb and Daunte Culpepper.

yavoon showed us a list of the pocket guys, there were a lot of second tier QBs on there. In terms of blue chippers, the quality of scramblers is right there with the pocket guys.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 03:29 AM

Favre and Big Ben have more in common with the scramblers than they do with your buddy Peyton Manning.

no they dont. both operate mainly from the pocket, and while both are definitely not unathletic I never claimed that athleticism is a detriment merely that it is secondary.

history is rife with qbs who are incredibly unathletic and great in the pocket and with ppl who are athletic and great in the pocket but very rarely do u get someone who is athletic and not great in the pocket.

if we were to say look for SB qb's who are unathletic but great in the pocket we find brady, warner, johnson. only cheeseburger has any significant athleticism and has won a superbowl in the last 6 years.

now to reverse that and look for a qb who is athletic but not great from the pocket. how far do we have to go back? perhaps one of the redskins qbs? certainly neither montana nor young would count.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 03:32 AM

Don't forget Roger Staubach, Donovan McNabb and Daunte Culpepper.

yavoon showed us a list of the pocket guys, there were a lot of second tier QBs on there. In terms of blue chippers, the quality of scramblers is right there with the pocket guys.

donovan mcnabb is not a blue chipper. he's been an average qb every year of his life except one of the years he had terrell owens. just to make clear in 2 of the last 4 years aaron brooks has had a higher rating by outsiders than mcnabb.

current blue chip qbs:
palmer
brady
manning

that is it. I might add hasselbeck, not sure.

Bronco LB 59

04-16-2006, 03:47 AM

no they dont. both operate mainly from the pocket, and while both are definitely not unathletic I never claimed that athleticism is a detriment merely that it is secondary.

I know they are deadly from the pocket, but their ability to improvise doesn't put them in the classic, dropback passer category. Improvising is a big part of both their arsenal.

In terms of pure scramblers to take their teams to the Super Bowl, look no further than Steve McNair who came up one yard short:)

Bronco LB 59

04-16-2006, 03:52 AM

donovan mcnabb is not a blue chipper. he's been an average qb every year of his life except one of the years he had terrell owens. just to make clear in 2 of the last 4 years aaron brooks has had a higher rating by outsiders than mcnabb.

current blue chip qbs:
palmer
brady
manning

that is it. I might add hasselbeck, not sure.

You are dogging scramblers by using team success (Super Bowl championships) to validate your point, but Donovan McNabb gets no credit for being a part of turning around the Philadelphia Eagles who were awful in the late 90s. The Eagles went to the postseason in his first full season as a starter and the rest is history. Way to be consistent.

-Slap-

04-16-2006, 03:53 AM

That's ignorant speculation, and Im calling you on it. You may not want the QB to be an athletic position, but its going to be. I think that Young is going to be the missing link. If its not him, than it will be another QB soon. Elway did it in the 80's, its going to happen again soon. I hope that a black dude does it so that you guys can all be misrable for 10 years while he's making waves.
Just because you run into a bunch of rednecks in your state who make disparaging remarks about black quarterbacks doesn't mean many football fans care about that anymore. Calling VY out for his abysmal Wonderlic score doesn't make you a racist. I guess the Sons of Italy should have rallied to Vinnie Testeverde's side when everybody was calling him stupid for the first decade of his career. So, VY won a National Championship and that makes him exempt? Hell, Terry Bradshaw won four Super Bowls while calling most of his own plays and people still comment about his apparent ignorance.

Criticizing VY because his throwing motion resembles someone trying to fling horse**** off his hand doesn't make you a racist. It wasn't racist when people banged on Bernie Kosar for throwing that way, not even the anti-Semites who didn't realize Bernie is Hungarian and not Jewish. When Phillip Rivers finally gets on the field and starts getting his passes knocked down, he'll hear the critics, too.

The quarterback position is a lightning rod for criticism, whether you're John Elway, Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb, Dan Marino, or whoever. About the only quarterback who never got much crap was Joe Montana and even his critics accused him of selfishness over the way things played out in Frisco at the end. The people who could never really kick him when he was a 49er took glee in watching him fall apart physically in Kansas City.

The NFL has only recently resolved its problems regarding black head coaches, but the issue of black quarterbacks was put to bed years ago. The people who want to complain because VY and Michael Vick are placed under the microscope need to realize every quarterback is dissected just as harshly, regardless of race. You remind me of the people who cried racism because skinny weak armed QBs like Charlie Ward and Rodney Peete were exposed as nothing more than NFL backups at the Combine and on Draft Day.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 03:55 AM

I know they are deadly from the pocket, but their ability to improvise doesn't put them in the classic, dropback passer category. Improvising is a big part of both their arsenal.

In terms of pure scramblers to take their teams to the Super Bowl, look no further than Steve McNair who came up one yard short:)

they are classic dropback passers because thats what they do the vast majority of the time. hasselbeck and brady also have very good pocket presence, but pocket presense is not what we are talking about here, we are talking about athleticism.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 03:58 AM

You are dogging scramblers by using team success (Super Bowl championships) to validate your point, but Donovan McNabb gets no credit for being a part of turning around the Philadelphia Eagles who were awful in the late 90s. The Eagles went to the postseason in his first full season as a starter and the rest is history. Way to be consistent.

like I said one would expect coincidence to give ur beloved scramblers a few superbowls. it hasn't happened. sure scramblers have gotten close, plummer and vick have both been to championships.

but the simple fact is its very hard to look at the list of super bowl winning qbs and not think "wow athleticism is not a determinant in the least."

yavoon

04-16-2006, 04:00 AM

You are dogging scramblers by using team success (Super Bowl championships) to validate your point, but Donovan McNabb gets no credit for being a part of turning around the Philadelphia Eagles who were awful in the late 90s. The Eagles went to the postseason in his first full season as a starter and the rest is history. Way to be consistent.

2000 was also reid's second year as head coach. also to note that mcnabb's backups prior to the disaster of 2005-6 have I believe a perfect or near perfect record. including making aj feeley look like a great gutty qb.

-Slap-

04-16-2006, 04:09 AM

2000 was also reid's second year as head coach. also to note that mcnabb's backups prior to the disaster of 2005-6 have I believe a perfect or near perfect record. including making aj feeley look like a great gutty qb.
A superficial and fellacious contention. People point out the six games McNabb missed in 2002 and note that AJ Feeley went 5-1 in those games. Closer examination reveals that he was 1-1 against teams over .500 and 4-0 against teams under .500 during that stretch. Also, he threw for only 1100 yards in those six games and his TD/INT ratio was 6/5. You're almost bad enough to work for Miami's old personnel department.

Bronco LB 59

04-16-2006, 04:15 AM

like I said one would expect coincidence to give ur beloved scramblers a few superbowls. it hasn't happened. sure scramblers have gotten close, plummer and vick have both been to championships.

but the simple fact is its very hard to look at the list of super bowl winning qbs and not think "wow athleticism is not a determinant in the least."

Plummer is not an extreme scrambler. Many of the throws he makes outside of the pocket are designed. Have you seen his rushing numbers? They are actually very similar to Elway. We're not talking about Tobin Rote and Randall Cunningham here. If you are going to characterize Plummer as a scrambler, shouldn't Elway, Tarkenton and Staubach count as well? I know Elway was settled in the pocket when Denver won the Lombardi Trophies, but those three quarterbacks I mentioned led their teams to 12 Super Bowl appearances.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 10:27 AM

Vince Young is Vince Young. He's not Steve Young, Mike Vick, John Elway, or Randall Cunningham. Vince Young might be the greatest college football player of all time.

Young will make his own name in the pros. Just like he did in college.

I like the guy, but lets not get carried away here.

Young can be compared to other players. He's not unique. He is a lot like Steve Young and John Elway. They are all mobile QBs.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 10:31 AM

I'd take him in the 7th round. Let him be a bust on someone elses team.

This is from a guy who can't figure out how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=40810

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 10:35 AM

Seriously, would rather have Matt Leinart.

Leinart will be a better version of Brian Greise, probably a much better version. Those type of QBs don't work well in Shanny's system. Mobile QBs always work well.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 10:37 AM

Young has more similarities to Vick than not. He won't get past the Titans or Oakland anyway, so it's moot. Plummer signed an extention and moved some salary back so he's here for at least two more years.

I'm not that sold on Young anyway, or Cory Jackson for that matter.

That's like saying Plummer has more similarities to Vick than not.

Running QBs and mobile QBs are two different things. Young is a mobile QB.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 10:39 AM

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 10:45 AM

the future of qb's is peyton manning, not vick or young. increasingly smart, accurate, and poised ppl who can deliver the ball successfully and advantageously to the OTHER athletes on the field.

That's a silly statement. There will always be a mix of pocket passers and mobile QBs. I don't think one will over take the other.

More and more black players are playing QB every year in college, and more of them will go pro playing QB. A good amount of them are mobile QBs. The running QBs, like Vick, most likely will make a position change, like Randel El. But the mobile QBs will always be apart of the NFL.

TexanBob

04-16-2006, 10:53 AM

I hope that a black dude does it so that you guys can all be misrable for 10 years while he's making waves.

If Vince goes to the Raiders as many of the mocks project, we Bronco fans may indeed be miserable for 10 years.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 10:54 AM

I disagree with this. Manning was already here. His name was Marino. The best QB in history (Elway IMO) was a dual threat. He pulled the same type of stuff that Young does. He exploited defenses by pulling the linebackers and safeties out of position and punishing them with a strong arm. If that wasnt there, he got the yards with his feet.

You should like this one...Young was the MOST ACCURATE thrower in college football last season. Its amazing to me that people overlook this little doozy and point at things like release point and footwork. I question the validity of anyone who claims that he never made reads and just took off running. He's got field vision as both a passer and a rusher. Watch the games. He went through progressions. Watch his head bounce from one...two..etc. It happens. I promise.

Any number of variables go into being the most accurate passer in the NCAA in regards to Young. The most important of which are #1 accuracy/smarts in ball delivery, #2 defenses put a spy on him and left guys in single coverage, #3 he made the RIGHT reads.

I totally agree with this, on both points.

First, on the dual threat point. Elway was just that, just like Young. Two plays on The Drive II against the Oilers are proof of that. 4th and 10, Elway takes off and runs for the first down. 4th and 6 on the very next series Elway is about to take off and run, when he sees the CB leave Vance Johnson to come up and make the game saving tackle. So Elway just lobbs the ball right over the CB, and Vance is running up the sideline into FG range. (yavoon is probably too young to remember that.)

Young gives those same problems to defenses. SC didn't know what the hell was coming in the Rose Bowl.

On the other point, about Young being an accurate QB, I don't see why people ignore the fact that he completed 65% of his passes last year. In the Rose Bowl he completed like 80% of his passes. It's silly. And it's unfair.

It's very unfair to question his intellegence. Saying he can't read is an insult. Saying he's stupid is an insult.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 10:55 AM

Plummer is not an extreme scrambler. Many of the throws he makes outside of the pocket are designed. Have you seen his rushing numbers? They are actually very similar to Elway. We're not talking about Tobin Rote and Randall Cunningham here. If you are going to characterize Plummer as a scrambler, shouldn't Elway, Tarkenton and Staubach count as well? I know Elway was settled in the pocket when Denver won the Lombardi Trophies, but those three quarterbacks I mentioned led their teams to 12 Super Bowl appearances.

any way u want to characterize it plummer is ~50% inside the pocket and far better outside the pocket. if I had a qb like plummer/vick I'd design a lot of scrambles too.

and I never characterized staubach period, I dont really feel like going back to the dawn of time does much good. but sure tarkenton scrambled a hell of a lot.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 10:55 AM

When did I ever question his intellegence? I said the dude cannot read...

How is that not questioning his intellegence?

yavoon

04-16-2006, 10:56 AM

That's a silly statement. There will always be a mix of pocket passers and mobile QBs. I don't think one will over take the other.

More and more black players are playing QB every year in college, and more of them will go pro playing QB. A good amount of them are mobile QBs. The running QBs, like Vick, most likely will make a position change, like Randel El. But the mobile QBs will always be apart of the NFL.

I didnt say they were going to disappear. What I meant is that the future of success in the NFL is with pocket qbs. if u can run TOO sure, fine, whatever. but the dominant trait will be performance inside the pocket.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 10:58 AM

I'm not saying slow white guys are new I'm saying they are the future. and I've seen young play nothing leads me to believe he is great inside the pocket. infact in the national championship game I remarked at how often he threw to guys ridiculously open and at a dead stop.

IMO his accuracy is a mirage created by his athleticism and the system. if no1 is wideass open just run the ball vince, easy decision.

There is a reason why his receivers were wide open. Teams have to play zones against Young. You don't want to play man, and have your QBs not watching Young if he takes off. All the DBs and LBs are reading Young, trying to stop him from running, leaving the field wide open.

Young is a nightmare to any DC.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 10:58 AM

I totally agree with this, on both points.

First, on the dual threat point. Elway was just that, just like Young. Two plays on The Drive II against the Oilers are proof of that. 4th and 10, Elway takes off and runs for the first down. 4th and 6 on the very next series Elway is about to take off and run, when he sees the CB leave Vance Johnson to come up and make the game saving tackle. So Elway just lobbs the ball right over the CB, and Vance is running up the sideline into FG range. (yavoon is probably too young to remember that.)

Young gives those same problems to defenses. SC didn't know what the hell was coming in the Rose Bowl.

On the other point, about Young being an accurate QB, I don't see why people ignore the fact that he completed 65% of his passes last year. In the Rose Bowl he completed like 80% of his passes. It's silly. And it's unfair.

It's very unfair to question his intellegence. Saying he can't read is an insult. Saying he's stupid is an insult.

maybe he shouldn't get a 6 on his wonderlic if he doesn't want to be "insulted." seriously do u know how dumb u need to be to get a 6? **** I think if u dont get a 30 ur probably a little dumb. a 6 is nearly unfathomable for me.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 11:01 AM

There is a reason why his receivers were wide open. Teams have to play zones against Young. You don't want to play man, and have your QBs not watching Young if he takes off. All the DBs and LBs are reading Young, trying to stop him from running, leaving the field wide open.

Young is a nightmare to any DC.

same things are said about vick, etc etc ad nauseum for all the super athlete qbs. they aren't winning superbowls and they aren't being ranked as the most effective qbs by the only system I know that accounts for their running(outsiders).

its nice to say "wow this guy can run anytime and then ppl can't play man and then it will be like awesome!" but in reality being able to go through ur progressions faster and hit ppl more accurately is more important than running. its also of good note that tampa/indy both have destroyed mobile qbs in recent years and both are the models for where lots of teams are moving their defenses.

Dr. Broncenstein

04-16-2006, 11:14 AM

It's very unfair to question his intellegence. Saying he can't read is an insult. Saying he's stupid is an insult.

Scoring less than 10 is equated with illiteracy or a coma. Last time I checked he was awake and could interact with his envrionment.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 11:32 AM

there is nothing WRONG with a qb being athletic. its simply not going to be the dominant trait in qbing. and ur seriously one of the most race sensitive ppl I know. u hope a black person does it?

ppl have been saying the qb will be an athletic position and ppl will be as good running as throwing for years, it never happened. the simple fact is throwing the football to the OTHER FIVE ATHLETES is vastly more important than running it urself. it always will be. lets look at the superbowl winning qbs of the last few years.

cheeseburger
dilfer
brady
brad johnson
kurt warner

varitable sprinters the lot of em!

infact u could go back even farther and say no great running qb has won the superbowl since steve young (john elway being very old by the time he won). which means that:
aikman
favre
dilfer
brady
johnson
warner
roethlisburger
elway

and of course steve young was amazing in the pocket.

Rothlessburger (I know I miss spelled that, but it's better than calling him cheeseburger) is pretty mobile. He tries to be Elway at times. Not as mobile as Elway, McNabb, Culpepper, McNair, or Steve Young, but I wouldn't consider him a pocket passer like Manning.

Almost the same with Brady. He's more of a pocket passer, but he moves well in the pocket. He's not threat to run, but he does move well.

Farve is a mobile QB. I guess you missed the bulk of his career. He's always been a mobile QB. I've called him the wacky version of Elway.

No running QB has ever won the Super Bowl. But a lot of mobile QBs have. The only running QB in the league is Vick. He, and Kordell Steward, are the only running QBs that I can think of in recent memories. Running QBs tend to suck. Vick is an exception in my book. But I don't care for running QBs. But I love mobile QBs. I'd take them over a pocket passer any day. And mobile QBs work a lot better in Shanny's system. Every mobile QB in Shanny's system has worked. None of the pocket passers have worked.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 11:35 AM

Rock Chalk

04-16-2006, 11:36 AM

Scoring less than 10 is equated with illiteracy or a coma. Last time I checked he was awake and could interact with his envrionment.
Dan Marino got a 6.

And Ryan Leaf got a much higher score.

So much for the wonderlic test being an accurate judge of a QBs ability.

epicSocialism4tw

04-16-2006, 11:43 AM

Dan Marino got a 6.

Marino couldn't progress through his reads though (dumb). He must have been a mobile (black) quarterback. ::)

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 11:44 AM

a qb can effect the game most by distributing the ball successfully and advantageously to the other 5 athletes. its all well and good to be athletic but thats simply not a large part of the equation.

the future of qbs is peyton manning. accurate, increasingly smart and poised.

I think you are missing the point. Nobody is saying that scouts should look at Vick type QBs. Nobody wants a QB that's going to take off and run all the time. Vince Young won't be running so much in the NFL.

The scouts love a mobile QB. A QB that can avoid the run and buy some extra time. A QB who can scramble to aviod the pressure, then find a receiver down field. A QB who can make a play when the play breaks down. That's what a mobile QB can give you. McNabb has been great at that over his career, and was three points away from winning a Super Bowl with that style. Culpepper has been great at that. In '03 and '04 he passed for over 8,000 yards, completed 67% of his passes, threw about 65 TDs to about 20 ints. His ability to move in the pocket, outside of the pocket, and his threat to run, helped him achieve those stats.

Running QBs-no. Mobile QBs-yes.

elsid13

04-16-2006, 11:45 AM

A QB with good passing skills (completed 65% of his passes this past year) and can run. Nope, nothing like Elway or McNair.

He playing in spread offense like Alex Smith, Omar Jacobs, etc and other that ensure a high percentage of completions, so don't read to much into. He going to need to work on his footwork and playing under center. It those two reasons why Leinart is better prepared to play right now.

epicSocialism4tw

04-16-2006, 11:50 AM

He playing in spread offense like Alex Smith, Omar Jacobs, etc and other that ensure a high percentage of completions, so don't read to much into. He going to need to work on his footwork and playing under center. It those two reasons why Leinart is better prepared to play right now.

Whether Leinart is more prepared to play next season or not isnt relelvant. Carson Palmer was a much better player coming out of college and he sat a year. Young will be a good player. Whether it's next season or 3-4 seasons down the line doesnt matter. Rookies have a slow learning curve. Especially most rook QB's. Has Carr ever lived up to his hype? Harrington sure didnt. There are exceptions to that rule, but generally QB's struggle in their first couple of NFL seasons.

Long term, I think that Young has much brighter prospects.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 11:51 AM

Blah, blah, blah I'm Yavoon and I like to argue in the face blatant logic because it makes my penis feel big.

ROFL!

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 11:54 AM

An athletic quarterback who struggles is more valuable than a young pocket passer who struggles, given they are equal in passing ability.

I can agree with this. McNabb is a good example. Early in his career, when he was developing as a passer, he ran a lot more, and the Eagles won a ton of games.

Rock Chalk

04-16-2006, 11:56 AM

Id take Young at 15.

And if he's there and we dont take him, I will throw something.

I think its moot, but since we are being hypothetical...

yavoon

04-16-2006, 11:56 AM

Rothlessburger (I know I miss spelled that, but it's better than calling him cheeseburger) is pretty mobile. He tries to be Elway at times. Not as mobile as Elway, McNabb, Culpepper, McNair, or Steve Young, but I wouldn't consider him a pocket passer like Manning.

Almost the same with Brady. He's more of a pocket passer, but he moves well in the pocket. He's not threat to run, but he does move well.

Farve is a mobile QB. I guess you missed the bulk of his career. He's always been a mobile QB. I've called him the wacky version of Elway.

No running QB has ever won the Super Bowl. But a lot of mobile QBs have. The only running QB in the league is Vick. He, and Kordell Steward, are the only running QBs that I can think of in recent memories. Running QBs tend to suck. Vick is an exception in my book. But I don't care for running QBs. But I love mobile QBs. I'd take them over a pocket passer any day. And mobile QBs work a lot better in Shanny's system. Every mobile QB in Shanny's system has worked. None of the pocket passers have worked.

plummer is a scrambler too, very mediocre in the pocket. like I also said earlier, u can find great pocket passers who are also reasonably athletic. and u can find great pocket passers who are not athletic. but u are hard pressed to find bad pocket passers who are very athletic do well. there is just very little history of it.

athletic/unathletic u can go either way and win. but ability inside the pocket is paramount.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 11:57 AM

Dan Marino got a 6.

And Ryan Leaf got a much higher score.

So much for the wonderlic test being an accurate judge of a QBs ability.

I thought marino got a 14 or 16? and I never said they were an accurate judge of qb's ability. I said u were ****ing dumb if u got a 6.

elsid13

04-16-2006, 11:58 AM

Whether Leinart is more prepared to play next season or not isnt relelvant. Carson Palmer was a much better player coming out of college and he sat a year. Young will be a good player. Whether it's next season or 3-4 seasons down the line doesnt matter. Rookies have a slow learning curve. Especially most rook QB's. Has Carr ever lived up to his hype? Harrington sure didnt. There are exceptions to that rule, but generally QB's struggle in their first couple of NFL seasons.

Long term, I think that Young has much brighter prospects.

Who knows??? it such crap shoot no matter what a guy's physical talents are. It comes down to how he handles the professional challenges of being a pro. The post I had is about the completion rate, it one of the stats that highly overrated when comparing QB that play in that spread offense. I still feel that Young has a lot of work to do to be ready for the professional game. Safe bet for long career is Chad Pennington Part 2 - Matt Leinart, most upside Young or Cutler.

epicSocialism4tw

04-16-2006, 11:58 AM

Id take Young at 15.

And if he's there and we dont take him, I will throw something.

I think its moot, but since we are being hypothetical...

I wish.

Young is going to be an electric player. He's such a team-oriented guy that his players will play for him, and he's got unbelieveable skills. His track record speaks for itself as far as dominating top-level opponents and coming away with wins.

He wont be there at 15. Im thinking that Tennessee takes him at 3.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 11:58 AM

Half of those guys suck.

thats just top to bottom today in the NFL in terms of value.

Rock Chalk

04-16-2006, 11:58 AM

I thought marino got a 14 or 16? and I never said they were an accurate judge of qb's ability. I said u were ****ing dumb if u got a 6.
Yeah, so Marino is dumb.

Helluva QB though and probably the best pure pocket passer EVER.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 12:00 PM

Yeah, so Marino is dumb.

Helluva QB though and probably the best pure pocket passer EVER.

not as dumb as young. but sure marino got a 16 and thats pretty damn stupid. its not really in the same league as a six, but its certainly plenty bad.

epicSocialism4tw

04-16-2006, 12:01 PM

Yeah, so Marino is dumb.

Helluva QB though and probably the best pure pocket passer EVER.

Boy there is a huge gap in logic there though. I think that Marino got a 12...how on earth was he able to generate the brainpower to progress trough reads in an offense designed to let him hurl passes all over the field?

Shocking. He defied logic!

Rock Chalk

04-16-2006, 12:03 PM

Boy there is a huge gap in logic there though. I think that Marino got a 12...how on earth was he able to generate the brainpower to progress trough reads in an offense designed to let him hurl passes all over the field?

Shocking. He defied logic!
No, he got single digit numbers. Might have been a 9, but Im pretty certain it was a six.

My only thought is that to score that low, you just had to not care and just marked anything down.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 12:03 PM

Boy there is a huge gap in logic there though. I think that Marino got a 12...how on earth was he able to generate the brainpower to progress trough reads in an offense designed to let him hurl passes all over the field?

Shocking. He defied logic!

marino got a 16 so u can stop embellishing ppl's scores downward so u can make dumb black ppl look better.

sorry couldn't resist:)

yavoon

04-16-2006, 12:03 PM

No, he got single digit numbers. Might have been a 9, but Im pretty certain it was a six.

My only thought is that to score that low, you just had to not care and just marked anything down.

internet says 16 in atleast 4 separate sites.

Dr. Broncenstein

04-16-2006, 12:05 PM

Dan Marino got a 6.

And Ryan Leaf got a much higher score.

So much for the wonderlic test being an accurate judge of a QBs ability.

A. I have been saying all along that Young will do just fine as a quarterback.. in fact, I think he will be great.

B. I don't equate test taking ability with football knowlege or ability.

C. Illiterate = unable to read... which is seperate from intellect and aptitude.

D. Marino got a 16, not a six

Vince Young, the gifted Texas quarterback who single-handedly defeted USC cannot read words on a page. Take it however it suits you.

Rock Chalk

04-16-2006, 12:10 PM

internet says 16 in atleast 4 separate sites.
Looking right now.

McNair got a 15.

Yeah, it was a 15, the list I saw I misread, the guy on the list right before Dan got an 8. Vince Evans from USC in 1977.

Jim Kelly got a 15, Terry Bradshaw got a 15. Jeff George got a 10. McNabb got a 14.

I guess the overall point is, some of the best QBs ever did not get admirable Wonderlic scores.

Meanwhile, Brian Griese got a 39. Kerry collins a 30 Akili Smith a 26.

Doing some precursory statistics on this, there is absolutely no corroboration between a wonderlic score and a QBs ability.

So, if he got a 6, it just means that he got a 6. Doesnt mean he is stupid because he could have just marked "A" as an option on all of them not thinking the test mattered, which, in reality, it doesnt.

azbroncfan

04-16-2006, 12:12 PM

Here's a nice quote from the article:

"But if you've got the Number 1 pick, do you take Blair Thomas or Kordell stewart"

???

yavoon

04-16-2006, 12:12 PM

Looking right now.

McNair got a 15.

Yeah, it was a 15, the list I saw I misread, the guy on the list right before Dan got an 8. Vince Evans from USC in 1977.

Jim Kelly got a 15, Terry Bradshaw got a 15. Jeff George got a 10. McNabb got a 14.

I guess the overall point is, some of the best QBs ever did not get admirable Wonderlic scores.

Meanwhile, Brian Griese got a 39. Kerry collins a 30 Akili Smith a 26.

Doing some precursory statistics on this, there is absolutely no corroboration between a wonderlic score and a QBs ability.

So, if he got a 6, it just means that he got a 6. Doesnt mean he is stupid because he could have just marked "A" as an option on all of them not thinking the test mattered, which, in reality, it doesnt.

thats ur defense that vince young just marked them all as A? hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahhahaahhaahaha.

and of course it matters if it drops vince young in the draft it matters millions of dollars matters. vince young's wonderlic is probably worth more than anyone on this forum's entire year's salary. but OTHER than that yah it didnt matter.

epicSocialism4tw

04-16-2006, 12:18 PM

Looking right now.

McNair got a 15.

Yeah, it was a 15, the list I saw I misread, the guy on the list right before Dan got an 8. Vince Evans from USC in 1977.

Jim Kelly got a 15, Terry Bradshaw got a 15. Jeff George got a 10. McNabb got a 14.

I guess the overall point is, some of the best QBs ever did not get admirable Wonderlic scores.

Meanwhile, Brian Griese got a 39. Kerry collins a 30 Akili Smith a 26.

Doing some precursory statistics on this, there is absolutely no corroboration between a wonderlic score and a QBs ability.

So, if he got a 6, it just means that he got a 6. Doesnt mean he is stupid because he could have just marked "A" as an option on all of them not thinking the test mattered, which, in reality, it doesnt.

Some more:
Cunningham 15
Mike Vick 20
Quincy Carter 30
Antwaan Randle El 17
Bradlee Van Pelt 25
Drew Henson 42

Billy Clyde Puckett

04-16-2006, 12:19 PM

Dan Marino got a 6.

And Ryan Leaf got a much higher score.

So much for the wonderlic test being an accurate judge of a QBs ability.

alec - not arguing your point, but I don't beleive you are correct about Marino's score.

Rock Chalk

04-16-2006, 12:20 PM

http://www.unc.edu/~mirabile/Wonderlic.htm (click on "Scores")

On the sidebar:
"Intelligence and Football: Testing for Differentials in Collegiate Quarterback Passing Performance and NFL Compensation:
This article presents and empirical analysis of the relationships between intelligence and both passing performance in college and compensation in the NFL. The models reveal no statistically significant relationship between intelligence and collegiate passing performance. Likewise there is no evidence of higher compensation for players with higher intelligence as measured by the Wonderlic Personnel Test.

Rock Chalk

04-16-2006, 12:21 PM

alec - not arguing your point, but I don't beleive you are correct about Marino's score.
Yes yes, pay attention, we cleared this up already.

Rock Chalk

04-16-2006, 12:22 PM

thats ur defense that vince young just marked them all as A? hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahhahaahhaahaha.

and of course it matters if it drops vince young in the draft it matters millions of dollars matters. vince young's wonderlic is probably worth more than anyone on this forum's entire year's salary. but OTHER than that yah it didnt matter.
No, thats not my defense. That's just a possibility of WHY. Not saying it is the reason, but a possible reason.

As for compensation, read my post with the link. No empirical data exists that intelligence relates to money in the NFL QB position at all.

And, if you think Vince Young is falling out of the top 10, you are kidding yourself. If you think Vince Young wont make the millions of dollars that the NFL is going to pay him, you are fooling yourself. 6 or not, Vince Young is going to make more in his NFL Career than you will in your entire life.

Wont make more than me, but he will make more than you.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 12:35 PM

No, thats not my defense. That's just a possibility of WHY. Not saying it is the reason, but a possible reason.

As for compensation, read my post with the link. No empirical data exists that intelligence relates to money in the NFL QB position at all.

And, if you think Vince Young is falling out of the top 10, you are kidding yourself. If you think Vince Young wont make the millions of dollars that the NFL is going to pay him, you are fooling yourself. 6 or not, Vince Young is going to make more in his NFL Career than you will in your entire life.

Wont make more than me, but he will make more than you.

yah I'm not even going to respond to silly drivel like this post.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 12:36 PM

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 12:39 PM

no they dont. both (Farve and Rothisburger (sp)) operate mainly from the pocket, and while both are definitely not unathletic I never claimed that athleticism is a detriment merely that it is secondary.

Did you watch Farve's career? He was never a pocket passer. He was always a mobile QB. He was an Elway type QB, not a Manning or Marino type QB. I guess you weren't old enough to see Farve in his MVP days.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 12:41 PM

donovan mcnabb is not a blue chipper. he's been an average qb every year of his life except one of the years he had terrell owens. just to make clear in 2 of the last 4 years aaron brooks has had a higher rating by outsiders than mcnabb.

current blue chip qbs:
palmer
brady
manning

that is it. I might add hasselbeck, not sure.

Total BS. I see you are just a stats geek. McNabb has been one of the top QBs in the league for a number of years. He's a winner. Elway didn't have the best stats, but he was always reguarded as one of the best QBs every year because he was a winner, just like McNabb.

Kaylore

04-16-2006, 12:44 PM

epicSocialism4tw

04-16-2006, 12:44 PM

Total BS. I see you are just a stats geek. McNabb has been one of the top QBs in the league for a number of years. He's a winner. Elway didn't have the best stats, but he was always reguarded as one of the best QBs every year because he was a winner, just like McNabb.

Ive always thought that McNabb played alot like Elway. Big throws in critical situations. He's always thrown to mediocre recievers as well. I dont think he's quite as good, but he's a big game player for sure. He's definately one of the best QB's of his era.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 12:47 PM

and I never characterized staubach period, I dont really feel like going back to the dawn of time does much good.

Because you can't. You can't go past the past 5 years. None of your arguments go past the past 5 years. What are you, like 15 years old? You sure act like it.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 12:47 PM

Purely pocket passers are a liability because you know that when things break down they are screwed. Kerry Collins, Drew Bledsoe, Dan Marino and Peyton Manning all suck when they are flushed from the pocket and can't make plays with their feet or on the move. Brady, Elway, Favre, Montana, Young - all these guys use(d) their mobility to escape and make plays.

To suggest that pure pocket quarterbacks are the future is wrong because the reverse is true. The way linemen are getting faster and stronger, you're going to need a QB who can beat an elite rush and make something happen when protection breaks down.

except there is no evidence to suggest ur view. the top 5 qbs in the NFL last year were all pocket, superbowl winning quarterbacks have not only been pocket qbs but have been near stiffs. the future is distribution of the football in an intelligent and advantageous manner to ur other athletes. not running it urself.

the future is brady/manning/palmer. palmer being the only even reasonable athlete out of all of them while brady and manning are slower than most lineman.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 12:48 PM

Because you can't. You can't go past the past 5 years. None of your arguments go past the past 5 years. What are you, like 15 years old? You sure act like it.

when talking about the future isnt it good to use the recent past? should we talk about the option days and wing formation at notre dame? ur argument is ****ing retarded.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 12:48 PM

I didnt say they were going to disappear. What I meant is that the future of success in the NFL is with pocket qbs. if u can run TOO sure, fine, whatever. but the dominant trait will be performance inside the pocket.

There will always be a good mix of both pocket and mobile QBs. It is silly to say that the future is in pocket passers. The mobile QB isn't going away.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 12:49 PM

Total BS. I see you are just a stats geek. McNabb has been one of the top QBs in the league for a number of years. He's a winner. Elway didn't have the best stats, but he was always reguarded as one of the best QBs every year because he was a winner, just like McNabb.

mcnabb is a winner is he? what does it take to be a winner? have one of the best defenses in the NFL behind u? how about throwing a pick in the waning moments of championship game directly to a db? is that what it takes to be a winner?

ur arguments are assinine and based on pure perception.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 12:50 PM

maybe he shouldn't get a 6 on his wonderlic if he doesn't want to be "insulted." seriously do u know how dumb u need to be to get a 6? **** I think if u dont get a 30 ur probably a little dumb. a 6 is nearly unfathomable for me.

I guess you think he cheated to get that 16.

BTW, that 16 that he scored is higher than the 14 that Marino scored.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 12:50 PM

There will always be a good mix of both pocket and mobile QBs. It is silly to say that the future is in pocket passers. The mobile QB isn't going away.

there will be a mix of pocket qbs w/ almost no mobility and pocket qbs with decent to good mobility. there will not be many mobile qbs.

but yes the mobile qb is not "going away" u r right there.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 12:51 PM

I guess you think he cheated to get that 16.

BTW, that 16 that he scored is higher than the 14 that Marino scored.

marino got a 16 and yes I think vince young's 16 is bull**** coverup. I think its likely that they just rehanded him the same test he took earlier.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 12:54 PM

plummer is a scrambler too, very mediocre in the pocket. like I also said earlier, u can find great pocket passers who are also reasonably athletic. and u can find great pocket passers who are not athletic. but u are hard pressed to find bad pocket passers who are very athletic do well. there is just very little history of it.

athletic/unathletic u can go either way and win. but ability inside the pocket is paramount.

QBs who are bad in the pocket but are very athletic either change position in the NFL, or they go play in Canada.

The mobile QBs that I mentioned are all good in the pocket. Even Plummer is good in the pocket. He doesn't compare to Manning, but he's good enough in the pocket to be an NFL QB.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 12:56 PM

QBs who are bad in the pocket but are very athletic either change position in the NFL, or they go play in Canada.

The mobile QBs that I mentioned are all good in the pocket. Even Plummer is good in the pocket. He doesn't compare to Manning, but he's good enough in the pocket to be an NFL QB.

plummer is not good by nfl standards in the pocket.

Kaylore

04-16-2006, 12:59 PM

yavoon

04-16-2006, 01:01 PM

You can't reason with Yavoon, Jason. He's already emotionally invested in his argument and now it's about "winning" the argument so he feels good. Read the famous Rod Smith thread - some of the stupidest logic I've ever read came from Yavoon. Just move along.

I'm not emotionally invested in anything. I'm just responding to the misconceptions of ppl. I know ur upset that ur perceptions have no basis in reality, but thats not really my fault.

Billy Clyde Puckett

04-16-2006, 01:01 PM

Yes yes, pay attention, we cleared this up already.

Do you have a link? I know he is more intelligent than that and I read that Roger Vick has the lowest score ever at 7.

Billy Clyde Puckett

04-16-2006, 01:02 PM

I guess you think he cheated to get that 16.

BTW, that 16 that he scored is higher than the 14 that Marino scored.

14 for Marinio is more like what I remember

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 01:02 PM

when talking about the future isnt it good to use the recent past? should we talk about the option days and wing formation at notre dame? ur argument is ****ing retarded.

They weren't running the option or wing formation in the '80s or '90s. Those are recent years, especially the '90s. Your lack of knowledge when it comes to the history of the game kills a lot of your arguments. It's like you can't even make a point about anything that happened in the 1900s. You just don't know.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 01:03 PM

They weren't running the option or wing formation in the '80s or '90s. Those are recent years, especially the '90s. Your lack of knowledge when it comes to the history of the game kills a lot of your arguments. It's like you can't even make a point about anything that happened in the 1900s. You just don't know.

just in this thread I talked about aikman, young and montana. are u going to continue to makeup things about me in order to attempt to prove ur point by default? I mean I know it'd be rough to actually try and let ur point stand on its own.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 01:03 PM

ur argument is ****ing retarded.

You haven't proved any of my points wrong, or even questionable, but they are retarded? Dude, you are childish.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 01:06 PM

mcnabb is a winner is he? what does it take to be a winner? have one of the best defenses in the NFL behind u? how about throwing a pick in the waning moments of championship game directly to a db? is that what it takes to be a winner?

ur arguments are assinine and based on pure perception.

Take him off the Eagles and they don't go to any of those title games.

He leads them to four NFC title games (I never said he did it by himself), and he has them 3 points away from tying the game in the Super Bowl. Nope, he's never won anything.

You gave us a list of QB that you thought were good. Most of them haven't won as much as McNabb.

Care to revise your statement?

Billy Clyde Puckett

04-16-2006, 01:06 PM

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 01:08 PM

marino got a 16 and yes I think vince young's 16 is bull**** coverup. I think its likely that they just rehanded him the same test he took earlier.

You sound like you should be a writer for PFT.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 01:09 PM

You haven't proved any of my points wrong, or even questionable, but they are retarded? Dude, you are childish.

u have no support for any of ur points, an interesting note woudl to be compile the 40 times of all the superbowl winning qbs in the last 15 years, or perhaps the approximate times when they won.

kurt warner- slow as ****
brad johnson- slow as ****
roethlisburger- ok speed
brady- slow as ****
dilfer- slow as ****
37 year old elway- ok speed
aikman- slow as ****
montana- decent speed
young- fast
favre- ok speed

I'd say there's almost a REVERSE correlation between speed and winning superbowls. and it gets especially absurd if u start considering the combined speeds of brady/dilfer/warner/johnson who have won 6 of the last 7 superbowls and are all slower than most lineman.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 01:09 PM

You sound like you should be a writer for PFT.

it was such a hackneyed coverup. if u followed it at all u'd realize that there was serious damage control going on.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 01:11 PM

Take him off the Eagles and they don't go to any of those title games.

He leads them to four NFC title games (I never said he did it by himself), and he has them 3 points away from tying the game in the Super Bowl. Nope, he's never won anything.

You gave us a list of QB that you thought were good. Most of them haven't won as much as McNabb.

Care to revise your statement?

really because his backups pre 2005-6 had a great record. I think mcnabb could be replaced relatively easily on those old eagles teams. now I'm not saying mcnabb sucks. just that he's far more average than ppl think, like I said in 2 out of the last 4 years he has been outperformed by aaron brooks.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 01:13 PM

just in this thread I talked about aikman, young and montana. are u going to continue to makeup things about me in order to attempt to prove ur point by default? I mean I know it'd be rough to actually try and let ur point stand on its own.

That was just name dropping. You didn't say much about the guys. Everybody knows a little something about them. Hell, I can drop Bart Star in one of my arguments. But that woudn't make me right. I wasn't around to see the guy play.

*That doesn't mean I don't know anything about Bart Star. I like to think of myself as a student of the game. So I know my history. But somebody who was around to watch Bart Star play would know more about the guy then me.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 01:15 PM

That was just name dropping. You didn't say much about the guys. Everybody knows a little something about them. Hell, I can drop Bart Star in one of my arguments. But that woudn't make me right. I wasn't around to see the guy play.

*That doesn't mean I don't know anything about Bart Star. I like to think of myself as a student of the game. So I know my history. But somebody who was around to watch Bart Star play would know more about the guy then me.

was there some reason I should give a dissertation on them? I just name dropped recent qbs too. it was about building my point not about appeasing ur stupidity.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 01:16 PM

really because his backups pre 2005-6 had a great record. I think mcnabb could be replaced relatively easily on those old eagles teams. now I'm not saying mcnabb sucks. just that he's far more average than ppl think, like I said in 2 out of the last 4 years he has been outperformed by aaron brooks.

Slap already proved this point wrong. He said that McNabbs backups during the '03 season (I think) went 4-0 against bad teams, but 1-1 against teams over .500.

Your point about Brooks just shows that you are a stats geek. I could look it up and find many QBs who had better stats than Elway while Elway was leading an average team to Super Bowls.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 01:18 PM

Slap already proved this point wrong. He said that McNabbs backups during the '03 season (I think) went 4-0 against bad teams, but 1-1 against teams over .500.

Your point about Brooks just shows that you are a stats geek. I could look it up and find many QBs who had better stats than Elway while Elway was leading an average team to Super Bowls.

oh I'm sorry did mcnabb play 100% good teams to accumulate his record? its inane to try to splice it up like that since mcnabb played cupcakes too. and its not like the qbs performed poorly and barely won(say like kyle orton). the qbs looked decent to good with the same talent mcnabb had.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 01:20 PM

was there some reason I should give a dissertation on them? I just name dropped recent qbs too. it was about building my point not about appeasing ur stupidity.

I don't think you know much of anything about any of those players, other than what is common knowledge.

You said Farve was a pocket passer. That shows that you don't know what you are talking about. If Farve was a pocket passer, than so was Elway and Young. But nobody would call those guys pocket passers. Well, nobody who knows anything about the history of the game.

You haven't watched football long enough to have these grown up debates.

Kind of like a debate I had with my father about MLB vs. the Negro leagues this morning. I was no match, because he was around to see both leagues. So I backed down...for now. I know a guy who wrote a book on the Negro leagues, so I'm going to ask him about the topic.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 01:25 PM

I don't think you know much of anything about any of those players, other than what is common knowledge.

You said Farve was a pocket passer. That shows that you don't know what you are talking about. If Farve was a pocket passer, than so was Elway and Young. But nobody would call those guys pocket passers. Well, nobody who knows anything about the history of the game.

You haven't watched football long enough to have these grown up debates.

Kind of like a debate I had with my father about MLB vs. the Negro leagues this morning. I was no match, because he was around to see both leagues. So I backed down...for now. I know a guy who wrote a book on the Negro leagues, so I'm going to ask him about the topic.

young 4239 yards rushing
elway 3404 yards rushing
favre 1745 yards rushing

yah they're practically the same qb. ur continued attempts to try and grandstand on ur intelligence and now adding silly ass anecdotes is getting old. I think u've done this before too and it was no more intelligent the last time. u simply can not let ur points stand on their own, ur main thrust in this entire thread is ur attempt to degrade my intelligence.

how about we attack the argument and not the arguer for once here? because honestly this is sad and pathetic in the world of arguing, and gets u laughed at.

-Slap-

04-16-2006, 01:27 PM

Boy there is a huge gap in logic there though. I think that Marino got a 12...how on earth was he able to generate the brainpower to progress trough reads in an offense designed to let him hurl passes all over the field?

Shocking. He defied logic!

Marino got a 16. (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/magazine/life_of_reilly/news/2001/04/17/life_of_reilly/)

Teams aren't supposed to release the scores, but they're usually leaked anyway. Among quarterbacks Brian Griese is said to have scored a 39, Drew Bledsoe 37, Steve Young 33, John Elway 30, Troy Aikman 29, Cade McNown 28, Mark Brunell 22, Tim Couch 22, Trent Dilfer 22, Brett Favre 22, Daunte Culpepper 21, Vinny Testaverde 18, Dan Marino 16, Randall Cunningham 15 and Jeff George 10. Kicker Sebastian Janikowski reportedly got a 9, though he offered $500 to the test proctor to give him a 10. (Kidding.) This year Florida quarterback Jesse Palmer is said to have scored a 32, and TCU star running back LaDainian Tomlinson only had a 13. Anytime your Wonderlic approaches your cleat size, it's not good.

Marino also had a textbook overhand release that was so quick he had a split second more time to survey the field than just about any quarterback who ever played. He also knew he couldn't run, so he learned the nuances involved in moving around in the pocket. I mean, people jam on the guy for not liking to get hit, but he was very hard to sack and he attempted more passes than anybody in history.

In 1986, Randall Cunningham played 15 games. He attempted 209 passes and completed 111 of them. He was also sacked a mind boggling 72 times, second most in history before David Carr's Tex Cobb impersonation down in Houston. I think Marino probably went four seasons into his career before he absorbed that many sacks.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 01:30 PM

Going by yavoon's logic, in 1986 Ken O'Brien and Bernie Kosar were better QBs than Elway. They had better stats.

In '87, when Elway won the NFL MVP, Neil Lomax and a few other QBs put up better numbers than Elway. I guess, going by yavoon's logic, Elway should have turned that trophy down.

Hell, why am I bothering. yavoon probably has never heard of the players that I just mentioned.

-Slap-

04-16-2006, 01:30 PM

Slap already proved this point wrong. He said that McNabbs backups during the '03 season (I think) went 4-0 against bad teams, but 1-1 against teams over .500.

Your point about Brooks just shows that you are a stats geek. I could look it up and find many QBs who had better stats than Elway while Elway was leading an average team to Super Bowls.
Exactly. The prime example is Dave Krieg. I swear I remember reading some moron in Inside Sports magazine saying that Dave Krieg was a better QB than Elway and his quarterback rating proved it.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 01:32 PM

-Slap-

04-16-2006, 01:33 PM

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 01:35 PM

young 4239 yards rushing
elway 3404 yards rushing
favre 1745 yards rushing

yah they're practically the same qb. ur continued attempts to try and grandstand on ur intelligence and now adding silly ass anecdotes is getting old. I think u've done this before too and it was no more intelligent the last time. u simply can not let ur points stand on their own, ur main thrust in this entire thread is ur attempt to degrade my intelligence.

how about we attack the argument and not the arguer for once here? because honestly this is sad and pathetic in the world of arguing, and gets u laughed at.

You just don't get it. I don't judge mobile QBs on how many rushing yards they have. I judge them on their ability to avoid the rush, get out of the pocket, and buy some extra time for their WRs to get open. That's what Farve did. Plummer didn't have a lot of rushing yards this past year, does that make him a pocket passer?

Your stats don't help you in the Farve being a pocket passer debate. Marino, the ultimate pocket passer, had 87 rushing yards for his career. Learn your history son.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 01:37 PM

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 01:38 PM

Its too bad Neil Lomax never caught any breaks - bad teams, bad injuries - but he was a damn fine quarterback. Probably one of the most underrated who ever played.

Yeah, my point wasn't to diss Lomax. Just stating that stats isn't everything. Stats doesn't make Brooks a better QB than McNabb, like yavoon was trying to say.

epicSocialism4tw

04-16-2006, 01:42 PM

Marino got a 16. (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/magazine/life_of_reilly/news/2001/04/17/life_of_reilly/)

Marino also had a textbook overhand release that was so quick he had a split second more time to survey the field than just about any quarterback who ever played. He also knew he couldn't run, so he learned the nuances involved in moving around in the pocket. I mean, people jam on the guy for not liking to get hit, but he was very hard to sack and he attempted more passes than anybody in history.

In 1986, Randall Cunningham played 15 games. He attempted 209 passes and completed 111 of them. He was also sacked a mind boggling 72 times, second most in history before David Carr's Tex Cobb impersonation down in Houston. I think Marino probably went four seasons into his career before he absorbed that many sacks.

Sure, I understand Marino's effectiveness in the pocket. He threw quickly and with perfect velocity and arc on top of his pocket awareness. It was a thing of beauty. Much more aesthetically pleasing than Manning's half-duck/half-line drive/shoulder chop throw.

That wasnt what I was getting at though. I was stating that Marino's 15 Wonderlic score didnt translate to processing speed relating to progressing through reads. Marino picked apart defenses with his brain. The Wonderlic suggested that that wasnt likely when he was drafted.

Young, despite showing evidence of being an outstanding accurate passer (#1 in the NCAA) is getting shot down by ignorant people who contest that he wont be able to make reads in the NFL. Part of being the most accurate passer against the top competition in the world for players his age (he was a junior playing in the Big 12 and against teams like USC, Ohio State, etc) is making the correct read. Young was something like 30-40 against USC on top of his 200 yards rushing. Outstanding. People seem too willing to throw that, a pro day that exceeded expectations, and an outstanding career as both a rusher and a passer out the window because he got a 16 on a stadardized test and throws the ball like he's flinging poo. We're talking about a player that Micheal Jordan'ed two major football schools (one team that went into the game with a 'best team ever' label by some) in consecutive Rose Bowls where they were heavy underdogs. How people overlook that is beyond me.

-Slap-

04-16-2006, 01:45 PM

Yeah, my point wasn't to diss Lomax. Just stating that stats isn't everything. Stats doesn't make Brooks a better QB than McNabb, like yavoon was trying to say.
I understood where you were coming from. I just mention that Lomax was underrated whenever his name comes up. I really admired his grit. He played on terrible teams, and he played through the pain of a degenerative hip condition, and he still put up solid numbers every season. His career only lasted eight years.

+---------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Passing | Rushing |
+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Year TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD |
+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+
| 1981 stl | 14 | 119 236 50.4 1575 6.7 4 10 | 19 104 2 |
| 1982 stl | 9 | 109 205 53.2 1367 6.7 5 6 | 28 119 1 |
| 1983 stl | 13 | 209 354 59.0 2636 7.4 24 11 | 27 127 2 |
| 1984 stl | 16 | 345 560 61.6 4614 8.2 28 16 | 35 184 3 |
| 1985 stl | 16 | 265 471 56.3 3214 6.8 18 12 | 32 125 0 |
| 1986 stl | 14 | 240 421 57.0 2583 6.1 13 12 | 35 148 1 |
| 1987 stl | 12 | 275 463 59.4 3387 7.3 24 12 | 29 107 0 |
| 1988 pho | 14 | 255 443 57.6 3395 7.7 20 11 | 17 55 1 |
+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+
| TOTAL | 108 | 1817 3153 57.6 22771 7.2 136 90 | 222 969 10 |
+----------+-----+---------------------------------------+-----------------+

yavoon

04-16-2006, 01:49 PM

You just don't get it. I don't judge mobile QBs on how many rushing yards they have. I judge them on their ability to avoid the rush, get out of the pocket, and buy some extra time for their WRs to get open. That's what Farve did. Plummer didn't have a lot of rushing yards this past year, does that make him a pocket passer?

Your stats don't help you in the Farve being a pocket passer debate. Marino, the ultimate pocket passer, had 87 rushing yards for his career. Learn your history son.

so now u have to be a complete stiff to be a pocket passer? yah sure if we let in everyone w/ over 100 yards rushing in their career into "mobile" land then lotsa ppl count. I've already made a post regarding this:

there will be good pocket qbs w/ almost no mobility and there will be good pocket qbs w/ decent to good mobility. Both can win because they have good pocket skills. there will be very few qbs without good pocket skills and good mobility who win and history has born this out. infact the rate at which stiffs are winning superbowls has increased.

pocket passing is harder than its ever been and its more important than its ever been. thats why we are seeing all these stiffs winning superbowls, because pocket skills has become the dominant skillset and other skillsets prove no correlation with superbowls.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 01:51 PM

Yeah, my point wasn't to diss Lomax. Just stating that stats isn't everything. Stats doesn't make Brooks a better QB than McNabb, like yavoon was trying to say.

why not? outsiders takes more than a tertiary look into qb value. its not like I said brooks had a better qb rating(leaving u to whine about his running ability).

do u just get to makeup by popular perception who is better than whom?

yavoon

04-16-2006, 01:53 PM

Plummer won't even come close to Elway's rushing totals. Are you going to say that he was a pocket passer? Plummer is going to end up with more rushing yards than Farve, but not by many.

So there goes that point yavoon.

the point goes nowhere, u keep hijacking things and using them for completely tangential uses. and plummer will pass favre's rushing total in like a year. and plummer is what? 5 years younger?

again its obvious plummer has accumulated rushing yards faster than favre. what point are u even trying to make here? my point on the rushing yards was that favre had HALF THE RUSHING YARDS of the other two ppl u mentioned. it is obvious that elway/young are better running qbs than favre.

-Slap-

04-16-2006, 02:03 PM

Sure, I understand Marino's effectiveness in the pocket. He threw quickly and with perfect velocity and arc on top of his pocket awareness. It was a thing of beauty. Much more aesthetically pleasing than Manning's half-duck/half-line drive/shoulder chop throw.

That wasnt what I was getting at though. I was stating that Marino's 15 Wonderlic score didnt translate to processing speed relating to progressing through reads. Marino picked apart defenses with his brain. The Wonderlic suggested that that wasnt likely when he was drafted.

Young, despite showing evidence of being an outstanding accurate passer (#1 in the NCAA) is getting shot down by ignorant people who contest that he wont be able to make reads in the NFL. Part of being the most accurate passer against the top competition in the world for players his age (he was a junior playing in the Big 12 and against teams like USC, Ohio State, etc) is making the correct read. Young was something like 30-40 against USC on top of his 200 yards rushing. Outstanding. People seem too willing to throw that, a pro day that exceeded expectations, and an outstanding career as both a rusher and a passer out the window because he got a 16 on a stadardized test and throws the ball like he's flinging poo. We're talking about a player that Micheal Jordan'ed two major football schools (one team that went into the game with a 'best team ever' label by some) in consecutive Rose Bowls where they were heavy underdogs. How people overlook that is beyond me.

First off, VY beat one of the best college teams ever, but by no means did he beat one of the best college defenses ever.

Nobody really understands exactly how differently the brains of top athletes process information, but we do know that it is different. When Steve Nash runs down the court he sees things that regular people, and even most other basketball players, do not see. The same thing is true for quarterbacks at the highest levels of play. At the pro level, instincts can only carry you so far as a quarterback. Defenses are too sophisticated. They will learn your tendencies and plan for them and exploit your weaknesses. Practice, repetition, dedication and intelligence are necessary to take your game to another level and succeed as a pro.

I look at Michael Vick and figure I better enjoy him while he's healthy because he seems unable or unwilling to do what it takes to master the more cerebral aspects of the position.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 02:16 PM

Again grandstanding and putting words in my mouth, do u even know how to argue another way? Because if this is as sophisticated as u can get thats depressing.

I see you have no real answer to the points that I made. Just admit defeat and go away.

epicSocialism4tw

04-16-2006, 02:18 PM

First off, VY beat one of the best college teams ever, but by no means did he beat one of the best college defenses ever.

How about this then: he singularly outplayed one of the greatest college offenses ever.

Nobody really understands exactly how differently the brains of top athletes process information, but we do know that it is different. When Steve Nash runs down the court he sees things that regular people, and even most other basketball players, do not see. The same thing is true for quarterbacks at the highest levels of play. At the pro level, instincts can only carry you so far as a quarterback. Defenses are too sophisticated. They will learn your tendencies and plan for them and exploit your weaknesses. Practice, repetition, dedication and intelligence are necessary to take your game to another level and succeed as a pro.

I dont disagree with this. Young has shown the maturity and diligence to have his practice pay off at UT. He also has shown alot of character in the process of declaring for and preparing for the draft. I have seen no reason why he should be doubted as to what his work ethic and football intelligence will produce at the NFL level.

As far as field vision, Young's is superb. Watch him throw the ball, and watch him follow blockers and exploit space on the field. I think that his field vision is what makes him a special player.

I look at Michael Vick and figure I better enjoy him while he's healthy because he seems unable or unwilling to do what it takes to master the more cerebral aspects of the position.

Mike Vick is a much different player and individual than Young. Young is a guy that his teammates will play for. They are different players as well. I dont see a whole lot of similarities between the two. "Black" and "fast" are the only two that work, and neither of those describe Young's effectiveness as a player.

Bronco LB 59

04-16-2006, 02:22 PM

any way u want to characterize it plummer is ~50% inside the pocket and far better outside the pocket. if I had a qb like plummer/vick I'd design a lot of scrambles too.

and I never characterized staubach period, I dont really feel like going back to the dawn of time does much good. but sure tarkenton scrambled a hell of a lot.

If you don't want to go back to the beginning of time, why not give Steve McNair (XXXIV) and Donovan McNabb (XXXIX) their due to taking their teams to the Super Bowl in recent years? Both were scramblers.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 02:23 PM

the point goes nowhere, u keep hijacking things and using them for completely tangential uses. and plummer will pass favre's rushing total in like a year. and plummer is what? 5 years younger?

again its obvious plummer has accumulated rushing yards faster than favre. what point are u even trying to make here? my point on the rushing yards was that favre had HALF THE RUSHING YARDS of the other two ppl u mentioned. it is obvious that elway/young are better running qbs than favre.

By the time Plummer and Farve finish their careers, Plummer won't have that many more rushing yards than Farve. He might beat him by a few hundred yards. But Elway has doubled Farve in rushing yards, and will nearly double Plummer in rushing yards. So, going by your logic, because Plummer is nowhere near Elway in rushing yards, he must be a pocket passer.

Your point is lame.

BTW, a good pocket passer with good mobility is a mobile QB. Nobody wants a QB that totally sucks from the pocket. Unless his name is Vick, and even then there are many people who wouldn't want him.

epicSocialism4tw

04-16-2006, 02:27 PM

Something I noticed in the Rose Bowl statistics:
Young spread the ball among his receivers just as evenly as Leinart, Troy Smith/Zwick, Joel Klatt, and considerably more evenly than Chad Henne.

He progresses through reads and completes passes.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 02:27 PM

If you don't want to go back to the beginning of time, why not give Steve McNair (XXXIV) and Donovan McNabb (XXXIX) their due to taking their teams to the Super Bowl in recent years? All of whom were scramblers.

Going by yavoon's logic, none of them one the big game, so they don't help our argument...even though yavoon gave us a list of pocket passers who have never won the big game. I'll take McNabb (lost the Super Bowl by 3 points), and McNair (lost the Super Bowl by one yard), over just about anybody on that list that yavoon posted.

**I can't say the same for Gannon. He lost the Super Bowl by 27 points ;D

Okay yavoon, I gave you one there (Gannon). Don't say I'm not nice.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 02:28 PM

Mike Vick is a much different player and individual than Young. Young is a guy that his teammates will play for. They are different players as well. I dont see a whole lot of similarities between the two. "Black" and "fast" are the only two that work, and neither of those describe Young's effectiveness as a player.

People just don't want to realize that. Young is nothing like Vick.

epicSocialism4tw

04-16-2006, 02:32 PM

People just don't want to realize that. Young is nothing like Vick.

No doubt. Young is pass-first, progress through reads, and THEN escape.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 02:41 PM

In 1986, Randall Cunningham played 15 games. He attempted 209 passes and completed 111 of them. He was also sacked a mind boggling 72 times, second most in history before David Carr's Tex Cobb impersonation down in Houston. I think Marino probably went four seasons into his career before he absorbed that many sacks.

I have a theory on why mobile QBs get sacked more than pocket passers. I'd say it's because GMs feel that they have a QB that can avoid the rush and make plays on their own, that they don't build up the O lines, or give their QBs the weapons they need. Notice that a lot of mobile QBs have very good defenses? Cunningham always had a great defense with the Eagles. Dan Reeves built some good defenses with the Broncos. When the Falcons went 12-4, their defense was very good. McNabb had very good defenses.

But all of those teams lacked a good O line, and weapons for the QB. Randell was running around making plays all by himself. Elway didn't have much to work with on O. McNabb was a one man show on O until they got TO. I'd say the biggest reason why they lost the Super Bowl to the Pats was because the Eagles O line stunk up the joint. McNabb took all the heat, but he was under heavy pressure all night long, and he still threw for 350 yards. Who is on the Falcons O besides Vick and Crumpler? They seem to waste money on WRs, rather than just building the best O line possible.

These GMs will focus on the D and expect their QBs to be a one man show on O. If they would build good offensive lines for these guys they'd be better. Look at what Elway did when he finally got a good O line. They were able to run the ball a lot more, and Elway was able to have more time in the pocket.

My son is a huge Eagles fan, so I follow the team. If the Broncos don't win it all, I'm pulling for the Eagles so my son can be happy. If McNabb had a good O line there, that team would win it all. Their running game would be a whole lot better, and McNabb wouldn't be running around so much trying to make plays.

Pocket passers, on the other hand, get great offenses built around them. Look at what the Colts have done for Manning. They've spent all their money on that offense. Look at Marino. Don Shula changed the entire offense to fit Marino's style. Built a great pass blocking O line. And gave him good receivers to throw the ball to.

-Slap-

04-16-2006, 02:42 PM

People just don't want to realize that. Young is nothing like Vick.
Because you guys want to completely avoid questions about Young's intelligence. There is plenty of legitimate concern posed by his Wonderlic score. As far as Michael Vick goes, there is more than enough anecdotal evidence out there to suggest he's closer to Billy Joe Tolliver than Bernie Kosar in the brains department. It might be a race issue to you and it might be a race issue to some people who look down on blacks in general, but for most people its about their raw physical tools and the list of quarterbacks who've come into the League running 4.4 40s is shorter than Smelvin's pecker.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 02:45 PM

Rock Chalk

04-16-2006, 02:47 PM

who are u arguing with? did some invisible person say that wonderlic is directly related to qb ability that I haven't seen? maybe its like a voice inside ur head?
Broncostein seemed to think his 6 made him a bad QB.

YOu should know better than to assume Im speaking with someone as ignorant as your ass. Whenever I post, assume its not directed towards you unless I specifically "Hey dip****, Im talking to you".

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 02:51 PM

Because you guys want to completely avoid questions about Young's intelligence. There is plenty of legitimate concern posed by his Wonderlic score. As far as Michael Vick goes, there is more than enough anecdotal evidence out there to suggest he's closer to Billy Joe Tolliver than Bernie Kosar in the brains department. It might be a race issue to you and it might be a race issue to some people who look down on blacks in general, but for most people its about their raw physical tools and the list of quarterbacks who've come into the League running 4.4 40s is shorter than Smelvin's pecker.

I don't think the wonderlic proves anything about Young's intelligence. I'd say that test is a complete waste of time.

I heard a story about McNair. Either the owner, or the GM, of the Titans was worried McNair's low score. I think he scored a 15 or 16. So he pulled McNair to the side, and gave him a football quiz. After the quiz, the guy said that McNair was his guy.

Point is that the wonderlic doesn't measure football knowledge, so why is it even a factor? I go as far as to say it's not even a factor. Young, even with his 6, or 16, however people want to see it, will still be drafted in the top 10. There's a very good chance he'll be a good pro. If he is a bust, it's not going to be because of a low wonderlic. We've seen that QBs with high wonderlic scores have sucked.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 02:53 PM

Thinking about the whole debate some more, the two poster children for pocket passers, Manning and Marino, never won the title.

Well yavoon, what do you have to say about that?

I guess it's more than just the QB position that wins the Super Bowl. So their goes your entire argument about pocket passers being better because they win more Super Bowls.

brady is one of the best and slowest pocket passers of all time. and if u want to look at who is winning superbowls they are almost entirely pocket passers. u haven't a leg to stand on;.

Play2win

04-16-2006, 02:56 PM

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 02:57 PM

Broncostein seemed to think his 6 made him a bad QB.

YOu should know better than to assume Im speaking with someone as ignorant as your ass. Whenever I post, assume its not directed towards you unless I specifically "Hey dip****, Im talking to you".

BBBBBBBBBBUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought Kaylore's diss on yavoon was the best of the thread, but I think this one topped it.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 02:57 PM

By the time Plummer and Farve finish their careers, Plummer won't have that many more rushing yards than Farve. He might beat him by a few hundred yards. But Elway has doubled Farve in rushing yards, and will nearly double Plummer in rushing yards. So, going by your logic, because Plummer is nowhere near Elway in rushing yards, he must be a pocket passer.

Your point is lame.

BTW, a good pocket passer with good mobility is a mobile QB. Nobody wants a QB that totally sucks from the pocket. Unless his name is Vick, and even then there are many people who wouldn't want him.

u keep making up what u think my logic is. u said favre/elway/young were similarly mobile I showed u that u were full of **** and now u want to take that and put more words into my mouth? ur incorrigable.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 02:57 PM

yavoon

04-16-2006, 02:59 PM

BBBBBBBBBBUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought Kaymore's diss on yavoon was the best of the thread, but I think this one topped it.

this fits perfectly in with ur juvenile, unsophisticated and ultimately wrong approach to this thread.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 02:59 PM

brady is one of the best and slowest pocket passers of all time. and if u want to look at who is winning superbowls they are almost entirely pocket passers. u haven't a leg to stand on;.

Hey dip **** (sorry Alec, I had to steal that one ;D),

How would you know? You've only been watching football for the past 5 years. You think Farve is a pocket passer.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 03:02 PM

Broncostein seemed to think his 6 made him a bad QB.

YOu should know better than to assume Im speaking with someone as ignorant as your ass. Whenever I post, assume its not directed towards you unless I specifically "Hey dip****, Im talking to you".

"A. I have been saying all along that Young will do just fine as a quarterback.. in fact, I think he will be great.

B. I don't equate test taking ability with football knowlege or ability."

maybe u also posess literacy problems.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 03:03 PM

Hey dip **** (sorry Alec, I had to steal that one ;D),

How would you know? You've only been watching football for the past 5 years. You think Farve is a pocket passer.

I dont think I know favre is a pocket passer. and this is the same tired **** u've always been using but now u want to jump on alec's bandwagon? u think sucking his cock will make u look better?

elsid13

04-16-2006, 03:03 PM

I don't think VY progresses through reads at all, he just see somebody open and throws it to them. It is on that level. That simple. He could get away with it because of Athleticism, but is he athletically gifted enough to get away with it at the NFL LEVEL?!?

That Mac Brown didn't do Young any good for the next level. If he wasn't a great athlete he have to follow Chris Simms path into the NFL and be mid round choice. Like I said before, Young has stuff he needs to work on, if he has time to did it and doesn't pull something stupid he has chance to be a good QB in the league.

-Slap-

04-16-2006, 03:04 PM

I don't think the wonderlic proves anything about Young's intelligence. I'd say that test is a complete waste of time.

I heard a story about McNair. Either the owner, or the GM, of the Titans was worried McNair's low score. I think he scored a 15 or 16. So he pulled McNair to the side, and gave him a football quiz. After the quiz, the guy said that McNair was his guy.

Point is that the wonderlic doesn't measure football knowledge, so why is it even a factor? I go as far as to say it's not even a factor. Young, even with his 6, or 16, however people want to see it, will still be drafted in the top 10. There's a very good chance he'll be a good pro. If he is a bust, it's not going to be because of a low wonderlic. We've seen that QBs with high wonderlic scores have sucked.

Well, that's okay, I'm sure some teams place less emphasis upon the Wonderlic than others, but the League has been administering that test to prospective players for over 30 years, so a lot of people feel it carries some weight. Its entirely possible that Marino's 16 caused him to go after five quarterbacks in 1983. Maybe not. His senior year was a little disappointing and there were some coke rumors, but it sure didn't help his cause.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 03:05 PM

u keep making up what u think my logic is. u said favre/elway/young were similarly mobile I showed u that u were full of **** and now u want to take that and put more words into my mouth? ur incorrigable.

You didn't prove anything. You seem to think stats proves everything. But they really don't. Plummer's rushing totals are, and will be, similar to Farve's. Please explain that. How can they have similar rushing numbers (and will when they are both finished), but one be a pocket passer and one be a scramber? And how can Farve be a pocket passer when his rushing numbers are nothing near what Marino's rushing numbers are?

You tried to use rushing stats as the bench mark of a scambler and pocket passer. But I showed that the stats don't support your arguement in any way. Your stats don't lead to the conclusion that you want. They lead to more questions. The stats that you brought up backs up my point more than your point.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 03:07 PM

You didn't prove anything. You seem to think stats proves everything. But they really don't. Plummer's rushing totals are, and will be, similar to Farve's. Please explain that. How can they have similar rushing numbers (and will when they are both finished), but one be a pocket passer and one be a scramber? And how can Farve be a pocket passer when his rushing numbers are nothing near what Marino's rushing numbers are?

You tried to use rushing stats as the bench mark of a scambler and pocket passer. But I showed that the stats don't support your arguement in any way. Your stats don't lead to the conclusion that you want. They lead to more questions. The stats that you brought up backs up my point more than your point.

plummer has the same rushing totals of favre in about 2/3rds the time. how is that "the same" do u live in a black hole of logic?

and we're comparing to entirely different levels of qb here. favre is talented in the pocket plummer is not. favre derives most of his(considerable more ability than plummer) from his pocket ability.

and u keep telling urself that I think stats are everything when at no time have I ever said such a thing. its just another strawman u setup so u can knock it down. I use stats because they are useful, u dont use them because u lack the ability to understand them. I'd stick to bandwagoning if I were u.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 03:07 PM

I dont think I know favre is a pocket passer. and this is the same tired **** u've always been using but now u want to jump on alec's bandwagon? u think sucking his cork will make u look better?

I've been using your lack of knowledge in the history department for a long time because it's true. You've done nothing to disprove it. And it kills a lot of your arguments.

You are a kid trying to debate with grown ups on subjects that you don't konw about.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 03:08 PM

yavoon

04-16-2006, 03:09 PM

I've been using your lack of knowledge in the history department for a long time because it's true. You've done nothing to disprove it. And it kills a lot of your arguments.

You are a kid trying to debate with grown ups on subjects that you don't konw about.

again more inane grandstanding that proves nothing. u have the arguing ability of a turnip.

epicSocialism4tw

04-16-2006, 03:10 PM

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 03:19 PM

plummer has the same rushing totals of favre in about 2/3rds the time. how is that "the same" do u live in a black hole of logic?

and we're comparing to entirely different levels of qb here. favre is talented in the pocket plummer is not. favre derives most of his(considerable more ability than plummer) from his pocket ability.

and u keep telling urself that I think stats are everything when at no time have I ever said such a thing. its just another strawman u setup so u can knock it down. I use stats because they are useful, u dont use them because u lack the ability to understand them. I'd stick to bandwagoning if I were u.

At the rate both players are going, I'd say that Plummer out rushes Farve by a few hundred yards. You tried to make the point that because Elway out rushed Farve by 1700 yards, that they are different QBs. Plummer won't come close to out rushing Farve by 1700 yards. I'd say 400, tops. But probably less than that.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 03:19 PM

again more inane grandstanding that proves nothing. u have the arguing ability of a turnip.

Then prove the point wrong.

Kaylore

04-16-2006, 03:46 PM

Well, that's okay, I'm sure some teams place less emphasis upon the Wonderlic than others, but the League has been administering that test to prospective players for over 30 years, so a lot of people feel it carries some weight. Its entirely possible that Marino's 16 caused him to go after five quarterbacks in 1983. Maybe not. His senior year was a little disappointing and there were some coke rumors, but it sure didn't help his cause.
We'll see. His completion percentage was off the hook, and his QB rating was pretty good too. He seems to do very well at making good decisions and protecting his body in games. And no one can doubt his clutch play. It's not like the offense was dumbed down for him either.

I feel he'll have the same bumps of any rookie QB in the NFL but will be judged more harshly because everyone thinks he's a taller Michael Vick. When Eli finishes a game, everyone looks at how he grew and what a great player he's becoming. Every mistake Young makes will have people around the league nodding their heads about "that wonderlic" and how they "so knew". If he's got the go-nads he'll overcome and be successful. He has all the tools.

Dr. Broncenstein

04-16-2006, 04:25 PM

Broncostein seemed to think his 6 made him a bad QB.

YOu should know better than to assume Im speaking with someone as ignorant as your ass. Whenever I post, assume its not directed towards you unless I specifically "Hey dip****, Im talking to you".

Look man. I posted about 5 different times that I think he's a great quarterback. If you don't read my posts, then don't paraphrase me.

Dr. Broncenstein

04-16-2006, 04:28 PM

As a matter of fact, this post was directed directly towards you Alec.
A. I have been saying all along that Young will do just fine as a quarterback.. in fact, I think he will be great.

B. I don't equate test taking ability with football knowlege or ability.

C. Illiterate = unable to read... which is seperate from intellect and aptitude.

D. Marino got a 16, not a six

Vince Young, the gifted Texas quarterback who single-handedly defeted USC cannot read words on a page. Take it however it suits you.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 08:56 PM

At the rate both players are going, I'd say that Plummer out rushes Farve by a few hundred yards. You tried to make the point that because Elway out rushed Farve by 1700 yards, that they are different QBs. Plummer won't come close to out rushing Farve by 1700 yards. I'd say 400, tops. But probably less than that.

plummer has rushed for approximately double the yards/year that favre has.

honestly, learn math.

yerner

04-16-2006, 09:29 PM

id trade both of out first for vinny young. roll the dice. you can pick apart everybody. all i know is he did everything they say he cant in college. ive never seen anyone dominate like that. if it doesnt work, big deal. it wont ruin the broncs.

that said, im someone who would gamble on a hooker in mexico. Hey now.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 10:50 PM

plummer has rushed for approximately double the yards/year that favre has.

honestly, learn math.

I don't think you know who you are dealing with here. You just can't win.

I did the math, which you seem to think that I can't do. And not surprisingly, it works in my favor.

Seems like you took a quick look at the stats and thought you found a gem. But you didn't look deep enough. If you haven't noticed, I'll go farther than just about anybody to prove a point.

You didn't factor in the fact that Farve has stopped running over the past six years because he's gotten older. Not surprised that you didn't know that, seeing that you've only been watching football for a good 5 years or so. You missed Farve's glory days, when he used to run around and make plays.

Plummer has been in the league for 8 seasons, all of which he was a starter. Farve didn't start until his second year in the league. If you look at Farve's first 8 years as a starter, and Plummer's 8 years as a starter, the rushing numbers are pretty close. Farve averaged 174 yards per season. Plummer averaged 192 rushing yards per season. Those numbers are pretty close. Plummer has a slight edge, but not by the margin that you tried to claim.

Seeing that their numbers are similar over that period, are you still going to say that one was a pocket passer, and one was a scrambler?

If you want to look even further, you can see where Farve slowed down. Starting in Farve's 9th year as a starter, he ran for 108, the lowest total of his career, by far. Since that year he hasn't ran for more than 73 yards in any season. One season he only ran for 15 yards. Over this period of time Farve has only ran for 350 yards, that's 58 yards per season.

If Plummer follows this course (there's really no telling if he will or won't, I'm just throwing numbers out there now), he's slow down as well. Remember, Plummer is 32, or will turn 32 this year. This past year he ran for the second lowest total of his career. The lowest of his career was in a season where he only played in 12 games, so we can pretty much say he ran the least amount in his career this past year. He may continue to slow down like Farve did. Lets say Plummer averages only 70 yards over the next five years to close out his career. That will give him an extra 350 yards, and slightly over 300 yards more for a career than Farve, in about the same amount of games. What did I say, Plummer would end up out gaining Farve by a good 400 yards. Looks like I might be right.

There you have it dip ****. You didn't peel the onion back far enough. I did the math, and they back up my point.

Just face it, you can't win. You never will be able to win. At this point, any response will just be you making a bigger fool out of yourself.

You don't have to admit you are wrong. I'll let you off the hook. Just STFU and I'll be happy. Everybody around here will be happy.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 10:58 PM

I don't think you know who you are dealing with here. You just can't win.

I did the math, which you seem to think that I can't do. And not surprisingly, it works in my favor.

Seems like you took a quick look at the stats and thought you found a gem. But you didn't look deep enough. If you haven't noticed, I'll go farther than just about anybody to prove a point.

You didn't factor in the fact that Farve has stopped running over the past six years because he's gotten older. Not surprised that you didn't know that, seeing that you've only been watching football for a good 5 years or so. You missed Farve's glory days, when he used to run around and make plays.

Plummer has been in the league for 8 seasons, all of which he was a starter. Farve didn't start until his second year in the league. If you look at Farve's first 8 years as a starter, and Plummer's 8 years as a starter, the rushing numbers are pretty close. Farve averaged 174 yards per season. Plummer averaged 192 rushing yards per season. Those numbers are pretty close. Plummer has a slight edge, but not by the margin that you tried to claim.

Seeing that their numbers are similar over that period, are you still going to say that one was a pocket passer, and one was a scrambler?

If you want to look even further, you can see where Farve slowed down. Starting in Farve's 9th year as a starter, he ran for 108, the lowest total of his career, by far. Since that year he hasn't ran for more than 73 yards in any season. One season he only ran for 15 yards. Over this period of time Farve has only ran for 350 yards, that's 58 yards per season.

If Plummer follows this course (there's really no telling if he will or won't, I'm just throwing numbers out there now), he's slow down as well. Remember, Plummer is 32, or will turn 32 this year. This past year he ran for the second lowest total of his career. The lowest of his career was in a season where he only played in 12 games, so we can pretty much say he ran the least amount in his career this past year. He may continue to slow down like Farve did. Lets say Plummer averages only 70 yards over the next five years to close out his career. That will give him an extra 350 yards, and slightly over 300 yards more for a career than Farve, in about the same amount of games. What did I say, Plummer would end up out gaining Farve by a good 400 yards. Looks like I might be right.

There you have it dip ****. You didn't peel the onion back far enough. I did the math, and they back up my point.

Just face it, you can't win. You never will be able to win. At this point, any response will just be you making a bigger fool out of yourself.

You don't have to admit you are wrong. I'll let you off the hook. Just STFU and I'll be happy. Everybody around here will be happy.

god thats a lot of post with very little information. fact is plummer couldn't do what favre did. plummer is a ~50% passer from the pocket. Favre has no such problem. like I've said, what? 8 times. u can be good from the pocket with decent-good mobility u can be good from the pocket with no mobility, but u can't be bad from the pocket.

plummer is stuck bootlegging and running now until he retires. but if u wish to project plummer to take a career path he hasn't the skill to take then thats ok w/ me. ur funeral.

but if u want to compare rushers further plummer handicapped by 6 years has more 20+ yard runs, more rushing tds, a higher average and is behind by 7 first downs and four yards. its obvious who is the better runner and who runs more often and its even MORE obvious who is the better pocket passer, but thats a discussion for another time

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 11:06 PM

god thats a lot of post with very little information. fact is plummer couldn't do what favre did. plummer is a ~50% passer from the pocket. Favre has no such problem. like I've said, what? 8 times. u can be good from the pocket with decent-good mobility u can be good from the pocket with no mobility, but u can't be bad from the pocket.

plummer is stuck bootlegging and running now until he retires. but if u wish to project plummer to take a career path he hasn't the skill to take then thats ok w/ me. ur funeral.

That's the best you got? I went killed your argument, and that's your comeback? You didn't address anything that I said. I guess you can't, because I left you with nowhere to go. I've used all the stats that you've provided against you. I've used your stats to make you look silly.

You just can't admit that you were wrong.

That's a lot of post that says that you really are a dip ****. You are out of your league here. Come back in 10 years when you've watched enough football to debate with the big boys.

It's funny that instead of countering the points that I made, you just rehashed your old points.

I'd say this debate is pretty much over.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 11:10 PM

That's the best you got? I went killed your argument, and that's your comeback? You didn't address anything that I said. I guess you can't, because I left you with nowhere to go. I've used all the stats that you've provided against you. I've used your stats to make you look silly.

You just can't admit that you were wrong.

That's a lot of post that says that you really are a dip ****. You are out of your league here. Come back in 10 years when you've watched enough football to debate with the big boys.

It's funny that instead of countering the points that I made, you just rehashed your old points.

I'd say this debate is pretty much over.

at first I thought ur post said too little but I added onto it if anyone is dumb enough to think that plummer doesn't rely on running more than favre or that somehow favre is a better runner than plummer.

and for god sakes enough w/ the grandstanding its the most tiresome act ever. like when u jumped on alec's cock after he made a completely stupid post? I mean jesus.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 11:13 PM

I think its time for a recap. I've said:

plummer is a better runner than favre, true.

favre is great from the pocket, true.

plummer is not good from the pocket, true.

to be successful u can be great from the pocket and have decent-good mobility or great from the pocket and have no mobility. but u can't be bad from the pocket. true.

just helps to recap.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 11:16 PM

at first I thought ur post said too little but I added onto it if anyone is dumb enough to think that plummer doesn't rely on running more than favre or that somehow favre is a better runner than plummer.

and for god sakes enough w/ the grandstanding its the most tiresome act ever. like when u jumped on alec's cork after he made a completely stupid post? I mean jesus.

In the first half of Farve's career, when you were playing with your big wheel and watching the Power Rangers, he did rely on running ability more than he has over the past 6 years. Most of it was to get out of the pocket and find receivers down field. At times he pulled the ball down and ran. Going by the stats, he did it nearly as much as Plummer has done in his career.

You just don't want to admit that I used your own stats to destroy your argument. You don't even want to counter it.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 11:19 PM

In the first half of Farve's career, when you were playing with your big wheel and watching the Power Rangers, he did rely on running ability more than he has over the past 6 years. Most of it was to get out of the pocket and find receivers down field. At times he pulled the ball down and ran. Going by the stats, he did it nearly as much as Plummer has done in his career.

You just don't want to admit that I used your own stats to destroy your argument. You don't even want to counter it.

he hasn't though, he hasn't the 20+ gains the td's or the first downs that plummer has. and of course he was vastly better from the pocket which implies that he did not rely on the run as much as plummer. plummer has also averaged under 4 yards/carry three times, favre has averaged under 4 nine times. there is no real comparison.

see how that works? fun huh.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 11:22 PM

I think its time for a recap. I've said:

plummer is a better runner than favre, true.

Did you look at the break down of the stats? Looks like I already proved that point wrong. Back when you were playing with the pogs, Farve was scrambling all over the place. The stats showed that he ran as much as Plummer did earlier in his career.

You are reaching for anything right about now. You are a worm on the hook. Just go away quietly. At this point you are just making a fool out of yourself.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 11:25 PM

Did you look at the break down of the stats? Looks like I already proved that point wrong. Back when you were playing with the pogs, Farve was scrambling all over the place. The stats showed that he ran as much as Plummer did earlier in his career.

You are reaching for anything right about now. You are a worm on the hook. Just go away quietly. At this point you are just making a fool out of yourself.

more ad hominem (which is really all any of ur posts do anyway), plummer has the advantage over favre in the following stats.

yards
long gains
touchdowns
first downs
average

what other statistic would u like plummer to have an advantage in? because thats really all the stats there are so unfortunately thats about all I can say plummer is better in. and as for ur assertion that plummer will now settle down and become a great pocket passer like favre, thats laughable. at best plummer will continue to be as good as he is w/ his mobility.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 11:28 PM

he hasn't though, he hasn't the 20+ gains the td's or the first downs that plummer has. and of course he was vastly better from the pocket which implies that he did not rely on the run as much as plummer. plummer has also averaged under 4 yards/carry three times, favre has averaged under 4 nine times. there is no real comparison.

see how that works? fun huh.

What facts back any of that up?

Yeah, Farve should have averaged under 4 yards per carry more times. Can you read. Didn't I already make the point that Farve has stopped running as much over the past 6 years? Show me the stats that says that Plummer was much better running than Farve during Farve's prime. You can't. I already showed that they were similar.

Show me the stats that says that Plummer has had many more 20 yard runs, or many the TDs, or many more first downs. You are just making crap up at this point to save face. Every turn you make, everything that you come up with, I'm just stomping all over it.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 11:31 PM

What facts back any of that up?

Yeah, Farve should have averaged under 4 yards per carry more times. Can you read. Didn't I already make the point that Farve has stopped running as much over the past 6 years? Show me the stats that says that Plummer was much better running than Farve during Farve's prime. You can't. I already showed that they were similar.

Show me the stats that says that Plummer has had many more 20 yard runs, or many the TDs, or many more first downs. You are just making crap up at this point to save face. Every turn you make, everything that you come up with, I'm just stomping all over it.

how many more stats would u like plummer to lead in? he can't lead in more than there are and he leads in all those. and like I said ur idea that plummer will not settle down and become some great pocket passer is utter crap. he will keep chugging along relying on his mobility like everyone on this forum already knows.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 11:33 PM

more ad hominem (which is really all any of ur posts do anyway), plummer has the advantage over favre in the following stats.

yards
long gains
touchdowns
first downs
average

what other statistic would u like plummer to have an advantage in? because thats really all the stats there are so unfortunately thats about all I can say plummer is better in. and as for ur assertion that plummer will now settle down and become a great pocket passer like favre, thats laughable. at best plummer will continue to be as good as he is w/ his mobility.

First of all, you made the point that Plummer was a scrambler, and Farve was a pocket passer, meaning that Plummer should blow Farve away in the running stats. And you even came up with stats to prove that. You showed stats that says that Elway blows Farve away in rushing stats. If Plummer is a different QB, then he should also be blowing away Farve in rushing stats. I have since proved that Plummer only has a slight advantage. Now you have changed your argument to say that Plummer has advantages over Farve. I always said that Plummer had the advantage. But it's not by much. It's not enough to say that one is a pocket passer and one is a scrambler. Don't change the argument now. You gotta go down with that ship.

I never said Plummer would go down hill. Go back and read my post.

I never said that Plummer would become a better pocket passer. I never even implied that. I don't know where you came up with that one.

watermock

04-16-2006, 11:35 PM

Jake won't be 32 till december and hasn't had major injuries. Sorry, he will be here for at least 3, maybe 5 more years. I vote we give him some shorter range, physical targets as he ages. He didn't look like he was slowing down to me last year, I will tell you when he's old. Gannon ran to the SB almost once, then twice at 38 I think.

We look at QB when his contract gets thin, not this year.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 11:36 PM

First of all, you made the point that Plummer was a scrambler, and Farve was a pocket passer, meaning that Plummer should blow Farve away in the running stats. And you even came up with stats to prove that. You showed stats that says that Elway blows Farve away in rushing stats. If Plummer is a different QB, then he should also be blowing away Farve in rushing stats. I have since proved that Plummer only has a slight advantage. Now you have changed your argument to say that Plummer has advantages over Farve. I always said that Plummer had the advantage. But it's not by much. It's not enough to say that one is a pocket passer and one is a scrambler. Don't change the argument now. You gotta go down with that ship.

I never said Plummer would go down hill. Go back and read my post.

I never said that Plummer would become a better pocket passer. I never even implied that. I don't know where you came up with that one.

for the dozenth time my original and main point is that u can be a good pocket passer w/ decent to good mobility and u can be a good pocket passer with no mobility but u cant be bad in the pocket.

my original point on plummer is that he relied on scrambling while favre had great pocket skills and therefore did not. and while it is not a detriment to be a good scrambler it is infact relatively unimportant compared to ur pocket abilities.

so as u can see it all ties in.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 11:37 PM

how many more stats would u like plummer to lead in? he can't lead in more than there are and he leads in all those. and like I said ur idea that plummer will not settle down and become some great pocket passer is utter crap. he will keep chugging along relying on his mobility like everyone on this forum already knows.

Again, I never said that Plummer would become a better pocket passer. You just made that up. I guess that's what you are resorting to now.

You showed that Elway killed Farve in the rushing stats, implying that it proved that Farve was a pocket passer. I've showed stats that say that Plummer is slightly better than Plummer in the rushing department. Now you've changed your argument. If Plummer is a scrambler, than shouldn't he be killing Farve in that department like Elway is? Fact is he isn't. Plummer isn't going to get anywhere near 3400 rushing yards. He won't get too many more than 2000. His numbers will be closer to Farve's than to Elway's.

It's not about who has the advantage. Like I've said from the beginning, Plummer has the advantage. But it's not enough to put them in different catagories, like you are trying to do.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 11:39 PM

Again, I never said that Plummer would become a better pocket passer. You just made that up. I guess that's what you are resorting to now.

You showed that Elway killed Farve in the rushing stats, implying that it proved that Farve was a pocket passer. I've showed stats that say that Plummer is slightly better than Plummer in the rushing department. Now you've changed your argument. If Plummer is a scrambler, than shouldn't he be killing Farve in that department like Elway is? Fact is he isn't. Plummer isn't going to get anywhere near 3400 rushing yards. He won't get too many more than 2000. His numbers will be closer to Farve's than to Elway's.

It's not about who has the advantage. Like I've said from the beginning, Plummer has the advantage. But it's not enough to put them in different catagories, like you are trying to do.

no because plummer is half the qb favre is. so with half the skill plummer needs his scrambling and it is a much larger part of his game. plummer will continue to play and continue to scramble and open up an even larger lead on favre in rushing stats. and...here comes the broken record part....

u can be a good pocket passer w/ decent to good mobility and u can be a good pocket passer with no mobility but u cant be bad in the pocket.

see how it all ties in now?

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 11:39 PM

for the dozenth time my original and main point is that u can be a good pocket passer w/ decent to good mobility and u can be a good pocket passer with no mobility but u cant be bad in the pocket.

my original point on plummer is that he relied on scrambling while favre had great pocket skills and therefore did not. and while it is not a detriment to be a good scrambler it is infact relatively unimportant compared to ur pocket abilities.

so as u can see it all ties in.

Who cares what your original point is.? This thread has had many different points. We aren't even arguing about Vince Young anymore.

But the point on hand, I've made a fool out of you with.

You should stop now. In the morning everybody is going to read this and just laugh at the ass kicking you've taken.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 11:41 PM

Who cares what your original point is.? This thread has had many different points. We aren't even arguing about Vince Young anymore.

But the point on hand, I've made a fool out of you with.

You should stop now. In the morning everybody is going to read this and just laugh at the ass kicking you've taken.

plummer leads favre in every rushing category and will only extend his lead as he goes on.

plummer relies on his scrambling more than favre because favre had great pocket talents.

plummer will not dwindle off and become some pocket passer.

and more ad hominem from u.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 11:42 PM

no because plummer is half the qb favre is. so with half the skill plummer needs his scrambling and it is a much larger part of his game. plummer will continue to play and continue to scramble and open up an even larger lead on favre in rushing stats. and...here comes the broken record part....

u can be a good pocket passer w/ decent to good mobility and u can be a good pocket passer with no mobility but u cant be bad in the pocket.

see how it all ties in now?

This started by you saying that Farve was a pocket passer. In Farve's glory days, before you were watching football, when Farve was winning MVPs, he wasn't a pocket passer. He was a scrambler. He was a gun slinger. He would run all over the place making plays. He would scramble like a chicken with his head cut off, then launch a rocket pass and hit a huge play. He was a lot like Elway. He wasn't a pocket passer like Marino or Aikman.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 11:42 PM

u could use this:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

it would make it simpler for me.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 11:44 PM

plummer leads favre in every rushing category and will only extend his lead as he goes on.

plummer relies on his scrambling more than favre because favre had great pocket talents.

plummer will not dwindle off and become some pocket passer.

and more ad hominem from u.

You aren't reading my posts. It's not about having the edge. I gave stats that showed that Plummer has the edge. But you are trying to say that Farve is a pocket passer, while Plummer is a scrambler. The stats show that during Farve's prime he ran nearly as much as Plummer did.

Why can't you understand that point?

You don't want to acknowledge that point because it kills your argument.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 11:44 PM

This started by you saying that Farve was a pocket passer. In Farve's glory days, before you were watching football, when Farve was winning MVPs, he wasn't a pocket passer. He was a scrambler. He was a gun slinger. He would run all over the place making plays. He would scramble like a chicken with his head cut off, then launch a rocket pass and hit a huge play. He was a lot like Elway. He wasn't a pocket passer like Marino or Aikman.

gun slinger and scrambler are not the same. and favre, like we're already said is nowhere near elway.

ur right though favre is unlike marino and aikman in that....

u can be a good pocket passer w/ decent to good mobility and u can be a good pocket passer with no mobility but u cant be bad in the pocket.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 11:45 PM

You aren't reading my posts. It's not about having the edge. I gave stats that showed that Plummer has the edge. But you are trying to say that Farve is a pocket passer, while Plummer is a scrambler. The stats show that during Farve's prime he ran nearly as much as Plummer did.

Why can't you understand that point?

You don't want to acknowledge that point because it kills your argument.

it doesn't kill my argument

u can be a good pocket passer w/ decent to good mobility and u can be a good pocket passer with no mobility but u cant be bad in the pocket.

watermock

04-16-2006, 11:45 PM

freaking cat fight over splitting hairs. STFU both of you.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 11:45 PM

u could use this:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

it would make it simpler for me.

I have attacked your argument in every way. I've attacked every point that you have made. You aren't even debating my points anymore. Then you come up with this BS. You are the one attacking the person instead of argument.

Yeah, I'm attacking you, only after I attacked, and killed, every point of your argument.

You are reaching now.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 11:47 PM

gun slinger and scrambler are not the same. and favre, like we're already said is nowhere near elway.

ur right though favre is unlike marino and aikman in that....

u can be a good pocket passer w/ decent to good mobility and u can be a good pocket passer with no mobility but u cant be bad in the pocket.

But you want to say that Plummer is along the lines of Elway, but his numbers are more like Farve's.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 11:47 PM

freaking cat fight over splitting hairs. STFU both of you.

Man, STFU and go play with your damn cats.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 11:49 PM

yavoon, bottom line, you don't want to admit that Farve wasn't a pocket passer during his prime. I'm telling you that he was a scambler. I watched him play in the mid-late '90s. He played a lot like Elway. And his rushing numbers support the argument that he wasn't a pocket passer.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 11:54 PM

I have attacked your argument in every way. I've attacked every point that you have made. You aren't even debating my points anymore. Then you come up with this BS. You are the one attacking the person instead of argument.

Yeah, I'm attacking you, only after I attacked, and killed, every point of your argument.

You are reaching now.

more grandstanding and the ironic use of ad hominem by claiming ur not to blame for ad hominem....

yavoon

04-16-2006, 11:54 PM

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 11:55 PM

You were pretty easy to beat. Not the first time I've kicked your ass around here.

Jason in LA

04-16-2006, 11:56 PM

favre was not only a good pocket passer he was a great pocker passer.

You still don't want to admit that Farve was a scrambler. How long around you going to keep this up.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 11:57 PM

But you want to say that Plummer is along the lines of Elway, but his numbers are more like Farve's.

really? elway and plummer have the same avg(4.4) and are w/in 10% in yards/year and 20% in tds/year.

yavoon

04-16-2006, 11:58 PM

You still don't want to admit that Farve was a scrambler. How long around you going to keep this up.

favre scrambled but was a pocket passer (and a good one at that), like I said:

u can be a good pocket passer w/ decent to good mobility and u can be a good pocket passer with no mobility but u cant be bad in the pocket.

Jason in LA

04-17-2006, 12:00 AM

really? elway and plummer have the same avg(4.4) and are w/in 10% in yards/year and 20% in tds/year.

Did you read my post showing that Farve was very close to Plummer over his first 8 years as a starter? You know that post when you said I said very little?

The numbers back up my points.

If Plummer was so close to Elway, then Plummer would be well on his way to running for over 3000 yards. He's not even going to get to 2300.

Jason in LA

04-17-2006, 12:01 AM

favre scrambled but was a pocket passer (and a good one at that), like I said:

u can be a good pocket passer w/ decent to good mobility and u can be a good pocket passer with no mobility but u cant be bad in the pocket.

Scrambler is different from a pocket passer. Marino and Manning are pocket passers. QBs like Elway and Farve are scramblers.

yavoon

04-17-2006, 12:01 AM

Did you read my post showing that Farve was very close to Plummer over his first 8 years as a starter? You know that post when you said I said very little?

The numbers back up my points.

If Plummer was so close to Elway, then Plummer would be well on his way to running for over 3000 yards. He's not even going to get to 2300.

u mean if plummer was sayin w/in 10% of elway in yards/year?

Jason in LA

04-17-2006, 12:02 AM

There is nothing that says that a scrambler can't be good from the pocket. I want a scambler that's good from the pocket. That's what Elway was. That's what Farve was duing his glory years. If you were old enough to watch those guys, you'd know what I'm talking about.

yavoon

04-17-2006, 12:02 AM

Scrambler is different from a pocket passer. Marino and Manning are pocket passers. QBs like Elway and Farve are scramblers.

no, favre's predominant ability was his ability inside the pocket. he may have made some nice highlight plays, but his true talent was between the hashmarks. thats why favre is a pocket passer.

u dont have to be a complete stiff to be a pocket passer.

Jason in LA

04-17-2006, 12:03 AM

u mean if plummer was sayin w/in 10% of elway in yards/year?

I've already proved that Farve's numbers during his prime were close to Plummer's rushing wise. What more do I need to say on the suject? At this point, you just don't want to admit that you were wrong.

Jason in LA

04-17-2006, 12:04 AM

no, favre's predominant ability was his ability inside the pocket. he may have made some nice highlight plays, but his true talent was between the hashmarks. thats why favre is a pocket passer.

u dont have to be a complete stiff to be a pocket passer.

How would you know that if you didn't watch him during his prime? I am speaking as a person who watched it first hand. You are speaking as a person who just looked up some stats and is trying to form an argument.

yavoon

04-17-2006, 12:05 AM

I've already proved that Farve's numbers during his prime were close to Plummer's rushing wise. What more do I need to say on the suject? At this point, you just don't want to admit that you were wrong.

so plummer is rather close to elway in his yards pace and favre is nowhere near it and plummer beats favre in every rushing statistic AND maybe more to the point relies more on his scrambling than favre does.

otherwise though!

yavoon

04-17-2006, 12:05 AM

How would you know that if you didn't watch him during his prime? I am speaking as a person who watched it first hand. You are speaking as a person who just looked up some stats and is trying to form an argument.

this is another fallacious argument and I have watched football for plenty long to have seen favre.

Jason in LA

04-17-2006, 12:17 AM

this is another fallacious argument and I have watched football for plenty long to have seen favre.

BS. Everytime I've brought up the point that you haven't been watching football for very long, you've never argued the point.

It was easy to tell that you haven't watched a lot of football from the points that you make.

Farve being a pocket passer is one of them.

Jason in LA

04-17-2006, 12:25 AM

so plummer is rather close to elway in his yards pace and favre is nowhere near it and plummer beats favre in every rushing statistic AND maybe more to the point relies more on his scrambling than favre does.

otherwise though!

Since you are just going to ignore the stats, let me bring up a couple that I've already posted.

Over Farve's first 8 years as a starter, he averaged 174 rushing yards per season. Plummer averaged 192 yards per season. That's within 10%.

Elway, over his first 8 years, ran for 243 yards per season. Farve is closer to Plummer than Plummer is to Elway.

Over Elway's career, he averaged 212 yards per season. I'd bet money that Plummer's rushing yards per season will go down over his final years, not up.

Sorry, but the numbers just don't support your argument.

Jason in LA

04-17-2006, 12:26 AM

I'm done kicking yavoon's ass for tonight. For anybody that missed it, start at the bottom of page 8, with yavoon's final post on that page. Page 9 and 10 hold the beat down. Enjoy.

yavoon

04-17-2006, 12:50 AM

Since you are just going to ignore the stats, let me bring up a couple that I've already posted.

Over Farve's first 8 years as a starter, he averaged 174 rushing yards per season. Plummer averaged 192 yards per season. That's within 10%.

Elway, over his first 8 years, ran for 243 yards per season. Farve is closer to Plummer than Plummer is to Elway.

Over Elway's career, he averaged 212 yards per season. I'd bet money that Plummer's rushing yards per season will go down over his final years, not up.

Sorry, but the numbers just don't support your argument.

so if u cherry pick favre's stats they're still not up to plummers. and plummers overall stats are closer to elways.

the number support my argument, plummer is better than favre in practically every imaginable rushing category. how many more categories does he need to be better than favre in?

long gains
tds
first downs
yards/season
average

it takes an extreme conflaguration of cherry picking just to get to ur result and ur result still favors me, just by less.